Know the enemy: motives of terrorists
Scott D. Erb
"cowards" and "lunatics." If only. The terrorists are NOT
cowards or insane. That is one myth that we need ot dispell. If
they were cowardly and insane, they'd be easier to defeat. They
see themselves at war with the US, a war they believe goes back
to the colonial powers coming to the mideast for oil and
infiltrating the region. They look at the US attacks on Iraq
which killed tens of thousands, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict
where the US supports Israel, the US bombing a couple years ago
in Afghanistan and the Sudan, and Osama Bin Laden opposes the
stationing of American troops on what he considers Islamic holy
land.
They believe their culture and values are being destroyed by the
West and especially America, who wants oil and wants to spread
values inimical to their culture. Since America is a superpower
there is no way to strike back effectively as a state, so they
are rationally choosing a way to find where their huge enemy is
vulnerable. In their minds its like when we dropped the A-bomb on
Japan, killing hundreds of thousands. They know there will be
innocents killed (though they believe Americans support their
regime's acts) but believe its necessary to turn this war around.
They are motivated, dedicated, and believe they have justice on
their side. Insane cowards we could deal with easily. These folk
are much tougher.
President Bush said they wanted to spread their fundamentalism
world wide and destroy democracy. That is, at least according to
experts from stratfor.com to CNN, wrong. Their main motive seems
to be expelling the West from the mideast. They hit us where we
are vulnerable not because they want to destroy New York, but
they want to create a condition where we will lose our ability to
effectively remain on "their" territory.
Another possible enemy here is Saddam, if we are to believe
Israeli intelligence. His motivation is more base: revenge. He
wants to die having hit the US back hard and with what his warped
mind considers "glory," rather than die as the man who simply was
defeated by America.
The first step to effectively combating either the anti-West
religious fanaticism of the terrorists or the revenge bloodlust
of a Saddam is to know and understand how they think and what
they want. But that's only the first step.
tjwilson
Scott D. Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3BAB4CE7...@worldnet.att.net...
> Who is the enemy and what do they want? Politicians label them
> "cowards" and "lunatics." If only. The terrorists are NOT
> cowards or insane. That is one myth that we need ot dispell. If
> they were cowardly and insane, they'd be easier to defeat. They
> see themselves at war with the US, a war they believe goes back
> to the colonial powers coming to the mideast for oil and
> infiltrating the region. They look at the US attacks on Iraq
> which killed tens of thousands, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict
> where the US supports Israel, the US bombing a couple years ago
> in Afghanistan and the Sudan, and Osama Bin Laden opposes the
> stationing of American troops on what he considers Islamic holy
> land.
I don't think it matters now what they believe. When you are attscked
it is beeter to fight back and think later. Remember, they tryed to
destroy us.
>
> They believe their culture and values are being destroyed by the
> West and especially America, who wants oil and wants to spread
> values inimical to their culture. Since America is a superpower
> there is no way to strike back effectively as a state, so they
> are rationally choosing a way to find where their huge enemy is
> vulnerable. In their minds its like when we dropped the A-bomb on
> Japan, killing hundreds of thousands. They know there will be
> innocents killed (though they believe Americans support their
> regime's acts) but believe its necessary to turn this war around.
> They are motivated, dedicated, and believe they have justice on
> their side. Insane cowards we could deal with easily. These folk
> are much tougher.
In war innocent people will be killed. The enemy should have known that
before they attacked us. Better their innocent die than ours. I agree that
they
are tough; but we are tougher. The Nazis and the Fascist Japs foun that
out.
>
> President Bush said they wanted to spread their fundamentalism
> world wide and destroy democracy. That is, at least according to
> experts from stratfor.com to CNN, wrong. Their main motive seems
> to be expelling the West from the mideast. They hit us where we
> are vulnerable not because they want to destroy New York, but
> they want to create a condition where we will lose our ability to
> effectively remain on "their" territory.
How do we know that the stratfor.com and CNN are not wrong.
Were they at the WTC on 9-11? I think you lie when you say we
occupy their territory. This is not a war for territory. It is a war of
freedom against terrorism.
>
> Another possible enemy here is Saddam, if we are to believe
> Israeli intelligence. His motivation is more base: revenge. He
> wants to die having hit the US back hard and with what his warped
> mind considers "glory," rather than die as the man who simply was
> defeated by America.
>
> The first step to effectively combating either the anti-West
> religious fanaticism of the terrorists or the revenge bloodlust
> of a Saddam is to know and understand how they think and what
> they want. But that's only the first step.
Your mind seems to be clouded. I understand it perfectly. It's a war
against terrorism. You are either on the side of freedom or on the side
of the terrorist.
tjw
Scott D. Erb
tjwilson wrote:
>
> Scott D. Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:3BAB4CE7...@worldnet.att.net...
> > Who is the enemy and what do they want? Politicians label them
> > "cowards" and "lunatics." If only. The terrorists are NOT
> > cowards or insane. That is one myth that we need ot dispell. If
> > they were cowardly and insane, they'd be easier to defeat. They
> > see themselves at war with the US, a war they believe goes back
> > to the colonial powers coming to the mideast for oil and
> > infiltrating the region. They look at the US attacks on Iraq
> > which killed tens of thousands, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict
> > where the US supports Israel, the US bombing a couple years ago
> > in Afghanistan and the Sudan, and Osama Bin Laden opposes the
> > stationing of American troops on what he considers Islamic holy
> > land.
>
> I don't think it matters now what they believe. When you are attscked
> it is beeter to fight back and think later. Remember, they tryed to
> destroy us.
If you know your attacker and can fight back effectively. That's
the hard part of all of this. Also, if you study foreign policy
and military strategy, there is an extreme advantage in knowing
your enemies motives and beliefs, that can come in very handy in
figuring out the most effective response.
> > They believe their culture and values are being destroyed by the
> > West and especially America, who wants oil and wants to spread
> > values inimical to their culture. Since America is a superpower
> > there is no way to strike back effectively as a state, so they
> > are rationally choosing a way to find where their huge enemy is
> > vulnerable. In their minds its like when we dropped the A-bomb on
> > Japan, killing hundreds of thousands. They know there will be
> > innocents killed (though they believe Americans support their
> > regime's acts) but believe its necessary to turn this war around.
> > They are motivated, dedicated, and believe they have justice on
> > their side. Insane cowards we could deal with easily. These folk
> > are much tougher.
>
> In war innocent people will be killed. The enemy should have known that
> before they attacked us. Better their innocent die than ours.
Who are "their innocents"? Remember, the President himself said
this is a new kind of war, it's not a state against another
state. Personally, my individualist view on humanity prevents me
from being able to categorize the death of one innocent as better
than the death of another simply because of their place of
residence or their nationality. But you're right that in war
innocents die, and that is something that no one should have
illusions about.
> I agree that
> they
> are tough; but we are tougher. The Nazis and the Fascist Japs foun that
> out.
I was talking to a WWII vet this morning -- he was one of those
who first met the Russians to celebrate the total defeat of Nazi
Germany. As he said, "we knew what we were up against." This
time, it's not so clear. He thinks this war will be much
tougher. Being "tough" is rhetorical at this point, what matters
is effective strategy and policy. It feels good to say, "we're
the greatest, we're the toughest, they ought not mess with us."
But that means nothing if we aren't able to do something
effective. That's what I'm delving into -- how do we figure out
and understand what response will be the most effective.
> How do we know that the stratfor.com and CNN are not wrong.
> Were they at the WTC on 9-11? I think you lie when you say we
> occupy their territory. This is not a war for territory. It is a war of
> freedom against terrorism.
If you re-read my post, you'll see that I didn't claim we
occupied their territory so not only am I not lying, but you seem
to be at best mistaken in your claim of what I said. What we are
doing is stationing troops in places like Saudi Arabia. We have
a base there. That pisses Bin Laden off, apparently, and western
corporations and a western presence is all profound in the region
due to oil. That isn't occupying their territory, nor is it
wrong -- that's globalization, thats trade and commerce. These
people don't like globalization, trade or commerce, and are
driven by a different way of understanding reality. We have to
understand that if we are going to have an effective response.
> > Another possible enemy here is Saddam, if we are to believe
> > Israeli intelligence. His motivation is more base: revenge. He
> > wants to die having hit the US back hard and with what his warped
> > mind considers "glory," rather than die as the man who simply was
> > defeated by America.
> >
> > The first step to effectively combating either the anti-West
> > religious fanaticism of the terrorists or the revenge bloodlust
> > of a Saddam is to know and understand how they think and what
> > they want. But that's only the first step.
>
> Your mind seems to be clouded. I understand it perfectly. It's a war
> against terrorism. You are either on the side of freedom or on the side
> of the terrorist.
That's simple sloganeering. It sounds fine in a political
speech, but you can bet that the policy makers in the White House
and the defense planners in the Pentagon are dealing with much
more complex and difficult issues. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld
agrees, noting that this is not easy to understand and determine
a response. Perhaps your belief you have it all perfectly
understood is a sign you haven't thought this through fully.
Billy Beck
"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>If you know your attacker and can fight back effectively. That's
>the hard part of all of this. Also, if you study foreign policy
>and military strategy, there is an extreme advantage in knowing
>your enemies motives and beliefs, that can come in very handy in
>figuring out the most effective response.
Well, Scotti, one clear fact is that terrible red Mr. Rogers
sweaters generally make for poor battle-dress.
Beyond that, "the most effective response" in this case is going
to be "get there first with the most" in order to stomp the livin'
Jesus out of anyone interested in flying airliners through Manhattan
office buildings.
I'm sure you'll understand.
Billy
VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/
Mitchell Holman
}
}Scott D. Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
}news:3BAB4CE7...@worldnet.att.net...
}> Who is the enemy and what do they want? Politicians label them
}> "cowards" and "lunatics." If only. The terrorists are NOT
}> cowards or insane. That is one myth that we need ot dispell. If
}> they were cowardly and insane, they'd be easier to defeat. They
}> see themselves at war with the US, a war they believe goes back
}> to the colonial powers coming to the mideast for oil and
}> infiltrating the region. They look at the US attacks on Iraq
}> which killed tens of thousands, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict
}> where the US supports Israel, the US bombing a couple years ago
}> in Afghanistan and the Sudan, and Osama Bin Laden opposes the
}> stationing of American troops on what he considers Islamic holy
}> land.
}
}I don't think it matters now what they believe. When you are attscked
}it is beeter to fight back and think later. Remember, they tryed to
}destroy us.
It matters a great deal what they believe. At least
if you want to stop the attacks. Do you think that all
will be rosy if we take out Bin Laden? Do you not see
the undercurrent of hatred that is not going to go away
unless we address it?
}
}In war innocent people will be killed. The enemy should have known that
}before they attacked us. Better their innocent die than ours.
Great. You kill their innocents and create another
wave of Anti-American fighters willing to die for their
martyred innocents. Where does get us?
tjwilson
>
>
> tjwilson wrote:
> >
> > Scott D. Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > news:3BAB4CE7...@worldnet.att.net...
> > > Who is the enemy and what do they want? Politicians label them
> > > "cowards" and "lunatics." If only. The terrorists are NOT
> > > cowards or insane. That is one myth that we need ot dispell. If
> > > they were cowardly and insane, they'd be easier to defeat. They
> > > see themselves at war with the US, a war they believe goes back
> > > to the colonial powers coming to the mideast for oil and
> > > infiltrating the region. They look at the US attacks on Iraq
> > > which killed tens of thousands, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict
> > > where the US supports Israel, the US bombing a couple years ago
> > > in Afghanistan and the Sudan, and Osama Bin Laden opposes the
> > > stationing of American troops on what he considers Islamic holy
> > > land.
> >
> > I don't think it matters now what they believe. When you are attscked
> > it is beeter to fight back and think later. Remember, they tryed to
> > destroy us.
>
> If you know your attacker and can fight back effectively. That's
> the hard part of all of this. Also, if you study foreign policy
> and military strategy, there is an extreme advantage in knowing
> your enemies motives and beliefs, that can come in very handy in
> figuring out the most effective response.
We already know they want to destroy our way of life. What more do we need
to know?
>
> > > They believe their culture and values are being destroyed by the
> > > West and especially America, who wants oil and wants to spread
> > > values inimical to their culture. Since America is a superpower
> > > there is no way to strike back effectively as a state, so they
> > > are rationally choosing a way to find where their huge enemy is
> > > vulnerable. In their minds its like when we dropped the A-bomb on
> > > Japan, killing hundreds of thousands. They know there will be
> > > innocents killed (though they believe Americans support their
> > > regime's acts) but believe its necessary to turn this war around.
> > > They are motivated, dedicated, and believe they have justice on
> > > their side. Insane cowards we could deal with easily. These folk
> > > are much tougher.
> >
> > In war innocent people will be killed. The enemy should have known that
> > before they attacked us. Better their innocent die than ours.
>
> Who are "their innocents"? Remember, the President himself said
> this is a new kind of war, it's not a state against another
> state. Personally, my individualist view on humanity prevents me
> from being able to categorize the death of one innocent as better
> than the death of another simply because of their place of
> residence or their nationality. But you're right that in war
> innocents die, and that is something that no one should have
> illusions about.
Would you rather have our innocent die than theirs? That appears to be what
you are saying,
You are either on the side of freedom or on the side of terrorism.
>
> > I agree that
> > they
> > are tough; but we are tougher. The Nazis and the Fascist Japs foun that
> > out.
>
> I was talking to a WWII vet this morning -- he was one of those
> who first met the Russians to celebrate the total defeat of Nazi
> Germany. As he said, "we knew what we were up against." This
> time, it's not so clear. He thinks this war will be much
> tougher. Being "tough" is rhetorical at this point, what matters
> is effective strategy and policy. It feels good to say, "we're
> the greatest, we're the toughest, they ought not mess with us."
> But that means nothing if we aren't able to do something
> effective. That's what I'm delving into -- how do we figure out
> and understand what response will be the most effective.
Do you think they (the terrorists) are tougher than us? Remember you are
the one that brought up the 'tougher' factor.
Yoiur mind is clouded, you don't see clearly. I suggest you read the
presidents speech once more. It may clear your thinking.
>
> > How do we know that the stratfor.com and CNN are not wrong.
> > Were they at the WTC on 9-11? I think you lie when you say we
> > occupy their territory. This is not a war for territory. It is a war
of
> > freedom against terrorism.
>
> If you re-read my post, you'll see that I didn't claim we
> occupied their territory so not only am I not lying, but you seem
> to be at best mistaken in your claim of what I said. What we are
> doing is stationing troops in places like Saudi Arabia. We have
> a base there. That pisses Bin Laden off, apparently, and western
> corporations and a western presence is all profound in the region
> due to oil. That isn't occupying their territory, nor is it
> wrong -- that's globalization, thats trade and commerce. These
> people don't like globalization, trade or commerce, and are
> driven by a different way of understanding reality. We have to
> understand that if we are going to have an effective response.
Here's the part of your post you snipped:
"They hit us where we
are vulnerable not because they want to destroy New York, but
they want to create a condition where we will lose our ability to
effectively remain on "their" territory."
You make no point to say that we are not occupying their territoy.
I take back the word 'lying' and I will substitute the word 'misleading'.
Here's what we must understand; they hate us and whant to destroy
our way of life.
>
> > > Another possible enemy here is Saddam, if we are to believe
> > > Israeli intelligence. His motivation is more base: revenge. He
> > > wants to die having hit the US back hard and with what his warped
> > > mind considers "glory," rather than die as the man who simply was
> > > defeated by America.
> > >
> > > The first step to effectively combating either the anti-West
> > > religious fanaticism of the terrorists or the revenge bloodlust
> > > of a Saddam is to know and understand how they think and what
> > > they want. But that's only the first step.
> >
> > Your mind seems to be clouded. I understand it perfectly. It's a war
> > against terrorism. You are either on the side of freedom or on the side
> > of the terrorist.
>
> That's simple sloganeering. It sounds fine in a political
> speech, but you can bet that the policy makers in the White House
> and the defense planners in the Pentagon are dealing with much
> more complex and difficult issues. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld
> agrees, noting that this is not easy to understand and determine
> a response. Perhaps your belief you have it all perfectly
> understood is a sign you haven't thought this through fully.
It is amusing that you think the statement of known fact is 'sloganeering'.
Is it at all possible that you could start seeing things the way they are
and begin thinking clearly.
Here are some facts for you;
1. Terrorists have attacked us.
2. We are going to find out who they are.
3. We are going to make sure the are not able to
attack us or anyone else again bye any mean we have to,
You are on the side of freedom or on side of the terrorist.
Eric da Red
Scott D. Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Who is the enemy and what do they want? Politicians label them
>"cowards" and "lunatics." If only. The terrorists are NOT
>cowards or insane. That is one myth that we need ot dispell. If
>they were cowardly and insane, they'd be easier to defeat. They
>see themselves at war with the US, a war they believe goes back
>to the colonial powers coming to the mideast for oil and
>infiltrating the region. They look at the US attacks on Iraq
>which killed tens of thousands, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict
>where the US supports Israel, the US bombing a couple years ago
>in Afghanistan and the Sudan, and Osama Bin Laden opposes the
>stationing of American troops on what he considers Islamic holy
>land.
