"Blood for oil"- Connect the dots for me pls
Andrew Gore
Yesterday I wnt down to Hollywood to see the big anti-war
protest and try to get a question answered. I saw Martin Sheen, Rob
Reiner, Anjelica Houston, and the usual host of Hollywood lefties and
limousine liberals out making impassioned speeches that amounted to
nothing. (Talk about limos - there was a super-stretch Hummer, maybe
30 ft long- in the background). One guy was rousing the rabble with an
impassioned speech about how "They (always the mysterious,
unidentified "they") will NOT keep us down! They will not silence our
protests! For every march, every peace protest they supress, TEN MORE
will rise in their place! Our voices will not be silenced!", on and
on. And the crowd shouted "Right On!" in agreement. What the hell was
he talking about? Have you heard of any such 'peace march' being
'oppressed', denied, supressed, etc? But it's a classic, ancient trick
among rabble-rousers, to get a crowd sympathetic with you to fight
"The Man", whoever that may be at that moment - the President, the
police, the white man, your parents... Being so close, I was doubly
struck with how ludicrous it is to have Hollywood stars as the big
shots at such an affair. Why should I or anybody take political advice
from these people? I have a lot more respect for Condaleeza Rice than
Sean Penn.
At any rate, I'm in favor of the upcoming war with Iraq. I
really do respect those with an anti-war stance. I really don't like
the rah-rah football rally mentality you see a lot of in the pro-war
camp. I don't want war, itself, and whatever happens over there, I
fervently pray it is not just successful but quick and with a minimal
loss to the good citizens of Iraq. I pay a lot more attention to the
anti-war movement, in an effort to understand their point of view. A
good source is the on-line presence of the left-wing radio station I
listen to, KPFK.org and it's associated Pacifica.org. Their
programming is not only streamed live, but much of it is available for
free downloading as hour-long shows in MP3 format. I invite you to
check it out if you want to get that point of view.
But there are some basic ideas in the anti-war protests that I
just don't get. I went to the anti-war protest to ask, but nobody
there seemed interested in a rational explanation. I am genuinely
interested in understanding the logic. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
The main argument is that the war "is just about cheap oil. It's blood
for oil." I honestly just don't understand that. That would make sense
if Iraq has refused to sell us oil, and we desperately needed it.
Iraq, under Saddam, has NEVER refused to sell us all the oil we want
to buy, and never would. Imagine how life was in Iraq before, say, 50
years ago. Iraquis were, for the most part, a bunch of primitive
tribesmen, living in nomadic tents and riding about on camels. The
most Saddam could have hoped to be is some sort of local warlord, over
a tribe of a few hundred people. Hopefully, 30 years from now, when
the U.S. has finally moved to a hydrogen economy, oil will again
become a commodity of little value. It is the billions of dollars of
oil money that has poured into Iraq that has given this small-time
bully the power he has. Even if he were to declare war and attack the
US directly with nuclear or bio WOMD, he would still be willing to
sell us oil, were we willing to buy it. It would be very easy for us
to just say, "Well, we don't like this Saddam fellow, but, well,
that's their business, and there's all sorts of leaders all over the
world we may not like, and we can't go around toppling all the leaders
we don't like, and, well, we'll pass a United Nations resolution
declaring him to be a bad guy, and we don't want to hurt the Iraqui
people by passing sanctions and refusing to buy their oil." And we
would leave Saddam alone, and continue to buy his oil. THAT would be
what we would be doing if our only concern was to keep the price of
oil down. Somebody want to 'splain it for me?
RM Mentock
> from these people? I have a lot more respect for Condaleeza Rice than
> Sean Penn.
Much better actress, yes
--
RM Mentock
It is not enough to be wrong, you must also be polite - Niels Bohr
number one super guy
>
>Andrew Gore wrote:
>
>> from these people? I have a lot more respect for Condaleeza Rice than
>> Sean Penn.
>
>Much better actress, yes
Well, but Sean's got a mean right hook, while I hear Condi's got a glass jaw.
--
."Hey, look, Spot, I've captured another crook single-handed, dry or damp I'm
still the champ."
RM Mentock
>
> RM Mentock men...@mindspring.com writes:
>
> >
> >Andrew Gore wrote:
> >
> >> from these people? I have a lot more respect for Condaleeza Rice than
> >> Sean Penn.