Give it up, Scott. The Shrub, his cheerleaders, and their lapdogs
in the news media have made it clear that there is no place in this
war for reason, sanity, or even correct information.
They won. We lost. There is no longer opposition or dissent. Everyone
thinks alike and hates alike.
--
WARNING! This message has not been cleared by the Office Of Homeland
Security. Read at your own risk.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
wrote:
>
>Scott D. Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:3BAB4CE7...@worldnet.att.net...
>> Who is the enemy and what do they want? Politicians label them
>> "cowards" and "lunatics." If only. The terrorists are NOT
>> cowards or insane. That is one myth that we need ot dispell. If
>> they were cowardly and insane, they'd be easier to defeat. They
>> see themselves at war with the US, a war they believe goes back
>> to the colonial powers coming to the mideast for oil and
>> infiltrating the region. They look at the US attacks on Iraq
>> which killed tens of thousands, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict
>> where the US supports Israel, the US bombing a couple years ago
>> in Afghanistan and the Sudan, and Osama Bin Laden opposes the
>> stationing of American troops on what he considers Islamic holy
>> land.
>
>I don't think it matters now what they believe. When you are attscked
>it is beeter to fight back and think later. Remember, they tryed to
>destroy us.
Since they are not likely to raise their hands when we go to the sixty
nations around the globe and say - All Terrorists Raise your Hands So
we Can Shoot You now - maybe we have to know more than - they tried to
kill us.
>>
>> They believe their culture and values are being destroyed by the
>> West and especially America, who wants oil and wants to spread
>> values inimical to their culture. Since America is a superpower
>> there is no way to strike back effectively as a state, so they
>> are rationally choosing a way to find where their huge enemy is
>> vulnerable. In their minds its like when we dropped the A-bomb on
>> Japan, killing hundreds of thousands. They know there will be
>> innocents killed (though they believe Americans support their
>> regime's acts) but believe its necessary to turn this war around.
>> They are motivated, dedicated, and believe they have justice on
>> their side. Insane cowards we could deal with easily. These folk
>> are much tougher.
>
>In war innocent people will be killed. The enemy should have known that
>before they attacked us. Better their innocent die than ours. I agree that
>they
>are tough; but we are tougher.
But we do not have eyes which can look into minds to plumb terrorist
tendencies.
It's going to be basically impossible.
We find a little town in Afghanistan.
How do we know which are the terrorists and which are the regular
shephards?
Plus when we start to leave town someone shoots us in the back.
If we kill them all, to save the village, then that will outrage far
more in Pakistan and other places, with many new terrorists for each
one we have killed.
Viet Nam sounds like child's play compared to this one.
The Nazis and the Fascist Japs foun that
>out.
We were able to bomb where they lived.
You really want to bomb Boston?
Bomb sixty nations?
>
>>
>> President Bush said they wanted to spread their fundamentalism
>> world wide and destroy democracy. That is, at least according to
>> experts from stratfor.com to CNN, wrong. Their main motive seems
>> to be expelling the West from the mideast. They hit us where we
>> are vulnerable not because they want to destroy New York, but
>> they want to create a condition where we will lose our ability to
>> effectively remain on "their" territory.
>
>How do we know that the stratfor.com and CNN are not wrong.
>Were they at the WTC on 9-11? I think you lie when you say we
>occupy their territory. This is not a war for territory. It is a war of
>freedom against terrorism.
Mecca, Medina.
Getting sullied.
They figure.
That's what they say.
Seems reasonable to ask them what they think, rather than to ask you.
>>
>> Another possible enemy here is Saddam, if we are to believe
>> Israeli intelligence. His motivation is more base: revenge. He
>> wants to die having hit the US back hard and with what his warped
>> mind considers "glory," rather than die as the man who simply was
>> defeated by America.
>>
>> The first step to effectively combating either the anti-West
>> religious fanaticism of the terrorists or the revenge bloodlust
>> of a Saddam is to know and understand how they think and what
>> they want. But that's only the first step.
>
>Your mind seems to be clouded. I understand it perfectly. It's a war
>against terrorism. You are either on the side of freedom or on the side
>of the terrorist.
Then you are a terrorist, since you seem to want to do things to help
them.
>tjw
>
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
wrote:
How do we know which those are?
Since we don't have anyone who even speaks the language there, how are
we going to say - "ALL you who are terrorists, please raise your
hand"?
Of course, if we kill innocents, the whole world will be horrified,
and terrorist recruitment will increase greatly.
Isn't Afghanistan called the land where great armies send their troops
to die?
By the way?
This seems a difficult task.
tjwilson
Mitchell Holman <ta2...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:pqKq7.4674$3d2.3...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> In article <l6Jq7.6700$ah.1...@newsfeed.intelenet.net>, "tjwilson"
<tjwi...@spamnonot.com> wrote:
> }
> }Scott D. Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> }news:3BAB4CE7...@worldnet.att.net...
> }> Who is the enemy and what do they want? Politicians label them
> }> "cowards" and "lunatics." If only. The terrorists are NOT
> }> cowards or insane. That is one myth that we need ot dispell. If
> }> they were cowardly and insane, they'd be easier to defeat. They
> }> see themselves at war with the US, a war they believe goes back
> }> to the colonial powers coming to the mideast for oil and
> }> infiltrating the region. They look at the US attacks on Iraq
> }> which killed tens of thousands, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict
> }> where the US supports Israel, the US bombing a couple years ago
> }> in Afghanistan and the Sudan, and Osama Bin Laden opposes the
> }> stationing of American troops on what he considers Islamic holy
> }> land.
> }
> }I don't think it matters now what they believe. When you are attscked
> }it is beeter to fight back and think later. Remember, they tryed to
> }destroy us.
>
> It matters a great deal what they believe. At least
> if you want to stop the attacks. Do you think that all
> will be rosy if we take out Bin Laden? Do you not see
> the undercurrent of hatred that is not going to go away
> unless we address it?
Do you believe in freedom? Do you believe in freedom from terrorism?
They are allowed to hate us as much as they want. They are not allowed to
attack us
Whaen they attack us, we will attack them only will do it with more
severity.
Undercurrents of hatred are not my concern. If evil people hate us; it
probably
is a good sign. Evil people always hate good people.
>
>
>
>
> }
> }In war innocent people will be killed. The enemy should have known that
> }before they attacked us. Better their innocent die than ours.
>
> Great. You kill their innocents and create another
> wave of Anti-American fighters willing to die for their
> martyred innocents. Where does get us?
Hey, they have killed our innocent people 6,000+. Have you forgotten that
so soon?
"You don't win wars by dying for your country. You make the other poor
bastard die for his."
-George C. Scott in his role of Gen. Patton
>
>
tjwilson
Eric da Red <berg...@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:9ofssq$fe8$1...@drizzle.com...
Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush
wrote:
Whether Putsch has the same idea in mind for us or not?
Billy Beck
tyrebi...@workmail.com (George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) wrote:
>>"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>If you know your attacker and can fight back effectively. That's
>>>the hard part of all of this. Also, if you study foreign policy
>>>and military strategy, there is an extreme advantage in knowing
>>>your enemies motives and beliefs, that can come in very handy in
>>>figuring out the most effective response.
>>
>> Well, Scotti, one clear fact is that terrible red Mr. Rogers
>>sweaters generally make for poor battle-dress.
>>
>> Beyond that, "the most effective response" in this case is going
>>to be "get there first with the most" in order to stomp the livin'
>>Jesus out of anyone interested in flying airliners through Manhattan
>>office buildings.
>>
>> I'm sure you'll understand.
>
>How do we know which those are?
"We" don't, girlfriend. There are pros in the saddle, now.
>Isn't Afghanistan called the land where great armies send their troops
>to die?
It's about to be the land where fools get shredded under a power
that they have never imagined.
>By the way?
>
>This seems a difficult task.
I know. Just stand back and watch the action.
Lee Harrison
tjwi...@hb.quik.com wrote on 9/21/01 12:19 PM:
> You are either on the side of freedom or on the side of terrorism.
If I have to take sides with a concept I'll take the Constitution. Does
that count?
Scott D. Erb
tjwilson wrote:
>
> Scott D. Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:3BAB64FB...@worldnet.att.net...
> > If you know your attacker and can fight back effectively. That's
> > the hard part of all of this. Also, if you study foreign policy
> > and military strategy, there is an extreme advantage in knowing
> > your enemies motives and beliefs, that can come in very handy in
> > figuring out the most effective response.
>
> We already know they want to destroy our way of life. What more do we need
> to know?
A lot more. To design an effective response and understand what
their tactics are you need much more. I guarantee you, those are
issues the CIA, DOD and NSC are taking VERY seriously.
> Would you rather have our innocent die than theirs?
Again, I oppose innocents dying of either side, no human life has
greater value or worth in my eyes solely because of their
nationality or religion. A death of an innocent in Afghanistan is
just as tragic as the death of an innocent in New York City. I
won't shed tears for the guilty though.
> That appears to be what
> you are saying,
> You are either on the side of freedom or on the side of terrorism.
That's just a slogan. We're into much more complicated stuff
now.
> > I was talking to a WWII vet this morning -- he was one of those
> > who first met the Russians to celebrate the total defeat of Nazi
> > Germany. As he said, "we knew what we were up against." This
> > time, it's not so clear. He thinks this war will be much
> > tougher. Being "tough" is rhetorical at this point, what matters
> > is effective strategy and policy. It feels good to say, "we're
> > the greatest, we're the toughest, they ought not mess with us."
> > But that means nothing if we aren't able to do something
> > effective. That's what I'm delving into -- how do we figure out
> > and understand what response will be the most effective.
>
> Do you think they (the terrorists) are tougher than us? Remember you are
> the one that brought up the 'tougher' factor.
Ah, no, I just noted they were not "cowardly and insane." You're
the one who seemed to think it made sense to say they or us are
"tougher." Individuals are tough, and I'm sure some terrorists
are much tougher than many Americans, and many Americans are much
tougher than a lot of people in the terror network. Ultimately,
we have more resources and have most of the world sympathetic at
this point. For me that means we have to think rationally about
the most effective response.
> Yoiur mind is clouded, you don't see clearly. I suggest you read the
> presidents speech once more. It may clear your thinking.
This may be too complex for you, perhaps you should just stick
with slogans and rhetoric.
> > If you re-read my post, you'll see that I didn't claim we
> > occupied their territory so not only am I not lying, but you seem
> > to be at best mistaken in your claim of what I said. What we are
> > doing is stationing troops in places like Saudi Arabia. We have
> > a base there. That pisses Bin Laden off, apparently, and western
> > corporations and a western presence is all profound in the region
> > due to oil. That isn't occupying their territory, nor is it
> > wrong -- that's globalization, thats trade and commerce. These
> > people don't like globalization, trade or commerce, and are
> > driven by a different way of understanding reality. We have to
> > understand that if we are going to have an effective response.
>
> Here's the part of your post you snipped:
> "They hit us where we
> are vulnerable not because they want to destroy New York, but
> they want to create a condition where we will lose our ability to
> effectively remain on "their" territory."
> You make no point to say that we are not occupying their territoy.
We are on their territory. We have troops in Saudi Arabia and
elsewhere in the mideast. We have big financial interests. That
is what they oppose. You cannot deny that we are on their
territory. We are not "occupying" it in a military sense, since
we've been invited (Bin Laden hates the Saudi regime for that
reason), and doing commerce is part of what the world is about.
They see that as evil, that is what motivates them. Get it?
That doesn't mean we should leave -- to the contrary, they are
out of touch with the changing world. I'm just noting their
motives.
> I take back the word 'lying' and I will substitute the word 'misleading'.
> Here's what we must understand; they hate us and whant to destroy
> our way of life.
Man, you love slogans. Reality is more complex.
> Here are some facts for you;
> 1. Terrorists have attacked us.
> 2. We are going to find out who they are.
> 3. We are going to make sure the are not able to
> attack us or anyone else again bye any mean we have to,
>
> You are on the side of freedom or on side of the terrorist.
Duh, terrorists attacked. For numbers two or three, you can't
just assert it and have it be correct. You have to develop
effective policies to achieve the desired ends. That is what I'm
trying to discuss. IF that's over your head, well, that's not my
fault.
Scott D. Erb
Keep saying that alike an Orwellian slogan.
But one can be on the side of freedom and disagree with or
question the particular choices being made by the government. If
you don't like that, well, too bad.
tjwilson
Scott D. Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3BAB8204...@worldnet.att.net...
--------------------------============--------------------
The term Orwellian is the most over used in political arguments. It, as
now, is usually meaningless.
One cannot be on the side of the terrorist and on the side of freedom.
If you don't like that, well too bad.
Mitchell Holman
Great. Attack breeds counterattack, and we end
up in an endless ground war of attrition. Just like Isreal,
just like Northern Ireland. Is that your idea of a rosy
future?
}Undercurrents of hatred are not my concern.
They should be. At least if you want to avoid
the Holy War that Bin Laden would like to drag the
West into.
If evil people hate us; it
}probably
}is a good sign. Evil people always hate good people.
}>
}>
}>
}>
}> }
}> }In war innocent people will be killed. The enemy should have known that
}> }before they attacked us. Better their innocent die than ours.
}>
}> Great. You kill their innocents and create another
}> wave of Anti-American fighters willing to die for their
}> martyred innocents. Where does get us?
}
}Hey, they have killed our innocent people 6,000+. Have you forgotten that
}so soon?
How many more do you want to die?
tjwilson
Lee Harrison <lee...@amaonline.com> wrote in message
news:B7D0E97B.1FFB%lee...@amaonline.com...
Being on the side of the Constitution puts you on the side of freedom.
It counts. God bless America.
>
Scott D. Erb
tjwilson wrote:
> One cannot be on the side of the terrorist and on the side of freedom.
> If you don't like that, well too bad.
I am certainly, as my posts show, not on the side of the
terrorist, so I am definitely on the side of freedom. But that
doesn't mean simply unquestioningly accepting what The Leader
says and supporting any policy without careful consideration and
analysis. There is nothing in what I wrote that attacked the
President or US policy, it looked at motives and difficulties.
Why would you oppose a reasoned review of those issues? Do you
trust government so much that you'll simply let them handle it?
Martin McPhillips
Reverend, he's just reacting to your temporizing and the fact
that you don't even break the skin of the pudding with respect
to the current matters.
You don't really know what's going on, but what's worse is that
you don't know that you don't know.
And now you're headed down to Reverend Erb's infinite regress
cafe for a few thousand lattes.
tjwilson
>
>
> tjwilson wrote:
> >
> > Scott D. Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > news:3BAB64FB...@worldnet.att.net...
> > > If you know your attacker and can fight back effectively. That's
> > > the hard part of all of this. Also, if you study foreign policy
> > > and military strategy, there is an extreme advantage in knowing
> > > your enemies motives and beliefs, that can come in very handy in
> > > figuring out the most effective response.
> >
> > We already know they want to destroy our way of life. What more do we
need
> > to know?
>
> A lot more. To design an effective response and understand what
> their tactics are you need much more. I guarantee you, those are
> issues the CIA, DOD and NSC are taking VERY seriously.
Do you have military experience or do I just have to take your word for it?
>
> > Would you rather have our innocent die than theirs?
>
> Again, I oppose innocents dying of either side, no human life has
> greater value or worth in my eyes solely because of their
> nationality or religion. A death of an innocent in Afghanistan is
> just as tragic as the death of an innocent in New York City. I
> won't shed tears for the guilty though.
No, they murdered us and we will retaliate. Can that get through to clouded
mind?
>
> > That appears to be what
> > you are saying,
> > You are either on the side of freedom or on the side of terrorism.
>
> That's just a slogan. We're into much more complicated stuff
> now.
Complicated for you; but not for me. My mind is clear and not befuddled as
yours seems to be.
>
> > > I was talking to a WWII vet this morning -- he was one of those
> > > who first met the Russians to celebrate the total defeat of Nazi
> > > Germany. As he said, "we knew what we were up against." This
> > > time, it's not so clear. He thinks this war will be much
> > > tougher. Being "tough" is rhetorical at this point, what matters
> > > is effective strategy and policy. It feels good to say, "we're
> > > the greatest, we're the toughest, they ought not mess with us."
> > > But that means nothing if we aren't able to do something
> > > effective. That's what I'm delving into -- how do we figure out
> > > and understand what response will be the most effective.
> >
> > Do you think they (the terrorists) are tougher than us? Remember you
are
> > the one that brought up the 'tougher' factor.
>
> Ah, no, I just noted they were not "cowardly and insane." You're
> the one who seemed to think it made sense to say they or us are
> "tougher." Individuals are tough, and I'm sure some terrorists
> are much tougher than many Americans, and many Americans are much
> tougher than a lot of people in the terror network. Ultimately,
> we have more resources and have most of the world sympathetic at
> this point. For me that means we have to think rationally about
> the most effective response.
Agreed. We have to think rationally. This seems to difficult for you.
>
> > Yoiur mind is clouded, you don't see clearly. I suggest you read the
> > presidents speech once more. It may clear your thinking.
>
> This may be too complex for you, perhaps you should just stick
> with slogans and rhetoric.
Ha, I laughed when I read that. Clear thinking seems to be too complex for
you.
6,000 of our people are murdered and you think a call for retaliation is
rhetoric and slogans.
"Remember Pearl Harbor" was and is more than a slogan. Ask any Japaneese
person who was around at the time.
Scott D. Erb
tjwilson wrote:
>
> Scott D. Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:3BAB819A...@worldnet.att.net...
> > A lot more. To design an effective response and understand what
> > their tactics are you need much more. I guarantee you, those are
> > issues the CIA, DOD and NSC are taking VERY seriously.
>
> Do you have military experience or do I just have to take your word for >it?
Only in studying/analyzing defense and security policy. Often
the people in the military who aren't at the higher levels aren't
as aware of what the strategies and decision making processes are
than those who study and analyze such things.
> > > Would you rather have our innocent die than theirs?
> >
> > Again, I oppose innocents dying of either side, no human life has
> > greater value or worth in my eyes solely because of their
> > nationality or religion. A death of an innocent in Afghanistan is
> > just as tragic as the death of an innocent in New York City. I
> > won't shed tears for the guilty though.
>
> No, they murdered us and we will retaliate. Can that get through to >clouded mind?
Terrorists murdered and the US will retaliate. Duh. EVERYONE
knows that! You are stating the obvious. My posts concern how
best to retaliate, what the risks are, and what the issues are.
Thoughtful posters conservative and liberal are doing the same
thing. Why would that bother you?
tjwilson
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. <tyrebi...@workmail.com> wrote in message
news:3bab73cb...@news.newsguy.com...
Who said that? Saddam, The Prophet of the Mother of All Battles?
Oh, I just remembered. Iraq was the place where great armies were sent to
die
We really don't know how many died; but we did capture 60,000 of them.
Sad day for you, Leroy.
tjwilson
Probably like Iraq
>
>
> }Undercurrents of hatred are not my concern.
>
> They should be. At least if you want to avoid
> the Holy War that Bin Laden would like to drag the
> West into.
They should be concerned about what they did to us. Not only concerned; but
worried.
>
>
> If evil people hate us; it
> }probably
> }is a good sign. Evil people always hate good people.
> }>
> }>
> }>
> }>
> }> }
> }> }In war innocent people will be killed. The enemy should have known
that
> }> }before they attacked us. Better their innocent die than ours.
> }>
> }> Great. You kill their innocents and create another
> }> wave of Anti-American fighters willing to die for their
> }> martyred innocents. Where does get us?
VICTORY!
> }
> }Hey, they have killed our innocent people 6,000+. Have you forgotten
that
> }so soon?
>
>
> How many more do you want to die?
As many as it takes for them to stop killing our innocent people.
>
>
tjwilson
> terrorist, so I am definitely on the side of freedom. But ..."
Analyze long enough and they will kill you. The time for analysis is over.
It ended on 9/11 at the WTC.. Now is the time for action.
I trust a leader that tells me he want to win a war. Leaders like Lincoln,
Roosevelt, and Bush Sr.
If you are not on the side of freedom, you are on the side of the terrorist.
Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush
wrote:
Funny you should mention Roosevelt and Lincoln in conjunction with
your sad little pretend-President. Read the "White Feather" thread to
see why it's so funny.
Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush
wrote:
Where does it mention "Office of Homeland Security" in the
Constitution?
>>
Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush
wrote:
>
>tyrebi...@workmail.com (George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>
>>wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) wrote:
>
>>>"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>If you know your attacker and can fight back effectively. That's
>>>>the hard part of all of this. Also, if you study foreign policy
>>>>and military strategy, there is an extreme advantage in knowing
>>>>your enemies motives and beliefs, that can come in very handy in
>>>>figuring out the most effective response.
>>>
>>> Well, Scotti, one clear fact is that terrible red Mr. Rogers
>>>sweaters generally make for poor battle-dress.
>>>
>>> Beyond that, "the most effective response" in this case is going
>>>to be "get there first with the most" in order to stomp the livin'
>>>Jesus out of anyone interested in flying airliners through Manhattan
>>>office buildings.
>>>
>>> I'm sure you'll understand.
>>
>>How do we know which those are?
>
> "We" don't, girlfriend. There are pros in the saddle, now.
What's THIS? Billy is suddenly pro-government?
Hey, Billy! How much of YOUR tax-dollars went to support those pros?
Scott D. Erb
tjwilson wrote:
> Analyze long enough and they will kill you. The time for analysis is over.
Then you can choose not to analyze. I think the time to analyze
has just begin, and I will continue to do it. Don't let it
bother you, just skip my posts. This forum is for discussions
like this. We live in a democracy, some of us think analysis and
debate is essential.
> It ended on 9/11 at the WTC.. Now is the time for action.
> I trust a leader that tells me he want to win a war. Leaders like Lincoln,
> Roosevelt, and Bush Sr.
Then follow the leader. For me, I think a time like this
requires citizens to think critically and learn about the issue.
johnz~
"Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush" <ze...@snowcrest.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2001 17:54:09 GMT, wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >tyrebi...@workmail.com (George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
> >
> >>wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) wrote:
> >
> >>>"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>If you know your attacker and can fight back effectively. That's
> >>>>the hard part of all of this. Also, if you study foreign policy
> >>>>and military strategy, there is an extreme advantage in knowing
> >>>>your enemies motives and beliefs, that can come in very handy in
> >>>>figuring out the most effective response.
> >>>
> >>> Well, Scotti, one clear fact is that terrible red Mr. Rogers
> >>>sweaters generally make for poor battle-dress.
> >>>
> >>> Beyond that, "the most effective response" in this case is going
> >>>to be "get there first with the most" in order to stomp the livin'
> >>>Jesus out of anyone interested in flying airliners through Manhattan
> >>>office buildings.
> >>>
> >>> I'm sure you'll understand.
> >>
> >>How do we know which those are?
> >
> > "We" don't, girlfriend. There are pros in the saddle, now.
>
> What's THIS? Billy is suddenly pro-government?
>
> Hey, Billy! How much of YOUR tax-dollars went to support those pros?
Taxation is certainly a involved subject. There are federal, state and
local taxes - an example of the latter might be property taxes.
What issue connected with taxation were you interested in discussing,
Bryan?
JS
> >
> >>Isn't Afghanistan called the land where great armies send their troops
> >>to die?
> >
> > It's about to be the land where fools get shredded under a power
> >that they have never imagined.
> >
> >>By the way?
> >>
> >>This seems a difficult task.
> >
> > I know. Just stand back and watch the action.
> >
> >
> >Billy
> >
> >VRWC Fronteer
> >http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/
>
--
A Short History Of The United States of America:
"Laugh all you want...I'm the one goin' down in history
as the Thomas Jefferson of squirrels."
tjwilson
Well, it seem like we're finally getting through to you.
Your mind is starting to clear. Don't let it bother you.
In a little while you'll feel better.
tjwilson
If you haven't figured out what the issue is; I'll tell you.
Terrorists attacked our country and killed >6,000 people and did an great
property damage.
We are going to find them and make sure that they will never be able to do
it again.
It will be a fight for our freedom.
Those who are not on the side of freedom are on the side of the terrorists.
Garrett
> Scott D. Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:3BAB8204...@worldnet.att.net...
>>tjwilson wrote:
[...]
>>>You are either on the side of freedom or on the side of the terrorists.
>>>
>>Keep saying that alike an Orwellian slogan.
>>
>>But one can be on the side of freedom and disagree with or
>>question the particular choices being made by the government. If
>>you don't like that, well, too bad.
>>
> --------------------------============--------------------
> The term Orwellian is the most over used in political arguments. It, as
> now, is usually meaningless.
> One cannot be on the side of the terrorist and on the side of freedom.
> If you don't like that, well too bad.
>
First of all that is a false choice. There are a lot more
sides out there than terrorists and the choices of the American
government.
Secondly, most of the freedom fighters in the world started
out as terrorists. Many of Isreal's early leaders were terrorists
back in the 30's and 40's. The guys that you probably like, the
Contras, acted _exactly_ like terrorists. etc. etc.
.
.
.
.
.
Garrett
> Scott D. Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:3BAB819A...@worldnet.att.net...
[...]
>>Again, I oppose innocents dying of either side, no human life has
>>greater value or worth in my eyes solely because of their
>>nationality or religion. A death of an innocent in Afghanistan is
>>just as tragic as the death of an innocent in New York City. I
>>won't shed tears for the guilty though.
>>
> No, they murdered us and we will retaliate. Can that get through to clouded
> mind?
>
Speaking of clouded minds, did you know that NONE of the
terrorists were from Afghanistan?
I bet you didn't.
So why shouldn't we care about killing innocents in
Afghanistan again?
>
>>That's just a slogan. We're into much more complicated stuff
>>now.
>>
> Complicated for you; but not for me. My mind is clear and not befuddled as
> yours seems to be.
>
Your mind certainly seems to be clear all right.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Garrett
Which puts you at odds with the recent government actions
involving anti-terrorism here in America.
God bless America.
Victor Pavski
> Terrorists murdered and the US will retaliate. Duh. EVERYONE
> knows that! You are stating the obvious. My posts concern how
> best to retaliate, what the risks are, and what the issues are.
Well said, but the media and Shrub's spinners have set the table in a
simplistic and indefinite War on Evil Doers, with anyone not "with us" to
be "against us". [Note: In case the Office of Homeland Security is reading
this, I am with the people of the United States of America,
wholeheartedly].
There has been a rush to this since the attacks, and W's people have been
ratcheting up the "war" rhetoric with the arbitrary time unit. This has
consequences, one of which is that it has cemented in the minds of many
people a state of War, under which many measures may be justified. These
may be justified such as increasing security around potential targets and
sharing of intelligence information among countries, or they may be more
odious, such as the carpet bombing of the Islamic nation du jour for the
next ten years.
A cynic might say that a nation's justifiable rage and pain is being
manipluated into George W. Bush's re-election campaign. But if that's the
case then the stakes are high. The last President that committed forces
to an undefined target resigned before leaving office. If Bush is
successful in extricating the terrorists and smashing the cells, then
he'll be precieved to have "won" the war in the short term; if American
military action in the Gulf ignites a conflagration that ends up pitting
Pakistan against India or alienating the entire Islamic world, then
another story could emerge from what will likely by a military-controlled
press (as nearly all Western journalists have been asked to leave the
region's hot spots)....but who knows.
The big thing being missed in all this hullaballoo is that European
countries and the UK have extensive experience in counter-terror
activities that don't involve carpet-bombing Ulster or the Basque region
of Spain. A more balanced approach would highlight these efforts, in
addition to targeted military or law enforcement actions. However, in
last night speech, Bush has made it clear who the enemy is (Them) and who
the good guys are (Us). One report from the UK Times suggests the plan is
to use commando squads to extract terrorist cells; another from the UK
Gaurdian suggests the plan may be to use military force to smash the
Taliban and install the former King as leader of a new government. All of
this sounds like typical Cold War (the enemy of my enemy is my friend)
tactics, instead of long-range planning. The NY Times suggests the Bush
Whitehouse is torn between milder hawks such as Powell who advocate a
targeted approach and super hawks like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz that want a
much more militaristic approach. Whichever approach Dick Cheney
reccomends to Bush is up in the air.
> Thoughtful posters conservative and liberal are doing the same
> thing. Why would that bother you?
It gets in the way of the whole Crusade thing. -;)
Right now, the media is spoon-feeding a hurt public uncomplicated
information about an ultra-complex situation. All the political leaders
have rallied behind Bush and you pretty much have your issues distilled
before you. You can attack large or small, but attacks are not coming off
the table, and don't expect nuances to start emerging once the "war"
starts.
Vic
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
wrote:
>>
>>How do we know which those are?
>
> "We" don't, girlfriend. There are pros in the saddle, now.
You seem to be the sort of person who thinks that a real man has to be
really stupid.
Why is that?
We don't even have one person in our military who speaks the language
of sothern Afghanistan, apparently.
When you don't even speak the lingo, I am not so sure you can be
called a "pro" about these people.
Closing a camp with some tents and a few logs set up to jump over, at
a cost of several tens of millions of dollars, will make you feel
better, I suppose.
But really - is shoring up your obviously wounded self-esteem worth
much?
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
wrote:
Many great armies since that of Alexander the Great - the last one
able to win there.
Saddam, The Prophet of the Mother of All Battles?
>Oh, I just remembered. Iraq was the place where great armies were sent to
>die
You did not just remember it.
You made it up in order to have a dumb argument you can refute, since
you can not refute the smart argument I actually made.
>We really don't know how many died; but we did capture 60,000 of them.
>Sad day for you, Leroy.
I supported the war against Iraq.
It made sense.
I doubt we can get much benefit from going to Afghanistan.
We can get some, I suppose, if we handle it carefully.
But it will be easy to misstep.
You know, before the election I told you that we should be careful not
to elect candidate Bush PRECISELY because we might run into a
situtation where we needed a competent Presdident.
Do you remember?
I told you so.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
wrote:
>In article <3BAB4CE7...@worldnet.att.net>,
>Scott D. Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>Who is the enemy and what do they want? Politicians label them
>>"cowards" and "lunatics." If only. The terrorists are NOT
>>cowards or insane. That is one myth that we need ot dispell. If
>>they were cowardly and insane, they'd be easier to defeat. They
>>see themselves at war with the US, a war they believe goes back
>>to the colonial powers coming to the mideast for oil and
>>infiltrating the region. They look at the US attacks on Iraq
>>which killed tens of thousands, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict
>>where the US supports Israel, the US bombing a couple years ago
>>in Afghanistan and the Sudan, and Osama Bin Laden opposes the
>>stationing of American troops on what he considers Islamic holy
>>land.
>
>Give it up, Scott. The Shrub, his cheerleaders, and their lapdogs
>in the news media have made it clear that there is no place in this
>war for reason, sanity, or even correct information.
>
>They won. We lost. There is no longer opposition or dissent. Everyone
>thinks alike and hates alike.
Well, the truth is like Coca-cola - if you make it available, people
will want it.
It took a while in Viet Nam, too.
But with time it began to sink in.
That will no doubt happen here too.
>
>
>--
>WARNING! This message has not been cleared by the Office Of Homeland
>Security. Read at your own risk.
Your are with us, or we will deny your right to dissent, just as in
Afghanistan.
Scott D. Erb
"Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2001 17:54:09 GMT, wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck)
> wrote:
> > "We" don't, girlfriend. There are pros in the saddle, now.
>
> What's THIS? Billy is suddenly pro-government?
>
> Hey, Billy! How much of YOUR tax-dollars went to support those pros?
Funny that he admires, speaks well of, and trusts big government
if it is the military. I really think there is no real coherence
to his point of view, he's probably better to ignore at this
point.
Scott D. Erb
tjwilson wrote:
>
> Scott D. Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:3BABA770...@worldnet.att.net...
> >
> >
> > tjwilson wrote:
> > > Analyze long enough and they will kill you. The time for analysis is
> over.
> >
> > Then you can choose not to analyze. I think the time to analyze
> > has just begin, and I will continue to do it. Don't let it
> > bother you, just skip my posts. This forum is for discussions
> > like this. We live in a democracy, some of us think analysis and
> > debate is essential.
> >
> > > It ended on 9/11 at the WTC.. Now is the time for action.
> > > I trust a leader that tells me he want to win a war. Leaders like
> Lincoln,
> > > Roosevelt, and Bush Sr.
> >
> > Then follow the leader. For me, I think a time like this
> > requires citizens to think critically and learn about the issue.
>
> If you haven't figured out what the issue is; I'll tell you.
> Terrorists attacked our country and killed >6,000 people and did an great
> property damage.
I'm talking about issues way beyond that one, the nuts and bolts
of the problems of how to mount an effective response. Sheesh.
Martin McPhillips
Says Reverend Erb to an inveterate liar and irrational clown.
Martin McPhillips
The act of terror and its victims is the predicate for the
response, Erb.
There are no issues "way beyond that one."
Scott D. Erb
Victor Pavski wrote:
>
> In talk.politics.misc Scott D. Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > Terrorists murdered and the US will retaliate. Duh. EVERYONE
> > knows that! You are stating the obvious. My posts concern how
> > best to retaliate, what the risks are, and what the issues are.
>
> Well said, but the media and Shrub's spinners have set the table in a
> simplistic and indefinite War on Evil Doers, with anyone not "with us" to
> be "against us". [Note: In case the Office of Homeland Security is reading
> this, I am with the people of the United States of America,
> wholeheartedly].
That kind of rhetoric disturbs me, as haste and such extreme
"black and white" painting of a conflict sets a country or
President up for real trouble. Can a "war on global terrorism"
be any easier to "win" than a "war on drugs"? Can one really
think that other countries will simply go in lock step with the
US -- trying to demand that could create a myriad of problems,
especially as the US needs help and may find itself economically
in difficulty in the common months, even years. And the idea of
an "Office of Homeland Security" is very disturbing.
> There has been a rush to this since the attacks, and W's people have been
> ratcheting up the "war" rhetoric with the arbitrary time unit. This has
> consequences, one of which is that it has cemented in the minds of many
> people a state of War, under which many measures may be justified. These
> may be justified such as increasing security around potential targets and
> sharing of intelligence information among countries, or they may be more
> odious, such as the carpet bombing of the Islamic nation du jour for the
> next ten years.
I've been patient, and pleased with the patience of the White
House in not yet responding with anything more than rhetoric. I
tell myself that perhaps the tough rhetoric is tactical. But the
speech last night convinces me that the US may be stepping into
something that will turn out to be much more difficult and
damaging to the country than we realize, both in terms of
domestic freedom and security.