> >
> >Much better actress, yes
>
> Well, but Sean's got a mean right hook, while I hear Condi's got a glass jaw.
When it comes to that, she might cry on you, but watch your back
so to speak
JB
> The main argument is that the war "is just about cheap oil. It's blood
> for oil." I honestly just don't understand that.
> Hopefully, 30 years from now, when
> the U.S. has finally moved to a hydrogen economy, oil will again
> become a commodity of little value.
> Somebody want to 'splain it for me?
During the intervening 30 years preceding the hoped-for hydrogen
economy, the industrialized world will require oil and lots of it. The
world runs on oil, and few nations are self-sufficient in oil. What
would happen if world oil supplies were suddenly cut off, or severely
restricted? We always pay the going world price for oil, but if no one
will sell it to us at any price, our goose is cooked.
Saddam has demonstrated his desire for territorial expansion. Unless he
is stopped now, with WMDs at his disposal there will be little to
prevent him from taking over the entire Persian Gulf. Having control of
the majority of the world's oil supplies would give him a stranglehold
on the rest of the world. 70s embargo redux. Especially if he then
forms a supercartel of anti-Israel Arab & Muslim oil producers (Libya,
Nigeria, Indonesia, etc). Bye-bye, USA. Bye-bye, Israel.
It's not Iraq's oil per se that's important, it's the assurance of
maintaining the balance of the current international oil market that is
the big concern. It's not about cheap oil, it's about oil availability.
In the big picture, maintaining the worldwide flow of oil is valid
motivation for war. Blood for oil? You bet.
--JB
Max C. Webster III
<< lotsa snippage >>
> Somebody want to 'splain it for me?
There are parts of the current "anti-war" camp that is anti-Bush,
anti-globalization, and anti-American. "No blood for oil" makes a good
rallying cry for them. Bush and his cronies are oil men. The oil companies
are globalized and have footprints in just about every nation on earth. Oil is
central to the American economy. "No blood for oil" hits all three nicely. It
makes no difference to these folks what the real issues are. If they see an
excuse to protest Bush, the oil companies, or America, they are going to take
it.
- Max -
=======
Jack, relax. Get busy with the faqs.
Carl Fink
>> >> from these people? I have a lot more respect for Condaleeza Rice than
>> >> Sean Penn.
[quotes from the killfiled guy removed]
> When it comes to that, she might cry on you, but watch your back
Actually Condy Rice is a highly-talented musician.
--
Carl Fink ca...@fink.to
I-Con's Science and Technology Programming
<http://www.iconsf.org/>
Andrew Gore
<job...@carolina.rr.comTRIMTHISPART> wrote:
>Andrew Gore wrote:
>
>
>> Somebody want to 'splain it for me?
>
>In the big picture, maintaining the worldwide flow of oil is valid
>motivation for war. Blood for oil? You bet.
>
>--JB
Yay! Excellent rundown. However, I don't think that raggedy
crowd in Holywood yesterday would agree with you.
Lars Eighner
<5quv4vg78ua9anks1...@4ax.com>,
the lovely and talented Andrew Gore
broadcast on alt.fan.cecil-adams:
> people by passing sanctions and refusing to buy their oil." And we
> would leave Saddam alone, and continue to buy his oil. THAT would be
> what we would be doing if our only concern was to keep the price of
> oil down. Somebody want to 'splain it for me?
The idea *isn't* to keep the price of oil down. Why would
Bush-Cheney-Haliburton want that? The idea is to control
oil. To turn the spigot on and off to maximize profits in
the oil business. Oil companies don't want plenty of cheap
oil forever, and neither does their regime in Washington.
They want to lower oil prices when that helps extend
dependency on oil. They want to raise prices when they can.
They don't want the oil out of Saddam's wells. They want
their hand on the spigot.
--
Lars Eighner -finger for geek code- eig...@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/
The US Constitution wasn't perfect,
But it was better than what we have now.
The Asses of Evil: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft
Austkin
>for oil."
I may be wrong, but I don't think it's about oil at all. I mean think about
it-if we/the allies(sp?) had been pre-emptive with Hitler....... MY personal
opion is that any leader who gases his/her own people doesn't deserve to stay
on the planet, much less in power. As Dennis Miller would say "It's time to
thin the herd". Of course that's just my opion, I could be wrong.