> A cynic might say that a nation's justifiable rage and pain is being
> manipluated into George W. Bush's re-election campaign. But if that's the
> case then the stakes are high. The last President that committed forces
> to an undefined target resigned before leaving office.
Bush can't be so foolish as to think this kind of unified support
will last -- look what happened to his father not long after the
Gulf War. The intensity of the emotion here is greater now
because a US target was hit, but as we return to normalcy and
people see an economy in recession, a surplus totally gone with
new government deficit spending, possible cuts to social policies
to pay for more military, and an unclear war against an
amorophous enemy hard to really hit and defeat, well...
This was a time to prove that in the post-Cold War world the
world can come together and forge coalitions that cooperate and
act multilaterally to try to deal with criminals. Instead it's
unilateralist in the sense that the US demands you be "for us" or
"against us," in a way that is precarious. I have a bad feeling
about this. I think it may go in a direction people don't
expect, and people don't let themselves think about the
alternatives and the problems because of fear of not being
patriotic. Sometimes what is popular isn't what is right.
>If Bush is
> successful in extricating the terrorists and smashing the cells, then
> he'll be precieved to have "won" the war in the short term; if American
Even a high level former State Department official I know said
that even if he erradicated the Alquada network and eliminated
Bin Laden that might even make the terrorist problem worse. This
is REALLY a messy issue.
> military action in the Gulf ignites a conflagration that ends up pitting
> Pakistan against India or alienating the entire Islamic world, then
> another story could emerge from what will likely by a military-controlled
> press (as nearly all Western journalists have been asked to leave the
> region's hot spots)....but who knows.
Once a war starts or shots are fired, unintended consequences
make the result uncertain. My biggest concern after the "easy"
victories in the Gulf War and Kosovo (though if this was a Saddam
led strike back, the Gulf War isn't really over) is that the US
would over estimate its ability to use and control the impact of
military power. Kosovo was a sign that this doesn't work -- it
wasn't a short three day bombing, it turned into a mess. But it
was small and could be contained. This could go in many
directions, and few seem to be critically assessing the problems,
at least not publically or effectively.
> The big thing being missed in all this hullaballoo is that European
> countries and the UK have extensive experience in counter-terror
> activities that don't involve carpet-bombing Ulster or the Basque region
> of Spain. A more balanced approach would highlight these efforts, in
> addition to targeted military or law enforcement actions. However, in
> last night speech, Bush has made it clear who the enemy is (Them) and who
> the good guys are (Us). One report from the UK Times suggests the plan is
> to use commando squads to extract terrorist cells; another from the UK
> Gaurdian suggests the plan may be to use military force to smash the
> Taliban and install the former King as leader of a new government. All of
> this sounds like typical Cold War (the enemy of my enemy is my friend)
> tactics, instead of long-range planning. The NY Times suggests the Bush
> Whitehouse is torn between milder hawks such as Powell who advocate a
> targeted approach and super hawks like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz that want a
> much more militaristic approach. Whichever approach Dick Cheney
> reccomends to Bush is up in the air.
Cheney is a "chickenhawk," (someone who never served in the
military but is very willing to use military mite) he pushed for
the Gulf War early on, and opposed Powell back then (as Powell
was concerned about military power). Cheney will side with the
militarists. The military, contrary to popular opinion, is often
the least likely to want to use military options because they
understand the danger and unpredictability. I'm still HOPING
that the rhetoric is merely to intimidate, but he's been SO
adament that I think now he has to do something. I just hope
Powell has more of a hand in designing what is done than
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz or Cheney.
> > Thoughtful posters conservative and liberal are doing the same
> > thing. Why would that bother you?
>
> It gets in the way of the whole Crusade thing. -;)
At least they didn't label the operation: "Crusade for Infinite
Justice!"
Billy Beck
tyrebi...@workmail.com (George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) wrote:
>>>How do we know which those are?
>>
>> "We" don't, girlfriend. There are pros in the saddle, now.
>
>You seem to be the sort of person who thinks that a real man has to be
>really stupid.
>
>Why is that?
>
>We don't even have one person in our military who speaks the language
>of sothern Afghanistan, apparently.
>
>When you don't even speak the lingo, I am not so sure you can be
>called a "pro" about these people.
Who said anything about *me*? Why aren't you paying attention?
Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush
I long ago abandoned any effort at any type of meaningful debate with
him. I just like to poke him with a stick once in a while and watch
him scream and throw his feces at the bars of his cage.
johnz~
"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Yes, I can see how obsessively you're "ignoring" him, Scott.
JS
Who Cares?
news:9ogj14$coe$1...@pulp.srv.ualberta.ca...
> In talk.politics.misc Scott D. Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > Terrorists murdered and the US will retaliate. Duh. EVERYONE
> > knows that! You are stating the obvious. My posts concern how
> > best to retaliate, what the risks are, and what the issues are.
>
> Well said, but the media and Shrub's spinners have set the table in a
> simplistic and indefinite War on Evil Doers, with anyone not "with us" to
> be "against us".
That's how it has to be.
I've been expecting it. It's a function of "diversity". Back
when I used to post seriously, I touched on it but nobody
cared.
Japan versus U.S.
Conformity versus Diversity.
Two extremes along the same axis, each with their own
set of advantages and disadvantages. Conformity
reduces conflict and transaction costs. Diversity,
just like the gene pool, increases innovation and
survivability across different environments.
We've gone too far. This is the start of the
pendulum's return.
"With us" or "Against us". Finally, some simplicity
introduced into a growing mass of complexity &
confusion. A new binary equation for an old analog
world.
That's how it goes, man. Our AC buddies should
wise up about what a likely future U.S. looks like.
tjwilson
Americans are being murdered and you are into nuts and bolts!
Sheesh!
tjwilson
Garrett <gjoh...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:3BABB061...@eudoramail.com...
There are only two sides. The side of freedom or the side of terrorism.
You are on one side or the other.
Eagle Eye
<johnsabotta-2B6D...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com>
johnz~ <johns...@removethishome.net> wrote:
>In article <3BABEFF5...@worldnet.att.net>,
> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> "Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush" wrote:
>> > On Fri, 21 Sep 2001 17:54:09 GMT, wj...@mindspring.com (Billy
>> > Beck) wrote:
>> > >"We" don't, girlfriend. There are pros in the saddle, now.
>> > What's THIS? Billy is suddenly pro-government?
>> >
>> > Hey, Billy! How much of YOUR tax-dollars went to support
>> > those pros?
>> Funny that he admires, speaks well of, and trusts big government
>> if it is the military. I really think there is no real
>> coherence to his point of view, he's probably better to ignore
>> at this point.
>Yes, I can see how obsessively you're "ignoring" him, Scott.
How many hundreds of posts, thousands of lines, has Scottie
written about those of us he says should be ignored?
Last week he declared that he was going to refrain from posting
for a few weeks.
Just more evidence that the Maine Misquito never means what he
says.
=====
EE
Honorato libertam et ruat coelum.
John H. McCloskey
>>
>> Funny that he admires, speaks well of, and trusts big government
>> if it is the military. I really think there is no real coherence
>> to his point of view, he's probably better to ignore at this
>> point.
>
>Yes, I can see how obsessively you're "ignoring" him, Scott.
>
>JS
Sure, sir, all very well, cheap-shotwise. BUT.....
But isn't there perhaps an issue here? The curious affinity of the nominally
adult Gandhi ideology of Planet Dilbert and the actually effective teenage
Bismarckonihilist practice? Is there no puzzle, no problem, no difficulty
here?
--JHM
Victor Pavski
> That kind of rhetoric disturbs me, as haste and such extreme
> "black and white" painting of a conflict sets a country or
> President up for real trouble. Can a "war on global terrorism"
> be any easier to "win" than a "war on drugs"?
Meet the new War on Drugs. It's obviously the template for what is
happening here...they are even saying so in public.
> Can one really think that other countries will simply go in lock step
> with the US -- trying to demand that could create a myriad of problems,
I think that you would get broad agreement between countries on things
like sharing intelligence and law enforcement information; sharing of
tactical and military information; some degree of conformity on military
raids; but, if it boils down to carpet bombing Country A, B and C over
several years with a commitment to occupy Afghanistan or more, the
coaliton will split or crumble completly. I can't see France or Germany
want to contribute to a destabilizing situation; the UK would likely bail
as well at this point.
> I've been patient, and pleased with the patience of the White
> House in not yet responding with anything more than rhetoric. I
> tell myself that perhaps the tough rhetoric is tactical. But the
> speech last night convinces me that the US may be stepping into
> something that will turn out to be much more difficult and
> damaging to the country than we realize, both in terms of
> domestic freedom and security.
Bush's speech failed in at least two respects; (i) he did not sufficiently
adress the scope of the problem (ii) he did not address solving the root
causes of hatred in these regions which is poverty, bad government,
despair and US foreign policy.
> Bush can't be so foolish as to think this kind of unified support
> will last -- look what happened to his father not long after the
> Gulf War.
Bush the younger always felt his father lost re-election by "not spending"
the political capital he won after the Gulf War. Having a 10-year War on
Terrorism, gives him a rationale for re-election (my opponent is a liberal
wimp), and a slogan (Remember the World Trade Center!). I'm a cynic; so I
don't put this past him or his handlers.
> The intensity of the emotion here is greater now
> because a US target was hit, but as we return to normalcy and
> people see an economy in recession, a surplus totally gone with
> new government deficit spending, possible cuts to social policies
> to pay for more military, and an unclear war against an
> amorophous enemy hard to really hit and defeat, well...
Nobody save Paul Krugman is pointing out that wars have economic effects
(some of which can be positive); but that the tax cut followed by the
current "emergency spending" waves may really risk the fiscal future of
the United States. We'll see if Bush makes the mistake of thinking that a
foreign policy agenda can divert the public from domestic policy.
> Instead it's unilateralist in the sense that the US demands you be "for
> us" or "against us," in a way that is precarious. I have a bad feeling
> about this. I think it may go in a direction people don't
> expect, and people don't let themselves think about the
> alternatives and the problems because of fear of not being
> patriotic. Sometimes what is popular isn't what is right.
Wars are never pretty things. But the public really has not seen the real
face of war. If much military attacks are involved, and there is loss of
life without sufficiet progress, things could turn out very, very badly.
Pakistan's situation really is scary. One admnistration person remarked
that the government may not survive. I wonder if he realized this could
spark an India-Pakistan war which could escalate into World War III.
> Even a high level former State Department official I know said
> that even if he erradicated the Alquada network and eliminated
> Bin Laden that might even make the terrorist problem worse. This
> is REALLY a messy issue.
Well that is interesting. I've seen statements that after Afghanistan,
Bush should clean out the rest of the Gulf, Cuba and maybe the IRA.
> Cheney will side with the
> militarists. The military, contrary to popular opinion, is often
> the least likely to want to use military options because they
> understand the danger and unpredictability. I'm still HOPING
> that the rhetoric is merely to intimidate, but he's been SO
> adament that I think now he has to do something. I just hope
> Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz or Cheney.
In his memoirs, Schwarskoph (sp?) went on about how he and Powell wanted
to build on a Gorbachev effort that would give the Iraqis one week to
leave Kuwait (Abandoning their heavy weapons) to avoid the ground war.
Bush (and presumably Cheney) would not even consider it. Bush wanted the
ground war to eliminate "Vietnam syndrome". And he got Gulf War Syndrome
instead.
Powell wants measured action (commandos; targeted strikes). Rumsfeld and
Wolfowitz want the whole smash, possibly extended to god knows how many
counntries. Whoever wins in the end will be very important.
Vic
Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush
wrote:
Maybe you can design the next WTC, Johnny Engineer. Save terrorists
the trouble of having to fly planes into them in order to make them
fall down.
classicliberal2
wrote:
>> That kind of rhetoric disturbs me, as haste
>> and such extreme "black and white"
>> painting of a conflict sets a country or
>> President up for real trouble. Can a "war
>> on global terrorism" be any easier to "win"
>> than a "war on drugs"?
>
> Meet the new War on Drugs. It's obviously
> the template for what is happening here...
___
Absolutely, and I don't think anyone has
grasped the enormity of what is being
proposed here. Consider the worst-case
scenario--a Cold War-style rationale for
maintaining a permanent wartime economy
that is literally indefinitely self-perpetuating.
There's no Soviet Union to fall apart so we
can declare victory. There's no "victory" to
be had. "Evil-doers" can't be militarily
eliminated from the world. Efforts toward
that end will inevitably produce reprisals,
which, in turn, will provide the rationale for
maintaining the original policy. So it will just
go on and on, taking our economy, our
civil liberties, our country straight down the
toilet.
___
>> Can one really think that other countries
>> will simply go in lock step with the US -- trying
>> to demand that could create a myriad of
>> problems,
>
> I think that you would get broad agreement
> between countries on things like sharing
> intelligence and law enforcement information;
> sharing of tactical and military information;
> some degree of conformity on military raids;
> but, if it boils down to carpet bombing
> Country A, B and C over several years with
> a commitment to occupy Afghanistan or
> more, the coaliton will split or crumble
> completly. I can't see France or Germany
> want to contribute to a destabilizing situation;
> the UK would likely bail as well at this point.
___
The potential for destabilization of the entire
region is awesome. India and especially
Pakistan are, as we speak, experiencing
largescale anti-government demonstrations/riots
as a result of their backing of the United States.
Should one of those governments happen to fall,
the fanatics who topple it will find themselves a
nuclear power. At the same time, Saudi Arabia is
apparently balking at allowing the U.S. to use its
territory to launch offensive strikes against
anyone who does not threaten Saudi Arabia.
The U.S. military presence in that country is
what prompted bin Laden and his followers to
issue a fatwah against the U.S. in the first place.
___
>> I've been patient, and pleased with the
>> patience of the White House in not yet
>> responding with anything more than rhetoric.
>> I tell myself that perhaps the tough rhetoric is
>> tactical. But the speech last night convinces
>> me that the US may be stepping into something
>> that will turn out to be much more difficult and
>> damaging to the country than we realize, both
>> in terms of domestic freedom and security.
>
> Bush's speech failed in at least two respects;
> (i) he did not sufficiently adress the scope of
> the problem (ii) he did not address solving the
> root causes of hatred in these regions which
> is poverty, bad government, despair and US
> foreign policy.
___
from Left Hook! http://tjeff.50g.com/
Well, we have a war, but we don't know who it's
against. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
said this week that 35,500 members of the reserve
and National Guard are to be called up to fight it.
Hundreds of fighter and bomber aircraft have
already been routed to the gulf, along with two
more aircraft carriers, a missile cruiser and a
destroyer. This is in addition to the not insignificant
force already present in the region, and we still
have no clear enemy on which to use all this
firepower.
The President's speechwriters did nothing to
clarify the matter last night.
"Americans are asking, 'Who attacked our
country?' The evidence we have gathered
all points to a collection of loosely affiliated
terrorist organizations known as al Qaeda...
This group and its leader, a person named
Osama bin Laden, are linked to many other
organizations in different countries, including
the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the Islamic
Movement of Uzbekistan. There are
thousands of these terrorists in more than
60 countries."
This is a widely scattered enemy, and not
subject to the kind of massive assault the
present deployments seem intended for.
This is true, even within Afghanistan. The
so-called "terrorist training camps" are
nothing more than tents in the middle of
nowhere, and, says the New York Times
Wednesday, have been abandoned since
the attack last week. "If you took every
terrorist in Afghanistan, you could not make
a light brigade," said Gen. Anthony Zinni,
former head of U.S. Central Command
in Tampa. Bush himself belittled the idea of
dealing with the problem with cruise missiles:
"What's the sense of sending $2-million
missiles to hit a $10 tent that's empty?" A
good question, Mr. President. Why, then,
are you dispatching so many of those
missiles to the region?
The President's speechwriters offered a
possible answer last night, trying to concoct
a pretext for an attack on Afghanistan:
"By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban
regime is committing murder. And tonight the
United States of America makes the following
demands on the Taliban. Deliver to United
States authorities all of the leaders of Al
Quaeda who hide in your land. Release all
foreign nationals, including American citizens
you have unjustly imprisoned. Protect foreign
journalists, diplomats and aid workers in your
country. Close immediately and permanently
every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan.
And hand over every terrorist and every
person and their support structure to
appropriate authorities. Give the United States
full access to terrorist training camps, so we
can make sure they are no longer operating.
"These demands are not open to negotiation
or discussion. The Taliban must act and act
immediately. They will hand over the terrorists
or they will share in their fate."
The problem, as the Times outlines it, is that
there really isn't anything in Afghanistan to
attack. It's an extremely poor country
without much in the way of infrastructure.
They can't be bombed back to the Stone
Age--they're *already* virtually in the Stone
Age. The President's speechwriters spent
some time, last night, on the hardships
endured by those under the dictatorial
rule of the Taliban:
"Afghanistan's people have been brutalized,
many are starving and many have fled.
Women are not allowed to attend school.
You can be jailed for owning a television.
Religion can be practiced only as their
leaders dictate. A man can be jailed in
Afghanistan if his beard is not long enough."
Attacks on such targets as the nation's
power grid, communication lines, and
food supply can only make things worse
for the people of Afghanistan, who are,
as the President's speechwriters concede,
victims of the Taliban themselves.
What does all this suggest? That the
concerns expressed in Left Hook! over the
last week and a half--that a War On
Terrorism, modeled on the War On Drugs,
was being crafted by the administration to
serve as a replacement for the Cold
War--are well founded. It seems
increasingly likely that the large mobilization
is nothing more than a show designed to
mollify public anger and create a pretext for
a significant expansion of military spending.
The completely unwinnable nature of this
"war,"
like that of the War On Drugs, makes it much
more reliable, in this regard, than the Soviet
menace, as it precludes any sort of "victory."
The administration--and this "war" will not end
with the Bush administration--can simply say it
is "making progress," and congress will be
hard-pressed to refuse it "the tools it needs"
to "get the job done." [*]
The words of Bush's speechwriters bear out
this analysis. Here they are, laying out the
"goal" of this "war":
"Our war on terror begins with Al Qaeda, but it
does not end there. It will not end until every
terrorist group of global reach has been found,
stopped and defeated."
How will it be fought?
"We will direct every resource at our
command--every means of diplomacy, every
tool of intelligence, every instrument of law
enforcement, every financial influence, and
every necessary weapon of war--to the
destruction and to the defeat of the global
terror network.
"Now, this war will not be like the war
against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive
liberation of territory and a swift conclusion.
It will not look like the air war above Kosovo
two years ago, where no ground troops were
used and not a single American was lost in
combat.
"Our response involves far more than instant
retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans
should not expect one battle, but a lengthy
campaign unlike any other we have ever
seen. It may include dramatic strikes visible
on TV and covert operations secret even in
success. We will starve terrorists of funding,
turn them one against another, drive them
from place to place until there is no refuge
or no rest. And we will pursue nations that
provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every
nation in every region now has a decision to
make: Either you are with us or you are with
the terrorists. From this day forward, any
nation that continues to harbor or support
terrorism will be regarded by the United
States as a hostile regime."
Notice this utterly unsubtle implication about
how those in congress who may dissent from
the proposed course are to be regarded:
"...ladies and gentlemen of the Congress, I
thank you... for what you have already done
and for what we will do together. Tonight we
face new and sudden national challenges.
We will come together to improve air safety, to
dramatically expand the number of air marshals
on domestic flights and take new measures to
prevent hijacking. We will come together to
promote stability and keep our airlines flying
with direct assistance during this emergency.
We will come together to give law enforcement
the additional tools it needs to track down terror
here at home. We will come together to
strengthen our intelligence capabilities
to know the plans of terrorists before they act
and to find them before they strike. We will
come together to take active steps that
strengthen America's economy and put our
people back to work."
The War On Terrorism comes with its own
ideology: "Either you are with us or you are with
the terrorists." This, directed by the speechwriters
at "every nation in every region," has its domestic
equivalent, as well; as with the Cold War,
dissenters will have to overcome the patina of
seditionists to make their case.
This prospect is made even more frightening by
the administration's dismal practice of dismissing
the very complex questions raised by a complex
situation in favor of portraying the whole matter
as nothing more than a professional wrestling
match. The speechwriters:
"Americans are asking 'Why do they hate us?'
They hate what they see right here in this
chamber: a democratically elected government.
Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our
freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom
of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble
and disagree with each other."
The terrorists, in this scenario, are merely
motiveless animals who do evil because they
are evil. In truth, Osama bin Laden and his
followers care nothing about how the U.S.
handles its internal politics. Their concerns, as
they've made quite clear over the years, are
with how the U.S. government conducts
policies outside of its borders--specifically,
how it conducts them in their home countries.
Logic would dictate that understanding their
motive is a crucial element in preventing acts
of terror in the future, but the administration
won't even concede they have one, with the
consequence that the policies which
generate an Osama bin Laden continue
unquestioned.
Taken as a whole, this is certainy no way to
run a railroad. Or perhaps it is...
Pay attention, friends of liberty; we're now
faced with a growing snowball called the
War On Terrorism. Let's try to keep it from
becoming an avalanche.
____
[*] Among those tools will be greatly expanded
domestic police powers, with the attendant loss
of civil liberties--something the administration
has pursued since the attack. Ominously, the
president's speechwriters last night announced
the creation of a new federal bureacracy--the
Office of Homeland Security--which is to be a
cabinet-level department whose responsibilities
are, at best, only vaguely hinted at.
from Left Hook! http://tjeff.50g.com/
Scott D. Erb
tjwilson wrote:
> > I'm talking about issues way beyond that one, the nuts and bolts
> > of the problems of how to mount an effective response. Sheesh.
>
> Americans are being murdered and you are into nuts and bolts!
> Sheesh!
You have to be into nuts and bolts to figure out the best
response. But hey, I know you don't want to think about this,
you just want to sit back and follow where the leader goes.
That's fine. I'll respond my way, you respond yours, that's
cool.
Scott D. Erb
Victor Pavski wrote:
>
> In talk.politics.misc Scott D. Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > That kind of rhetoric disturbs me, as haste and such extreme
> > "black and white" painting of a conflict sets a country or
> > President up for real trouble. Can a "war on global terrorism"
> > be any easier to "win" than a "war on drugs"?
>
> Meet the new War on Drugs. It's obviously the template for what is
> happening here...they are even saying so in public.
Just rented "Traffic" the other night. Very interesting.
> > Can one really think that other countries will simply go in lock step
> > with the US -- trying to demand that could create a myriad of problems,
>
> I think that you would get broad agreement between countries on things
> like sharing intelligence and law enforcement information; sharing of
> tactical and military information; some degree of conformity on military
> raids; but, if it boils down to carpet bombing Country A, B and C over
> several years with a commitment to occupy Afghanistan or more, the
> coaliton will split or crumble completly. I can't see France or Germany
> want to contribute to a destabilizing situation; the UK would likely bail
> as well at this point.
Yes, especially after the first couple weeks of sympathy wears
off. Remember all the sympathy Austria got when it suffered a
terrorist attack of regicide (killing of royalty)? (I know you
weren't alive then). The danger is how this could step by step
go out of control.
> > I've been patient, and pleased with the patience of the White
> > House in not yet responding with anything more than rhetoric. I
> > tell myself that perhaps the tough rhetoric is tactical. But the
> > speech last night convinces me that the US may be stepping into
> > something that will turn out to be much more difficult and
> > damaging to the country than we realize, both in terms of
> > domestic freedom and security.
>
> Bush's speech failed in at least two respects; (i) he did not sufficiently
> adress the scope of the problem (ii) he did not address solving the root
> causes of hatred in these regions which is poverty, bad government,
> despair and US foreign policy.
True. It focused only on "they did a bad thing, we'll respond
and get them back," striking emotional chords Americans are
apparently comfortable with at this time. But it's a short term
high, and I think that will become apparent in coming weeks.
> > Bush can't be so foolish as to think this kind of unified support
> > will last -- look what happened to his father not long after the
> > Gulf War.
>
> Bush the younger always felt his father lost re-election by "not spending"
> the political capital he won after the Gulf War. Having a 10-year War on
> Terrorism, gives him a rationale for re-election (my opponent is a liberal
> wimp), and a slogan (Remember the World Trade Center!). I'm a cynic; so I
> don't put this past him or his handlers.
Nor do I. But to be effective he will have to show two years of
success. If it's not doing what he hopes -- which I suspect --
I'm worried what might be done closer to the election to try to
rally people around the President in a way they are rallying
now. This could all play out very badly.
> > The intensity of the emotion here is greater now
> > because a US target was hit, but as we return to normalcy and
> > people see an economy in recession, a surplus totally gone with
> > new government deficit spending, possible cuts to social policies
> > to pay for more military, and an unclear war against an
> > amorophous enemy hard to really hit and defeat, well...
>
> Nobody save Paul Krugman is pointing out that wars have economic effects
> (some of which can be positive); but that the tax cut followed by the
> current "emergency spending" waves may really risk the fiscal future of
> the United States. We'll see if Bush makes the mistake of thinking that a
> foreign policy agenda can divert the public from domestic policy.
I was expecting a much deeper recession than most before Sept.
11. Now we'll see unbelievable stimulus through low interest
rates AND more government spending. That could actually avoid
the kind of recession many fear, but if so could fuel renewed
inflation. Also, if this goes on more than a few weeks, which is
likely, the tax cut issue will have to be revisited.
> > Instead it's unilateralist in the sense that the US demands you be "for
> > us" or "against us," in a way that is precarious. I have a bad feeling
> > about this. I think it may go in a direction people don't
> > expect, and people don't let themselves think about the
> > alternatives and the problems because of fear of not being
> > patriotic. Sometimes what is popular isn't what is right.
>
> Wars are never pretty things. But the public really has not seen the real
> face of war.
Sure we have, it's cool video of bombs going down chimneys and
big parades full of yellow ribbons! Americans are used to
"sanitary" campaigns where few if any Americans die and the
result is certain and reasonably swift. That won't happen here.
> If much military attacks are involved, and there is loss of
> life without sufficiet progress, things could turn out very, very badly.
> Pakistan's situation really is scary. One admnistration person remarked
> that the government may not survive. I wonder if he realized this could
> spark an India-Pakistan war which could escalate into World War III.
Or other ramifications -- Pakistan could end up with factions
opposing the US who have access to nuclear stock piles and could
aid "terrorists" or form an alliance with other groups against
the US. And if Saudi Arabia what a revolt...
> > Even a high level former State Department official I know said
> > that even if he erradicated the Alquada network and eliminated
> > Bin Laden that might even make the terrorist problem worse. This
> > is REALLY a messy issue.
>
> Well that is interesting. I've seen statements that after Afghanistan,
> Bush should clean out the rest of the Gulf, Cuba and maybe the IRA.
People really over estimate the ability of the US to project
power. That kind of unthinking over confidence is really
dangerous.
> > Cheney will side with the
> > militarists. The military, contrary to popular opinion, is often
> > the least likely to want to use military options because they
> > understand the danger and unpredictability. I'm still HOPING
> > that the rhetoric is merely to intimidate, but he's been SO
> > adament that I think now he has to do something. I just hope
> > Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz or Cheney.
>
> In his memoirs, Schwarskoph (sp?) went on about how he and Powell wanted
> to build on a Gorbachev effort that would give the Iraqis one week to
> leave Kuwait (Abandoning their heavy weapons) to avoid the ground war.
> Bush (and presumably Cheney) would not even consider it. Bush wanted the
> ground war to eliminate "Vietnam syndrome". And he got Gulf War Syndrome
> instead.
>
> Powell wants measured action (commandos; targeted strikes). Rumsfeld and
> Wolfowitz want the whole smash, possibly extended to god knows how many
> counntries. Whoever wins in the end will be very important.
Agreed. I wonder where Rice fits into all this?
Thanks for your post. It's good to see some sane, rational
analysis in these days.
John T. Kennedy
Yes John, there is at least a puzzle here.
I would be very interested to hear Beck clarify whether he sanctions
government to fight a war like this on his behalf.
Because lately it at least kind of sounds like he might, doesn't it?
-
John T. Kennedy III
No Treason - A Journal of Liberty
http://www.no-treason.com/
The Wild Shall Ever Wild Remain!
http://www.mindspring.com/~jtkennedy/itswhatitisnow.html
Billy Beck
John T. Kennedy <jt...@no-treason.com> wrote:
>elchipod...@aol.com2600 (John H. McCloskey) wrote:
>
>>>> > Hey, Billy! How much of YOUR tax-dollars went to support those pros?
>>>>
>>>> Funny that he admires, speaks well of, and trusts big government
>>>> if it is the military. I really think there is no real coherence
>>>> to his point of view, he's probably better to ignore at this
>>>> point.
>>>
>>>Yes, I can see how obsessively you're "ignoring" him, Scott.
>>Sure, sir, all very well, cheap-shotwise. BUT.....
>>
>>But isn't there perhaps an issue here? The curious affinity of the nominally
>>adult Gandhi ideology of Planet Dilbert and the actually effective teenage
>>Bismarckonihilist practice? Is there no puzzle, no problem, no difficulty
>>here?
>Yes John, there is at least a puzzle here.
>
>I would be very interested to hear Beck clarify whether he sanctions
>government to fight a war like this on his behalf.
>
>Because lately it at least kind of sounds like he might, doesn't it?
I said I'd send gold to pay for my end of it, John. What do you
want? If you're asking whether I think it's a good idea to hunt these
bastards down and put an end to them, my answer is a four-square
"yes". What might have made you doubt that?
Who would *you* hire to do it, if not people who have, say,
B-52's and/or trained commando teams?
What are you getting at?
John H. McCloskey
if it is the military. I really think there is no real coherence to his point
of view, he's probably better to ignore at this point.
>>>>>>
The Beck & Co. coherence has always been there, but only always sentimental and
not rational, never quite located as high up as the Erbian Whitewater level
where Punch used to try to encounter Judy.
But anyway, down here in the now gutter of Romulus and the outskirts of Greater
Crawford TX, it can NEVER be "better to ignore" if "ignore" means not
knowing/caring/talking about X in the first place rather than knowing &c. all
about it, but then deliberately deciding that such knowledge is not helpful at
the moment.
Fear itself is only a sentiment, after all, and to allow oneself to be
terrorized is only sheerest self-abandonment.
Nobody, perhaps, can ever really manage to die thinking "It looks like that
aircraft is deliberately trying to crash into this very window that I now look
out at it from; I wonder why? Can it be because of our Middle Ea....."
Maybe nobody can ever quite DO that -- and certainly I couldn't -- but that
remains undoubtedly the mark to aim at, unless Civilization was all a mistake
and we all should have been strictly self-servicing "libertarians" all along,
brute rational animals only naturally going with the flow and accordingly still
living in caves that nobody could ever possibly bomb 'em back into the Stone
Age out of.
Almost everybody agrees about that. To be civilized in any civilization is to
agree about that in principle.
Can we be emotionalized out of Civilization by some terrorist Ibn Ladin or some
romantic Miss Rand?
Myself, I kinda don't expect.
Happier days.
--JHM
John D.
"John H. McCloskey" <elchipod...@aol.com2600> wrote in message
news:20010922104614...@mb-mr.aol.com...
The "strongest" always land on the top, the top of whatever assemblage is
left under them, and the top is always more civilized and prosperous...just
ask them.
John D.
> Happier days.
> --JHM
>
>
>
John T. Kennedy
Beck) wrote:
>
>John T. Kennedy <jt...@no-treason.com> wrote:
>
>>elchipod...@aol.com2600 (John H. McCloskey) wrote:
>>
>>>>> > Hey, Billy! How much of YOUR tax-dollars went to support those pros?
>>>>>
>>>>> Funny that he admires, speaks well of, and trusts big government
>>>>> if it is the military. I really think there is no real coherence
>>>>> to his point of view, he's probably better to ignore at this
>>>>> point.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, I can see how obsessively you're "ignoring" him, Scott.
>
>>>Sure, sir, all very well, cheap-shotwise. BUT.....
>>>
>>>But isn't there perhaps an issue here? The curious affinity of the nominally
>>>adult Gandhi ideology of Planet Dilbert and the actually effective teenage
>>>Bismarckonihilist practice? Is there no puzzle, no problem, no difficulty
>>>here?
>
>>Yes John, there is at least a puzzle here.
>>
>>I would be very interested to hear Beck clarify whether he sanctions
>>government to fight a war like this on his behalf.
>>
>>Because lately it at least kind of sounds like he might, doesn't it?
>
> I said I'd send gold to pay for my end of it, John.
As far as I know the carrier groups in question are not for hire on
that basis.
Consider also that money is fungible and the gold you send to
Washington will be used for other things as well, it will go into the
general fund just like taxes.
> What do you want?
First of all to understand. These are difficult issues.
>If you're asking whether I think it's a good idea to hunt these
>bastards down and put an end to them, my answer is a four-square
>"yes". What might have made you doubt that?
I have nothing to doubt about that, and I fully agree with it.
> Who would *you* hire to do it, if not people who have, say,
>B-52's and/or trained commando teams?
Those sound like fine resources to hire, in a free market.
>
> What are you getting at?
That as far as I know there is only one way to hire the specific
forces in question, only one set of terms through which they are
available: Consent to the federal government of the United States.
Absent a better explanation rest assured that at the end of the day
Martin is going to tell you that this is a perfect example of how you
actually did consent when the chips were down, a perfect example of
how you acknowledged you actually did need his government. In which
case his likening of taxes to the electric bill has a lot more force.
At the very least this begs a more nuanced explanation than has been
offered so far.
I'm not saying ther is no good answer, I'm saying it needs to be laid
out.
>
>
>Billy
>
>VRWC Fronteer
>http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/
-
John H. McCloskey
left under them, and the top is always more civilized and prosperous...just
ask them.
All very well down at the Darwin or Dilbert level, sir, but not in America.
Here we've civilized ourselves far beyond all that animalism.
Does The Bush Dynasty Boy now preside over our national unhappiness because he
is in any intelligible sense "strongest"?
Please at least _try_ to be serious and public, sir. The crisis urgently
demands it.
Happier days.
--JHM
John D.
"John H. McCloskey" <elchipod...@aol.com2600> wrote in message
> >The "strongest" always land on the top, the top of whatever assemblage is
> left under them, and the top is always more civilized and
prosperous...just
> ask them.
>
> All very well down at the Darwin or Dilbert level, sir, but not in
America.
> Here we've civilized ourselves far beyond all that animalism.
>
> Does The Bush Dynasty Boy now preside over our national unhappiness
because he
> is in any intelligible sense "strongest"?
He is there.
> Please at least _try_ to be serious and public, sir. The crisis urgently
> demands it.
Billy Beck
John T. Kennedy <jt...@no-treason.com> wrote:
>wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) wrote:
>>>elchipod...@aol.com2600 (John H. McCloskey) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> > Hey, Billy! How much of YOUR tax-dollars went to support those pros?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Funny that he admires, speaks well of, and trusts big government
>>>>>> if it is the military. I really think there is no real coherence
>>>>>> to his point of view, he's probably better to ignore at this
>>>>>> point.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, I can see how obsessively you're "ignoring" him, Scott.
>>
>>>>Sure, sir, all very well, cheap-shotwise. BUT.....
>>>>
>>>>But isn't there perhaps an issue here? The curious affinity of the nominally
>>>>adult Gandhi ideology of Planet Dilbert and the actually effective teenage
>>>>Bismarckonihilist practice? Is there no puzzle, no problem, no difficulty
>>>>here?
>>
>>>Yes John, there is at least a puzzle here.
>>>
>>>I would be very interested to hear Beck clarify whether he sanctions
>>>government to fight a war like this on his behalf.
>>>
>>>Because lately it at least kind of sounds like he might, doesn't it?
>>
>> I said I'd send gold to pay for my end of it, John.
>
>As far as I know the carrier groups in question are not for hire on
>that basis.
I know that. Guess what: operations like Boeing are. Get it?
>Consider also that money is fungible and the gold you send to
>Washington will be used for other things as well, it will go into the
>general fund just like taxes.
That's exactly right.
See how tangled it gets when it's one great big indiscriminate
packages deal?
I would remind you that this was not my idea.
>> What do you want?
>
>First of all to understand. These are difficult issues.
I know.
>>If you're asking whether I think it's a good idea to hunt these
>>bastards down and put an end to them, my answer is a four-square
>>"yes". What might have made you doubt that?
>
>I have nothing to doubt about that, and I fully agree with it.
>
>> Who would *you* hire to do it, if not people who have, say,
>>B-52's and/or trained commando teams?
>
>Those sound like fine resources to hire, in a free market.
Yup, and there is no reason why we couldn't.
>> What are you getting at?
>
>That as far as I know there is only one way to hire the specific
>forces in question, only one set of terms through which they are
>available: Consent to the federal government of the United States.
Forget it. Not me. If I have to endorse whole cabinet level
departments and nobody knows how many various "administrations", etc.
that are positively destructive in order to do that, then there is
simply no question about it: no way.
This is the point I've always been making when I demand my own
personal line-item veto on the budget.
>Absent a better explanation rest assured that at the end of the day
>Martin is going to tell you that this is a perfect example of how you
>actually did consent when the chips were down, a perfect example of
>how you acknowledged you actually did need his government.
He'd be wrong.
>At the very least this begs a more nuanced explanation than has been
>offered so far.
If that's true, then it's true only among people who've not been
paying attention.
tjwilson
Your response is analyze nuts and bolts? Another response would be; find
the murderers
and destroy them. After analyzing your nuts and bolts I'm betting you'll
say it can't be done.
We'll just have to wait and see.
Billy Beck
elchipod...@aol.com2600 (John H. McCloskey) wrote:
>The Beck & Co. coherence has always been there, but only always sentimental and
>not rational,...
As if you know what I've been talking about, or even what you're
talking about.
Get lost, you lying Queenie bitch.
John H. McCloskey
and not rational,...
>As if you know what I've been talking about, or even what you're talking
about.
>Get lost, you lying Queenie bitch.
>
>
>Billy
V. nice. If I had written the barbarians' party line myself, I'd never, being
civilized, have come up with anything so very exotic and yet so very typically
barbarous as this is. Allow me to re-recite it
"As if you know what I've been talking about, or even what you're talking
about. Get lost, you lying Queenie bitch."
Is it for THAT that our Tall Towers of Mammonite Pride were toppled and our
Defense Ministry's HQ thus ignominimously and undefendedly crashed into?
Is it all about "As if you know what I've been talking about, or even what
you're talking about. Get lost, you lying Queenie bitch"?
A case might easily be made, of course, but The Crime rather overshadows all
such mere marginal case-making.
Happier days, braver minds
--JHM
John T. Kennedy
Beck) wrote:
>
>John T. Kennedy <jt...@no-treason.com> wrote:
>
>>wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) wrote:
>
>>>>elchipod...@aol.com2600 (John H. McCloskey) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> > Hey, Billy! How much of YOUR tax-dollars went to support those pros?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Funny that he admires, speaks well of, and trusts big government
>>>>>>> if it is the military. I really think there is no real coherence
>>>>>>> to his point of view, he's probably better to ignore at this
>>>>>>> point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, I can see how obsessively you're "ignoring" him, Scott.
>>>
>>>>>Sure, sir, all very well, cheap-shotwise. BUT.....
>>>>>
>>>>>But isn't there perhaps an issue here? The curious affinity of the nominally
>>>>>adult Gandhi ideology of Planet Dilbert and the actually effective teenage
>>>>>Bismarckonihilist practice? Is there no puzzle, no problem, no difficulty
>>>>>here?
>>>
>>>>Yes John, there is at least a puzzle here.
>>>>
>>>>I would be very interested to hear Beck clarify whether he sanctions
>>>>government to fight a war like this on his behalf.
>>>>
>>>>Because lately it at least kind of sounds like he might, doesn't it?
>>>
>>> I said I'd send gold to pay for my end of it, John.
>>
>>As far as I know the carrier groups in question are not for hire on
>>that basis.
>
> I know that. Guess what: operations like Boeing are. Get it?
I didn't hear you say you were sending gold to Boeing, nor that they
were offering to take a war to the terrorists.
>
>>Consider also that money is fungible and the gold you send to
>>Washington will be used for other things as well, it will go into the
>>general fund just like taxes.
>
> That's exactly right.
>
> See how tangled it gets when it's one great big indiscriminate
>packages deal?
>
> I would remind you that this was not my idea.
I understand that much.
Well I like to think I've been paying attention and I've been a bit
puzzled.
>
>
>Billy
>
>VRWC Fronteer
>http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/
-
John T. Kennedy
elchipod...@aol.com2600 (John H. McCloskey) wrote:
>>>The Beck & Co. coherence has always been there, but only always sentimental
>and not rational,...
>
>>As if you know what I've been talking about, or even what you're talking
>about.
>
>>Get lost, you lying Queenie bitch.
>>
>>
>>Billy
>
>
>V. nice. If I had written the barbarians' party line myself, I'd never, being
>civilized, have come up with anything so very exotic and yet so very typically
>barbarous as this is. Allow me to re-recite it
>
> "As if you know what I've been talking about, or even what you're talking
>about. Get lost, you lying Queenie bitch."
>
>Is it for THAT that our Tall Towers of Mammonite Pride were toppled and our
>Defense Ministry's HQ thus ignominimously and undefendedly crashed into?
John, considering the way you post, how can even you think you merit
an answer at all?
You could argue your case in a stand-up manner, but you don't.
Do better.
>
> Is it all about "As if you know what I've been talking about, or even what
>you're talking about. Get lost, you lying Queenie bitch"?
>
> A case might easily be made, of course, but The Crime rather overshadows all
>such mere marginal case-making.
>
>Happier days, braver minds
> --JHM
>
>
>
>
-
Billy Beck
John T. Kennedy <jt...@no-treason.com> wrote:
>wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) wrote:
>>>>>elchipod...@aol.com2600 (John H. McCloskey) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > Hey, Billy! How much of YOUR tax-dollars went to support those pros?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Funny that he admires, speaks well of, and trusts big government
>>>>>>>> if it is the military. I really think there is no real coherence
>>>>>>>> to his point of view, he's probably better to ignore at this
>>>>>>>> point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes, I can see how obsessively you're "ignoring" him, Scott.
>>>>
>>>>>>Sure, sir, all very well, cheap-shotwise. BUT.....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But isn't there perhaps an issue here? The curious affinity of the nominally
>>>>>>adult Gandhi ideology of Planet Dilbert and the actually effective teenage
>>>>>>Bismarckonihilist practice? Is there no puzzle, no problem, no difficulty
>>>>>>here?
>>>>
>>>>>Yes John, there is at least a puzzle here.
>>>>>
>>>>>I would be very interested to hear Beck clarify whether he sanctions
>>>>>government to fight a war like this on his behalf.
>>>>>
>>>>>Because lately it at least kind of sounds like he might, doesn't it?
>>>>
>>>> I said I'd send gold to pay for my end of it, John.
>>>
>>>As far as I know the carrier groups in question are not for hire on
>>>that basis.
>>
>> I know that. Guess what: operations like Boeing are. Get it?
>
>I didn't hear you say you were sending gold to Boeing, nor that they
>were offering to take a war to the terrorists.
For *Christ's* sake, John. Are you just trolling now, or what?
Are you *really* not able to sort out the fact that the *scale* of any
given endeavor is not a validation of the alleged necessity of
government? I can't even believe this, now. Have you just been
*faking* it for several years now, or what? What, exactly, have you
been thinking about, if anything? Look: if we can enjoy the services
of something like Boeing through ordinary division-of-labor in an
advanced economy, then there is no reason on earth why we could not
assemble carrier battle groups in exactly the same way. This is
*elementary*. We "hire" Boeing. Why not hire naval power? Two
hundred years ago, it's exactly what some people actually did. And
before someone comes toddling along with the lame pitch that "times
have changed", I'll just point out that naval power was as big a deal
to them, then, as it is to us, now. The principles do not change with
the times, and, unfashionable as they are in popular consideration,
I'm simply going to point out that they work, nonetheless.
>>>At the very least this begs a more nuanced explanation than has been
>>>offered so far.
>>
>> If that's true, then it's true only among people who've not been
>>paying attention.
>
>Well I like to think I've been paying attention and I've been a bit
>puzzled.
I can tell, and I have to tell you that I'm mystified. What I'm
seeing here is an inability with principles, and I don't understand it
at all.
Look, man: I'm not really here to beat you up or anything, but I
have to tell you that this is just appalling. What it tells me is
that you're not thinking from the bottom, up. You're looking at this
particular issue -- and I have to wonder at how many others -- from
the classic "floating abstraction" perspective: you see a carrier
battle group sailing off, and it doesn't occur to you to really
examine what it takes to make that happen. You simply take it for
granted that government is a necssary element, and the point of my
Boeing example was that the same logic could be applied in that case,
except for one thing: it's not true.
So, the question, as always is: what *is* true?
And; how do you know? How are you *going* to know?
Is it *important* to know? Or should we just roll along with
whatever the action happens to be in any given moment, decade, or
century, or what? What difference does it make?
Billy Beck
John T. Kennedy <jt...@no-treason.com> wrote:
>elchipod...@aol.com2600 (John H. McCloskey) wrote:
<tear>
>John, considering the way you post, how can even you think you merit
>an answer at all?
>
>You could argue your case in a stand-up manner, but you don't.
There is a *reason* for that, and it's part of why I say he's a
goddamned liar.
John H. McCloskey
>an answer at all?
>
>You could argue your case in a stand-up manner, but you don't.
>
>Do better.
>>>>
I dunno about my "stand-up manner," sir. Isn't that more like along the lines
of the Friends of Eddie Burke?
Let me copy that allusion out chapter-and verse from op. cit. --
"He's a pretty tough kid, the prosecutor said, "Look, we don't need to stand
here and play the waltz music. You know what you got: you got a mean kid.
He's been lucky up to now; he's never been caught before. And you know what I
got, too: I got him fat. You've talked to him. You saw him and you told him
it was talk or take the fall, and he told you to go and fuck yourself, or
something equally polite. So now you got to try the case, because he won't
plead without a deal that puts him on the street and I don't make that kind of
deal for machinegun salesmen that don't want to give me anything. So we try
this one, and it'll take two days or so, and he'll get convicted. The the
boss'll tell me to say three or maybe five, and the judge'll give him two,
maybe three, and you'll appeal, maybe, and sometime around Washington's
Birthday, he'll surrender to the marshalls and go to Danbury for a while.
Hell, he'll be out in a year, year and a half. It isn''t as though he was up
against a twenty-year minimum mandatory."
"And in another year or so," Clark said, "he'll be in again, here or
someplace else, and I'll be talking to some other bastard, or maybe even you
again, and we'll try another one and he'll go away again. Is there any end to
this shit? Does anything ever change in this racket?"
"Hey Foss," the prosecutor said, taking Clark by the arm, "of course it
changes. Don't take it so hard. Some of us die, the rest of us get older, new
guys come along, old guys disappear. It changes every day."
"It's hard to notice, though," Clark said.
"It is," the prosecutor said, "it certainly is."
Tom Robertson
<snip>
>if we can enjoy the services
>of something like Boeing through ordinary division-of-labor in an
>advanced economy, then there is no reason on earth why we could not
>assemble carrier battle groups in exactly the same way.
Who's "we?" I'd act in my rational best self-interest and let others
pay for it without, by your reasoning, violating any of my
obligations. Do you think I'd be alone? Why would you consider it in
your best interests to contribute to such a project when your
contribution, or lack thereof, will have a tiny chance of deciding
whether it gets done or not? And how many people, who would have paid
for part of it had everyone else been legally obligated to pay for it,
not pay for any of it because there would be so many freeloaders like
me? Who would be left to pay for something like this that can only
have collective benefit? Are you going to somehow protect only those
who pay from terrorists?
<snip>
Who Cares?
news:3bacce6...@news.mindspring.com...
>
> I can tell, and I have to tell you that I'm mystified. What I'm
> seeing here is an inability with principles, and I don't understand it
> at all.
Sad. Billy's just gonna keep playing word
games. I thought better of you.
> You simply take it for
> granted that government is a necssary element, and the point of my
> Boeing example was that the same logic could be applied in that case,
> except for one thing: it's not true
It's called "reality", Billy. Check into it.
John T. Kennedy
Beck) wrote:
I understand. I thought your offer of gold was to the actual U.S.
armed forces, not hypothetical entities which do not currently exist.
I don't dismiss the public goods problem of military defense as easily
as you do, I don't think it's at all clear that free market agencies
could ever match the firepower of a leviathan like the U.S.
But I can live with that because 1) I don't think they'd have to, and
more important 2) "solving" the problem via government only creates
the more intractable problem of defense *from* government.
>
>>>>At the very least this begs a more nuanced explanation than has been
>>>>offered so far.
>>>
>>> If that's true, then it's true only among people who've not been
>>>paying attention.
>>
>>Well I like to think I've been paying attention and I've been a bit
>>puzzled.
>
> I can tell, and I have to tell you that I'm mystified. What I'm
>seeing here is an inability with principles, and I don't understand it
>at all.
>
> Look, man: I'm not really here to beat you up or anything,
You can try, but I really don't see the point.
>but I
>have to tell you that this is just appalling. What it tells me is
>that you're not thinking from the bottom, up.
No Billy, I don't think you're hearing me, because...
> You're looking at this
>particular issue -- and I have to wonder at how many others -- from
>the classic "floating abstraction" perspective: you see a carrier
>battle group sailing off, and it doesn't occur to you to really
>examine what it takes to make that happen. You simply take it for
>granted that government is a necssary element, and the point of my
>Boeing example was that the same logic could be applied in that case,
>except for one thing: it's not true.
...I take nothing of the sort for granted.
It just sounded to me like you've sometimes talked of "our" carrier
groups when in fact I don't have one and neither do you and neither of
us has any immediate prospect of having one at his disposal.
What should people do *now* Billy, to fight these terrorists? You
don't get to fix the world in a day all you get to do say what people
should do now.
Do you want the carrier groups commanded by Bush and Co. going over
there or not?
Here's my answer: I don't want them going under these circumstances,
and they certainly may not go on my behalf. What Bush and Congress and
The People *should* do is disband the union and auction off all public
property including all the military hardware.
Failing that, as I'm confident they will, I will applaud when the
*anyone* takes down the terrorists, but I don't sanction governments
to do the things they do to accomplish that.
>
> So, the question, as always is: what *is* true?
>
> And; how do you know? How are you *going* to know?
>
> Is it *important* to know? Or should we just roll along with
>whatever the action happens to be in any given moment, decade, or
>century, or what? What difference does it make?
>
>
>Billy
>
>VRWC Fronteer
>http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/
-
John T. Kennedy
Beck) wrote:
>
>John T. Kennedy <jt...@no-treason.com> wrote:
>
>>elchipod...@aol.com2600 (John H. McCloskey) wrote:
>
><tear>
>
>>John, considering the way you post, how can even you think you merit
>>an answer at all?
>>
>>You could argue your case in a stand-up manner, but you don't.
>
> There is a *reason* for that, and it's part of why I say he's a
>goddamned liar.
What do you think the reason is?
John is undeniably a weasel of the first order, but he's his own
unique kind of weasel, unlike any of the others. He's the Lone Weasel.
I see the virtues that Sabotta sees and that's why I hold McCloskey in
the greatest contempt, he is quite capable of doing better.
>
>
>Billy
>
>VRWC Fronteer
>http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/
-
John T. Kennedy
elchipod...@aol.com2600 (John H. McCloskey) wrote:
>>considering the way you post, how can even you think you merit
>>an answer at all?
>>
>>You could argue your case in a stand-up manner, but you don't.
>>
>>Do better.
>>>>>
>
>I dunno about my "stand-up manner," sir. Isn't that more like along the lines
>of the Friends of Eddie Burke?
When you want to argue your position John, let me know.
I'm here for you.
>
>Let me copy that allusion out chapter-and verse from op. cit. --
>
>"He's a pretty tough kid, the prosecutor said, "Look, we don't need to stand
>here and play the waltz music. You know what you got: you got a mean kid.
>He's been lucky up to now; he's never been caught before. And you know what I
>got, too: I got him fat. You've talked to him. You saw him and you told him
>it was talk or take the fall, and he told you to go and fuck yourself, or
>something equally polite. So now you got to try the case, because he won't
>plead without a deal that puts him on the street and I don't make that kind of
>deal for machinegun salesmen that don't want to give me anything. So we try
>this one, and it'll take two days or so, and he'll get convicted. The the
>boss'll tell me to say three or maybe five, and the judge'll give him two,
>maybe three, and you'll appeal, maybe, and sometime around Washington's
>Birthday, he'll surrender to the marshalls and go to Danbury for a while.
>Hell, he'll be out in a year, year and a half. It isn''t as though he was up
>against a twenty-year minimum mandatory."
>
> "And in another year or so," Clark said, "he'll be in again, here or
>someplace else, and I'll be talking to some other bastard, or maybe even you
>again, and we'll try another one and he'll go away again. Is there any end to
>this shit? Does anything ever change in this racket?"
>
> "Hey Foss," the prosecutor said, taking Clark by the arm, "of course it
>changes. Don't take it so hard. Some of us die, the rest of us get older, new
>guys come along, old guys disappear. It changes every day."
>
> "It's hard to notice, though," Clark said.
>
> "It is," the prosecutor said, "it certainly is."
>
-
John T. Kennedy
<mdm...@att.net> wrote:
Who's going to protect you from government?
http://www.anti-state.com/kennedy/kennedy1.html
The Fundamental Fallacy of Government
by John T. Kennedy
Why do we need government?
Government is a monopoly of force. Why is it that most people favor
such a monopoly?
The Declaration of Independence says:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted
among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed."
Setting aside the question of a Creator, I agree in principle that
first sentence. It says that there are values which are appropriate to
men according to their nature and that rights are implicit in their
relationship with those values.
The next sentence offers a reason why we are supposed to need
government: We need government to secure rights. This quaint notion
has gone a bit out of fashion with many advocates of government, today
they typically want government to secure all kinds of things, many of
which have nothing to do with rights, but they all want government to
secure something. And they're convinced that only government can do
it.
Why can't people secure their rights, or anything else they need, by
voluntary means? Why can't people freely contract to secure whatever
they need to secure? Why is a government, a monopoly on force,
necessary to secure anything essential?
The fundamental answer which advocates of government offer for these
questions is that we need government to solve a public goods problem.
We are told that there is something that we all need, but that we will
not secure by voluntary means. Often the argument is used for
defense. The argument is that we all need to be defended from foreign
invaders but the necessary means to do so cannot be funded on a
voluntary basis. If the funding of defense is to be voluntary, what
incentive is there for the individual to fund it? After all, for the
defense to be viable a large number of people must voluntarily
contribute their resources to it, but the individual only controls the
actions of one person. Thus the individual has substantial incentive
to be a free rider, he'll get the benefit of defense whether he
contributes or not, and the defense will be funded or not regardless
of whether the particular individual contributes or not.
I acknowledge this is a legitimate concern and I don't offer any easy
answers.
I just point out that the government as a cure is worse than the
disease.
Government "solves" one public goods problem by creating another that
cannot be solved. Let's assume a government is instituted to solve the
public goods problem of defense. A mandatory tax is imposed on
everyone in the territory to fund defense. Of course force will be
used to extract the taxes from any who would not pay voluntarily. But
in the end we get the defense we all need by eliminating free riding.
So far so good?
Oops, there's a catch.
You see, by instituting a monopoly of force you've created another
threat that people need protection from - the government itself. How
will people restrain that government? How can they prevent it from
becoming a tyranny?
You have another public goods problem on your hands. And you can't
solve this one the way you "solved" the first. Everyone needs
government restrained but that can only be achieved by the voluntary
donation of efforts by a great many people. But government will be
restrained or not regardless of what the individual does, so he has
the very same incentive to be a free rider with respect to the
restraint of government as he had with respect to defense. And while
you can force people to fund defense you cannot even in principle
force people to restrain government since the act of forcing them
would be an act of governing.
So government can only be restrained by widespread voluntary donations
of effort. But the argument for instituting this government in the
first place was that individuals could not be relied on to make such
voluntary donations of effort. If you can't rely on people to
voluntarily donate the effort required to repel a foreign invader, how
can you rely upon them to voluntarily donate the effort to restrain
government?
If voluntary effort can be relied upon to restrain government then you
don't need government because voluntary effort could then be relied
upon to solve the problems that government is supposed to solve. In
this case there is no justification for government since there is no
public goods problem to be solved by a monopoly of force. There's no
way to justify forcing people to solve problems that they are
perfectly capable of solving voluntarily.
And if voluntary effort cannot be relied upon to restrain government
then there is no justification for government because you haven't
solved any public goods problem by instituting government, you've only
made things worse by creating a public goods problem that cannot be
solved.
In either case government makes things worse.
Sorry folks, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch, and the
argument that government is necessary to secure something that we all
need has never been anything but an argument for a free lunch.
July 30, 2001
Wayne Mann
<johns...@removethishome.net> wrote:
>In article <ha8nqt8occlo3mg1n...@4ax.com>,
> "Zepp, No Weasels in the Bush" <ze...@snowcrest.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 21 Sep 2001 17:54:09 GMT, wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >tyrebi...@workmail.com (George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>> >
>> >>wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) wrote:
>> >
>> >>>"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>If you know your attacker and can fight back effectively. That's
>> >>>>the hard part of all of this. Also, if you study foreign policy
>> >>>>and military strategy, there is an extreme advantage in knowing
>> >>>>your enemies motives and beliefs, that can come in very handy in
>> >>>>figuring out the most effective response.
>> >>>
>> >>> Well, Scotti, one clear fact is that terrible red Mr. Rogers
>> >>>sweaters generally make for poor battle-dress.
>> >>>
>> >>> Beyond that, "the most effective response" in this case is going
>> >>>to be "get there first with the most" in order to stomp the livin'
>> >>>Jesus out of anyone interested in flying airliners through Manhattan
>> >>>office buildings.
>> >>>
>> >>> I'm sure you'll understand.
>> >>
>> >>How do we know which those are?
>> >
>> > "We" don't, girlfriend. There are pros in the saddle, now.
>>
>> What's THIS? Billy is suddenly pro-government?
>>
>> Hey, Billy! How much of YOUR tax-dollars went to support those pros?
>
>Taxation is certainly a involved subject. There are federal, state and
>local taxes - an example of the latter might be property taxes.
>
>What issue connected with taxation were you interested in discussing,
>Bryan?
>
>JS
>
John, if you need any help with any of the taxes during your
discussion, just let me know!
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
wrote:
>
>tyrebi...@workmail.com (George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>
>>wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) wrote:
>
>>>>How do we know which those are?
>>>
>>> "We" don't, girlfriend. There are pros in the saddle, now.
>>
>>You seem to be the sort of person who thinks that a real man has to be
>>really stupid.
>>
>>Why is that?
>>
>>We don't even have one person in our military who speaks the language
>>of sothern Afghanistan, apparently.
>>
>>When you don't even speak the lingo, I am not so sure you can be
>>called a "pro" about these people.
>
> Who said anything about me?
> Why aren't you paying attention?
there are pros in the saddle, you said.
Those experienced at letting Hussein live to fight another day, and
blow us up?
To impose a trade embargo causing the death of countless innocents, so
as to turn tens of millions irreparably against us?
Those pros are back in the saddle?
Matt Daly
<jt...@no-treason.com> wrote:
My sentiment exactly. Thanks for the words, John.
Furthermore, there's the secondary dynamic: this government, these
politicians, will continue to pursue only those causes which are
calculated to strengthen their grip and further their powers. Regardless
of the worthiness of any of their targets, including this most recent
one, they'll never have my sanction or support in the pursuit.
It brings me to an uncomfortable pardox, and to the most horrible of
realizations: there are many reasons why I hope this government fails
miserably in this misguided adventure.
Tom Robertson
<snip>
>Who's going to protect you from government?
>
>http://www.anti-state.com/kennedy/kennedy1.html
I agree with everything you say here except the conclusion. I agree
that there's no feasible way to watch the watchers. That's a problem.
But on what do you base the conclusion that it's worse to have a
government than it is for the government to provide for a common
defense? Not having a national defense is also a problem. Why is one
problem necessarily worse than the other?
Richard
"tjwilson" <tjwi...@hb.quik.com> wrote in message
news:l6Jq7.6700$ah.1...@newsfeed.intelenet.net...
>
> Scott D. Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:3BAB4CE7...@worldnet.att.net...
> > Who is the enemy and what do they want? Politicians label them
> > "cowards" and "lunatics." If only. The terrorists are NOT
> > cowards or insane. That is one myth that we need ot dispell. If
> > they were cowardly and insane, they'd be easier to defeat. They
> > see themselves at war with the US, a war they believe goes back
> > to the colonial powers coming to the mideast for oil and
> > infiltrating the region. They look at the US attacks on Iraq
> > which killed tens of thousands, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict
> > where the US supports Israel, the US bombing a couple years ago
> > in Afghanistan and the Sudan, and Osama Bin Laden opposes the
> > stationing of American troops on what he considers Islamic holy
> > land.
>
> I don't think it matters now what they believe. When you are attscked
> it is beeter to fight back and think later. Remember, they tryed to
> destroy us.
> >
> > They believe their culture and values are being destroyed by the
> > West and especially America, who wants oil and wants to spread
> > values inimical to their culture. Since America is a superpower
> > there is no way to strike back effectively as a state, so they
> > are rationally choosing a way to find where their huge enemy is
> > vulnerable. In their minds its like when we dropped the A-bomb on
> > Japan, killing hundreds of thousands. They know there will be
> > innocents killed (though they believe Americans support their
> > regime's acts) but believe its necessary to turn this war around.
> > They are motivated, dedicated, and believe they have justice on
> > their side. Insane cowards we could deal with easily. These folk
> > are much tougher.
>
> In war innocent people will be killed. The enemy should have known that
> before they attacked us. Better their innocent die than ours. I agree
that
> they
> are tough; but we are tougher. The Nazis and the Fascist Japs foun that
> out.
>
What's that we stuff? Got a mouse in your pocket?
Been hiking in the summer in the San Bernardino Mountains lately?
The terrorists do it all the time in similar terrain - for weeks and months
at a time, and they have a pretty awsome record of not getting defeated by
numbers many times theirs. The Russians tried it, and they aren't exactly
wimps.
Try it sometime. Even without someone taking pot shots at you, you wouldn't
likely survive.
--
--Richard
If Liberals aren't paranoid in these times, they just have no sense of
self-preservation.
> >
> > President Bush said they wanted to spread their fundamentalism
> > world wide and destroy democracy. That is, at least according to
> > experts from stratfor.com to CNN, wrong. Their main motive seems
> > to be expelling the West from the mideast. They hit us where we
> > are vulnerable not because they want to destroy New York, but
> > they want to create a condition where we will lose our ability to
> > effectively remain on "their" territory.
>
> How do we know that the stratfor.com and CNN are not wrong.
> Were they at the WTC on 9-11? I think you lie when you say we
> occupy their territory. This is not a war for territory. It is a war of
> freedom against terrorism.
> >
> > Another possible enemy here is Saddam, if we are to believe
> > Israeli intelligence. His motivation is more base: revenge. He
> > wants to die having hit the US back hard and with what his warped
> > mind considers "glory," rather than die as the man who simply was
> > defeated by America.
> >
> > The first step to effectively combating either the anti-West
> > religious fanaticism of the terrorists or the revenge bloodlust
> > of a Saddam is to know and understand how they think and what
> > they want. But that's only the first step.
>
> Your mind seems to be clouded. I understand it perfectly. It's a war
> against terrorism. You are either on the side of freedom or on the side
> of the terrorist.
> tjw
>
John T. Kennedy
<mdm...@att.net> wrote:
>John T. Kennedy <jt...@no-treason.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>Who's going to protect you from government?
>>
>>http://www.anti-state.com/kennedy/kennedy1.html
>
>I agree with everything you say here except the conclusion. I agree
>that there's no feasible way to watch the watchers. That's a problem.
>But on what do you base the conclusion that it's worse to have a
>government than it is for the government to provide for a common
>defense?
Because you're actively feeding the leviathan that will inevitably be
turned against you. You're building a bigger danger right in your own
backyard, handing it the tools it needs to rule you.
>Not having a national defense is also a problem. Why is one
>problem necessarily worse than the other?
Even if you think it's not, by conceding that government does not in
fact solve a public goods problem you've already lost any moral
argument for imposing it.
Billy Beck
Tom Robertson <mdm...@att.net> wrote:
>wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>if we can enjoy the services
>>of something like Boeing through ordinary division-of-labor in an
>>advanced economy, then there is no reason on earth why we could not
>>assemble carrier battle groups in exactly the same way.
>
>Who's "we?" I'd act in my rational best self-interest and let others
>pay for it without, by your reasoning, violating any of my
>obligations.
Hey: *I* would be interested in putting something like that
together -- especially in times like these -- and you wouldn't matter
to me.
>Do you think I'd be alone?
<shrug> Don't know and don't care. I know I wouldn't be.
Billy Beck
>wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) wrote:
I hope you don't think I'm not serious, John, because if my word
means anything at all to you, I can assure you I am. Nobody you know
or see is as serious about this as I am.
>I don't dismiss the public goods problem of military defense as easily
>as you do, I don't think it's at all clear that free market agencies
>could ever match the firepower of a leviathan like the U.S.
To begin with, "the public goods problem" is the problem of
people insufficiently convinced of their own values to act on them
with nothing but that conviction. Me? I don't worry whether you or
anyone else thinks what I want is a good thing, but here's something
else I know: in the main, the things I want are quite rational, and
that necssarily means that there is nothing so uncommon about them
that millions of others wouldn't want them, too. To rational people,
the matter of self defence is as obvious as sunrise, and among people
advanced enough to develop the economy that we have, it is simply
absurd to imagine that, absent government, they would not pay
attention to what it takes, to include all the best tools. If you
want to talk about "leviathans", you ought to zoom your focus out to
the big picture of all the things that Americans have produced bigger
and better than anyone in history, and you know it, and you know why.
>But I can live with that because 1) I don't think they'd have to,...
I largely agree: we would not be in this mess. However, that's
not to say that there would be no such thing as military
professionalism. I hit on this in "Esteem Well-Earned" at my Website.
Bad guys are a fact of life, and it's a good thing to be ready and
able to meet them on their own terms.
>...and more important 2) "solving" the problem via government only creates
>the more intractable problem of defense *from* government.
That's exactly right. There is no way to attend the current
unpleasantness without paying close attention to the domestic civil
liberties implications. If you think the War on Poverty and the War
on Drugs are bad, wait'll you see the War on Terrorism. The Lying
Bastard was a piker by comparison to what we're into, now.
I don't know, John. There is no trail of bread crumbs to follow
backward through the events and policies that have resulted in what
we've got now. Get a load of this: on MSNBC, I just watched a film
produced by a guy who toured Afghanistan a while back. In a prologue,
there were bits of an interview with bin Laden. Three times, he
explicitly pointed out that the man who pays taxes and supports the
American government is as much a fighter as the guy with an M-16 in
the field in a foreign country.
Think about that. In a phone call with me mate Jid O'Brien on
9-11, he made the point that, if he could sit down and talk to bin
Laden, he'd tell the guy, "Look: it's not like this government is
listening to *me*, so how do you know you're not getting set to kill
the wrong guy?" Several times, I've thought about how I would put
that case to him if I could, although I really hold no illusions that
it would work, because it's not that simple. There's all the
religious rubbish involved, as well. However, when I heard the words
actually come out of his mouth in the interview, there was simply no
question about it: he's *right*. He's making the same argument made
by people right here in this country who assign responsibility for
*Waco*, and there are crucial elements of truth in that, which cannot
be rationally denied.
>Do you want the carrier groups commanded by Bush and Co. going over
>there or not?
It's really not that simple to me.
>Here's my answer: I don't want them going under these circumstances,
>and they certainly may not go on my behalf. What Bush and Congress and
>The People *should* do is disband the union and auction off all public
>property including all the military hardware.
Well, I certainly agree with that, but it's not going to happen
before these animals are caged and destroyed, if *that* ever actually
happens.
>Failing that, as I'm confident they will, I will applaud when the
>*anyone* takes down the terrorists, but I don't sanction governments
>to do the things they do to accomplish that.
That whole point goes to my "package deal" argument. You're
right. What's sad to me is that there is no doubt an abundance of
competent military talent around the world, outside of officialdom,
that could deal with this, but they're simply not allowed to, in the
same way that none of them could have interevened at Sarajevo where
innocent people got shot down while "officials" stood around with the
thumbs up their asses. The general premise that governments are
*most* qualified is just idiotic, but we live in the Age of Bullshit,
so everything is quite proper at the moment.
Who Cares?
>
> Hey: *I* would be interested in putting something like that
> together -- especially in times like these -- and you wouldn't matter
> to me.
Oh, yeah, Billy would sure be interested NOW,
but heck, there was never any "free market"
demand so the research and manufacturing
facilities and skills built up over 50 years
don't exist.
Ooops.
You'd be interested... but you couldn't do it.
Man, why don't you just finally screw your
head on straight?
Just do it already. It's not that damn hard.
You're smarter than Trebor, you know.
John D.
(snip)
> That's exactly right. There is no way to attend the current
> unpleasantness without paying close attention to the domestic civil
> liberties implications. If you think the War on Poverty and the War
> on Drugs are bad, wait'll you see the War on Terrorism. The Lying
> Bastard was a piker by comparison to what we're into, now.
>
Could very well do more damage to what's left of our Freedom than the
terrorist's war.
John D.
Billy Beck
Matt Daly <matl...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>John T. Kennedy <jt...@no-treason.com> wrote:
>> What should people do *now* Billy, to fight these terrorists? You
>> don't get to fix the world in a day all you get to do say what people
>> should do now.
>>
>> Do you want the carrier groups commanded by Bush and Co. going over
>> there or not?
>>
>> Here's my answer: I don't want them going under these circumstances,
>> and they certainly may not go on my behalf. What Bush and Congress and
>> The People *should* do is disband the union and auction off all public
>> property including all the military hardware.
>My sentiment exactly. Thanks for the words, John.
>
>Furthermore, there's the secondary dynamic: this government, these
>politicians, will continue to pursue only those causes which are
>calculated to strengthen their grip and further their powers. Regardless
>of the worthiness of any of their targets, including this most recent
>one, they'll never have my sanction or support in the pursuit.
>
>It brings me to an uncomfortable pardox, and to the most horrible of
>realizations: there are many reasons why I hope this government fails
>miserably in this misguided adventure.
That's a ballsy way to put it, Matt. I understand you
completely, but if you said something like that on the street today,
you'd get instantly trampled underfoot.
What you're saying is not at all the same as saying that you hope
for anything good for the terrorists. But the land abounds with
cynics who think their case would be made if they merely got you to
deny it.
The whole issue really, actually, is "horrible". It's why I've
not set out a complete original essay on any of this yet. On
September 11, I knew all day long -- and literally within seconds of
first seeing the North Tower -- that it was an obviously immortal
moment of history, and that something should be said to address that
fact. Well, everybody and their brother was already saying it within
hours, and I didn't have good reason enough to simply punch my
time-card like that. Statements, decisions, and events began a futile
race to keep up with necessary implications, which were simply
audience to the sounds of shattered pieces falling to the floor of
popular consciousness.
But what's necessary is to pick up the pieces and put them in
*rational order*, and there is one hell of a lot of them.
Don't think that the articles you've posted here and at Am_Lib
have escaped my attention.
I know exactly what you're saying, and there's no way around it.
Josh Rosenbluth
> see themselves at war with the US, a war they believe goes back
> to the colonial powers coming to the mideast for oil and
> infiltrating the region. They look at the US attacks on Iraq
> which killed tens of thousands, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict
> where the US supports Israel, the US bombing a couple years ago
> in Afghanistan and the Sudan, and Osama Bin Laden opposes the
> stationing of American troops on what he considers Islamic holy
> land.
>
> West and especially America, who wants oil and wants to spread
> values inimical to their culture.
The thesis that specific American policies and actions led to the WTC
attacks (also put forth in
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1552000/1552900.stm,
Jim Muir's "Explaining Arab Anger") is absurd. Even worse is the
barely-hidden implication that because of these policies, "accumulated
poison" according to Muir, that America had it coming.
I agree that American policies have often been unjust and explain much
of the hatred of America widespread in the Middle East. But that
isn't the dynamic here. Christopher Hitchens makes the case more
eloquently than I can.
excerpted from http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011008&s=hitchens
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In one form or another, the people who leveled the World Trade Center
are the same people who threw acid in the faces of unveiled women in
Kabul and Karachi, who maimed and eviscerated two of the translators
of The Satanic Verses and who machine-gunned architectural tourists at
Luxor. Even as we worry what they may intend for our society, we can
see very plainly what they have in mind for their own: a bleak and
sterile theocracy enforced by advanced techniques.
I was apprehensive from the first moment about the sort of masochistic
e-mail traffic that might start circulating from the
Chomsky-Zinn-Finkelstein quarter, and I was not to be disappointed.
With all due thanks to these worthy comrades, I know already that the
people of Palestine and Iraq are victims of a depraved and callous
Western statecraft. [...] But there is no sense in which the events of
September 11 can be held to constitute such a reprisal, either legally
or morally.
It is worse than idle to propose the very trade-offs that may have
been lodged somewhere in the closed-off minds of the mass murderers.
The people of Gaza live under curfew and humiliation and
expropriation. This is notorious. Very well: Does anyone suppose that
an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza would have forestalled the slaughter
in Manhattan? It would take a moral cretin to suggest anything of the
sort; the cadres of the new jihad make it very apparent that their
quarrel is with Judaism and secularism on principle, not with (or not
just with) Zionism. They regard the Saudi regime not as the extreme
authoritarian theocracy that it is, but as something too soft and
lenient. The Taliban forces viciously persecute the Shiite minority in
Afghanistan. The Muslim fanatics in Indonesia try to extirpate the
infidel minorities there; civil society in Algeria is barely breathing
after the fundamentalist assault.
[...] the bombers of Manhattan represent fascism with an Islamic face,
and there's no point in any euphemism about it. What they abominate
about "the West," to put it in a phrase, is not what Western liberals
don't like and can't defend about their own system, but what they do
like about it and must defend: its emancipated women, its scientific
inquiry, its separation of religion from the state. Loose talk about
chickens coming home to roost is the moral equivalent of the hateful
garbage emitted by Falwell and Robertson, and exhibits about the same
intellectual content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Rosenbluth
Billy Beck
jrose...@att.com (Josh Rosenbluth) wrote:
>"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote...
Very good, Josh. As usual, Hitchens has his finger on the pulse
far more closely than nearly any of his lefty "comrades", which is
also why I don't believe I'll ever solve the mystery of why he won't
be a full-grown libertarian. He has a certain crippled sort of
clarity that I've seen in other very disappointing cases, like Hunter
S. Thompson or Frank Zappa.
In any case, I would point out that necessary and direct
comparisons between the Taliban and Khmer Rouge should bring the
paltry gut-reflex of his chosen word "fascism" into sharp relief for
the rotting shibboleth it really is.
Michael Schneider
<jt...@no-treason.com> wrote:
> In <3bacce6...@news.mindspring.com> wj...@mindspring.com (Billy
> Beck) wrote:
>
> I don't dismiss the public goods problem of military defense as easily
> as you do, I don't think it's at all clear that free market agencies
> could ever match the firepower of a leviathan like the U.S.
Bulk does not equate to utility.
Various & sundry are convinced that the operations carried out on Sept.
11 were financed by the private donations of, among others, Saudi
millionaires. While their goals are contemptible, their manner of
fundraising is far less so than Washington's coercive taxation.
Billy's offer of $1000 to the government (if to them -- I didn't catch
the very beginning of this, and it's a million back now) is not morally
indefensible, since (1) it's *his* money, and (2) he has every reason to
believe that nearly all of it will be devoted to hunting down terrorists
since that's the new major expense to be factored into the budget (to the
detriment of other budget items such as weezil-cheese).
--
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/American_Liberty/files/al.htm
Reply to mike1@@@usfamily.net sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.
John T. Kennedy
<vene...@home.net> wrote:
>"Billy Beck" <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:3bad439e...@news.mindspring.com...
>>
>> Hey: *I* would be interested in putting something like that
>> together -- especially in times like these -- and you wouldn't matter
>> to me.
>
>
> Oh, yeah, Billy would sure be interested NOW,
> but heck, there was never any "free market"
> demand so the research and manufacturing
> facilities and skills built up over 50 years
> don't exist.
Because your government has imposed a monopoly on such defense by
force.
>
> Ooops.
>
> You'd be interested... but you couldn't do it.
>
> Man, why don't you just finally screw your
> head on straight?
>
> Just do it already. It's not that damn hard.
>
> You're smarter than Trebor, you know.
>
>
-
AntisDoLie
> Where does it mention "Office of Homeland Security" in the
> Constitution?
Right after it says "Power to Control Guns".
Jim
John T. Kennedy
Beck) wrote:
Like I said, if they nail the terrorists I'll stand up and cheer, for
the deed itself.
While government is evil in principle, it's not correct to say it
never does a good thing. When a house in my neighborhood is on fire of
course I want the fire put out. If it's put out by a government
agency it's still a good thing. The fact that the service is
socialized is a very bad thing but the isolated act of putting out the
fire is still good.
I fully appreciate the brave fire fighters and policemen who died
trying to rescue people from the WTC, but their individual virtues
have nothing to do with the agencies they serve in.
>
> The whole issue really, actually, is "horrible". It's why I've
>not set out a complete original essay on any of this yet. On
>September 11, I knew all day long -- and literally within seconds of
>first seeing the North Tower -- that it was an obviously immortal
>moment of history, and that something should be said to address that
>fact. Well, everybody and their brother was already saying it within
>hours, and I didn't have good reason enough to simply punch my
>time-card like that. Statements, decisions, and events began a futile
>race to keep up with necessary implications, which were simply
>audience to the sounds of shattered pieces falling to the floor of
>popular consciousness.
>
> But what's necessary is to pick up the pieces and put them in
>*rational order*, and there is one hell of a lot of them.
>
> Don't think that the articles you've posted here and at Am_Lib
>have escaped my attention.
>
> I know exactly what you're saying, and there's no way around it.
>
>
>Billy
>
>VRWC Fronteer
>http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/
-
Scott D. Erb
terrorists with justifying their actions. You can understand,
say, the motive of a killer (suffered child abuse, had feelings
of inferiority and hidden rage) without saying that means his act
of murder is just or should not be punished. Killing thousands
cannot be justified.
But to respond effectively we have to understand what drives the
terrorirsts, and that includes understanding their beliefs about
the world and the role of the West and America. Our policy also
has to be sensitive to the fact that acts we take could inflame
some towards support of the terrorist position. Understanding
all that and considering it when creating a policy is a necessity
for effective policy. It in no way justifies the acts of
terrorism, whether they take one life or 10,000. It's too bad
that some critics of US policy seem to see this as something the
US had coming to it. That kind of thinking is dead wrong and
inhumane.
John T. Kennedy
Beck) wrote:
Just stating the facts about what I thought. If I thought you weren't
serious I'd say so. I'm not shy about challenging anyone
>
>>I don't dismiss the public goods problem of military defense as easily
>>as you do, I don't think it's at all clear that free market agencies
>>could ever match the firepower of a leviathan like the U.S.
>
> To begin with, "the public goods problem" is the problem of
>people insufficiently convinced of their own values to act on them
>with nothing but that conviction. Me? I don't worry whether you or
>anyone else thinks what I want is a good thing, but here's something
>else I know: in the main, the things I want are quite rational, and
>that necssarily means that there is nothing so uncommon about them
>that millions of others wouldn't want them, too. To rational people,
>the matter of self defence is as obvious as sunrise, and among people
>advanced enough to develop the economy that we have, it is simply
>absurd to imagine that, absent government, they would not pay
>attention to what it takes, to include all the best tools. If you
>want to talk about "leviathans", you ought to zoom your focus out to
>the big picture of all the things that Americans have produced bigger
>and better than anyone in history, and you know it, and you know why.
Sometimes I think you don't quite understand what a public goods
problem is. "Public goods problem" is a technical economic term
referring to a very real phenomenon. It's not necessarily a problem
for people to solve in the conventional sense at all. It refers to
situations where individual rational self interest does not lead to
efficient outcomes, it refers to instances of market failure. Again,
"efficient" and "market failure" are technical terms in this context
and do not map directly onto everyday language.
Sometimes we can see that we'd all be better off if we acted in
concert to achieve a certain thing, and yet the very real individual
incentives make it in each individuals self interest not to cooperate.
Now you can appeal to moral principle all you want but the economic
fact remains that in a free market you will not get efficient
outcomes, you will not maximize value to you *in* *these* *specific*
*cases*. This does *not* mean you will not maximize value to yourself
in a larger context, that's a question not addressed by these
concepts.
It would be efficient for individuals to cooperate to restrain
government right now. Why don't they do it? If they can't solve *that*
problem right now what makes you think they can solve the analogous
problem in a free market?
My argument is not that the free market solves such problems, but
rather that government manifestly doesn't, it only masks and
exacerbates them., and thus the fundamental argument for government
fails.
The battle against government, against tyranny, is not going to be won
by conversion of great numbers of people through rational
evangelization by appeals to moral principle, which is NOT to say that
such appeals are wrong or that you shouldn't be making them or that
you are wasting your time. And it's not going to be won by economic
arguments either. What must actually happen is for the entire
incentive structure to change so that it's in the individuals
*immediate* and obvious self interest to turn away from government.
Such changes can be achieved without the cooperation of great numbers
of people.
>
>>But I can live with that because 1) I don't think they'd have to,...
>
> I largely agree: we would not be in this mess. However, that's
>not to say that there would be no such thing as military
>professionalism. I hit on this in "Esteem Well-Earned" at my Website.
>Bad guys are a fact of life, and it's a good thing to be ready and
>able to meet them on their own terms.
Agreed, my main point is that without a government we would be
distinctly less of a target and thus would need less defense, though
obviously not none.
For starters there would be no national policy for anyone to try to
influence via terrorism. Let's say you wanted to cut off American aid
to Israel. When the bulk of that aid is channeled through government
you can target that single agency, directly and indirectly, and at
least hope to shut down the pipeline by getting a single policy
changed by a central authority. If the same amount of aid were coming
from various private individuals and agencies there's really nothing
good to target, because there is no single decision making agency to
influence.
Well of course you often hear much the same argument for the mass
bombing of civilian targets during WWII.
>
> Think about that. In a phone call with me mate Jid O'Brien on
>9-11, he made the point that, if he could sit down and talk to bin
>Laden, he'd tell the guy, "Look: it's not like this government is
>listening to *me*, so how do you know you're not getting set to kill
>the wrong guy?" Several times, I've thought about how I would put
>that case to him if I could, although I really hold no illusions that
>it would work, because it's not that simple. There's all the
>religious rubbish involved, as well. However, when I heard the words
>actually come out of his mouth in the interview, there was simply no
>question about it: he's *right*. He's making the same argument made
>by people right here in this country who assign responsibility for
>*Waco*, and there are crucial elements of truth in that, which cannot
>be rationally denied.
"Three times, he explicitly pointed out that the man who pays taxes
and supports the American government is as much a fighter as the guy
with an M-16 in the field in a foreign country."
The crucial words here are "and supports".
As Spooner demonstrates the payment of taxes is no demonstration of
support.
>
>>Do you want the carrier groups commanded by Bush and Co. going over
>>there or not?
>
> It's really not that simple to me.
They're going or they aren't. There's no other carrier groups going.
We can like it or not.
I don't want it, not because I don't want the terrorists dead, but
because of everything that this entails.
>
>>Here's my answer: I don't want them going under these circumstances,
>>and they certainly may not go on my behalf. What Bush and Congress and
>>The People *should* do is disband the union and auction off all public
>>property including all the military hardware.
>
> Well, I certainly agree with that, but it's not going to happen
>before these animals are caged and destroyed, if *that* ever actually
>happens.
>
>>Failing that, as I'm confident they will, I will applaud when the
>>*anyone* takes down the terrorists, but I don't sanction governments
>>to do the things they do to accomplish that.
>
> That whole point goes to my "package deal" argument. You're
>right. What's sad to me is that there is no doubt an abundance of
>competent military talent around the world, outside of officialdom,
>that could deal with this, but they're simply not allowed to, in the
>same way that none of them could have interevened at Sarajevo where
>innocent people got shot down while "officials" stood around with the
>thumbs up their asses. The general premise that governments are
>*most* qualified is just idiotic, but we live in the Age of Bullshit,
>so everything is quite proper at the moment.
>
>
>Billy
>
>VRWC Fronteer
>http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/
-
John T. Kennedy
wrote:
>
>"Billy Beck" <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:3bad4428...@news.mindspring.com...
>
>(snip)
>
>> That's exactly right. There is no way to attend the current
>> unpleasantness without paying close attention to the domestic civil
>> liberties implications. If you think the War on Poverty and the War
>> on Drugs are bad, wait'll you see the War on Terrorism. The Lying
>> Bastard was a piker by comparison to what we're into, now.
>>
>
>Could very well do more damage to what's left of our Freedom than the
>terrorist's war.
You can absolutely count on the fact that this government will do far
more harm to Americans than Arab terrorists ever will.
>John D.
>
>
>
>>
>> Billy
>>
>> VRWC Fronteer
>> http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/
>
-