Gary S. Callison
: The idea *isn't* to keep the price of oil down. Why would
: Bush-Cheney-Haliburton want that? The idea is to control
: oil. To turn the spigot on and off to maximize profits in
: the oil business. Oil companies don't want plenty of cheap
: oil forever, and neither does their regime in Washington.
: They want to lower oil prices when that helps extend
: dependency on oil. They want to raise prices when they can.
: They don't want the oil out of Saddam's wells. They want
: their hand on the spigot.
I would categorize this arguement as 'bovine scatology'. By and large, the
oil companies don't really give a shit about the price of oil any more
than the rest of the economy does (viz energy costs, one of the costs of
doing business) much in the same way a bakery doesn't really care about
the current price of a bushel of wheat. There's a drought, and wheat gets
more expensive, you gonna close the bakery? No. You're going to raise
prices to remain competitive in the market. Oil companies are the same
way. The price of a gallon of gas at the pump goes up or down 25c in a
given day, and nobody bats an eyelash, because all of that happens at the
whims of the global market, which 'Bush/Cheney/Haliburton' can only
influence collaterally - and if this 'war' was purely about their
exerting their influence on the cost of oil, there wouldn't BE a war,
because right now the US economy needs low oil prices to stimulate
growth, not high oil prices in anticipation of a crisis in the middle
east.
Ergo, if Lars's theory is correct, and this is entirely about the current
administration influencing the price of oil, there won't be a war. Yay.
Unfortunatly, Lars is smokin' banana peels again.
--
Huey
Lots42 bomb vice president
>What the hell was
>he talking about? Have you heard of any such 'peace march' being
>'oppressed', denied, supressed, etc?
Yes, in fact, I have. There was a bit hoo-too-doo a while back where D.C.
police swooped down on a pre-protest gathering, arrested damn near everyone in
sight for the crime of nothing at all and kept them locked up for about a day.
->Being so close, I was doubly
>struck with how ludicrous it is to have Hollywood stars as the big
>shots at such an affair. Why should I or anybody take political advice
>from these people?
They played characters who knew what the hell they were talking about, so
naturally this means the actors know what the hell they are talking about. Did
you know Pierce Brosnan can beat the hell out of fifteen muggers with his bare
hands?
>I have a lot more respect for Condaleeza Rice than
>Sean Penn.
I have no respect for either.
>But there are some basic ideas in the anti-war protests that I
>just don't get. I went to the anti-war protest to ask, but nobody
>there seemed interested in a rational explanation. I am genuinely
>interested in understanding the logic. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
>The main argument is that the war "is just about cheap oil. It's blood
>for oil." I honestly just don't understand that.
Easy slogan?
Bush -has- been part of oil companies before being President so all this Iraqi
business must mean he wants to grab the oil fields and be new King Bitch Of
OPEC Mountain. That Iraq's leadership regularly stomps the hell out of it's own
people, has done so to it's neighbors, violated UN law re: WMD and pays out
cashola to suicide bomber families is seemingly something not to be considered.
--
"I think paint fumes just go straight to my brain." - Torg
PC1: Crap, I would have gotten some decent XP for killing Sam.
- A LOTR rpg game thought
PSA: Not all comic books are meant for kids, hot dammit!
RM Mentock
Me too. I thought it made sense. 'course, I've been listening
to friends in the oil industry for twenty years, and I know how
they go on
John Dean
> One guy was rousing the rabble with an
> impassioned speech about how "They (always the mysterious,
> unidentified "they") will NOT keep us down! They will not silence our
> protests! For every march, every peace protest they supress, TEN MORE
> will rise in their place! Our voices will not be silenced!", on and
> on. And the crowd shouted "Right On!" in agreement. What the hell was
> he talking about? Have you heard of any such 'peace march' being
> 'oppressed', denied, supressed, etc? But it's a classic, ancient trick
> among rabble-rousers, to get a crowd sympathetic with you to fight
> "The Man", whoever that may be at that moment - the President, the
> police, the white man, your parents...
Sure - in good ole NYC http://makeashorterlink.com/?S25551F73
''From Richard Wallace, US Editor In New York
ON the streets of New York I saw the kind of freedom George Bush has vowed
to gift to Iraq - menacing squads of riot police.
In an attempt to sabotage this deafening chorus of disapproval, blue
helmeted officers backed by horses confined pockets of protesters to
Manhattan side streets.
At the corner of 24th Street and Sixth Avenue, 30 blocks from the rallying
point, I watched incredulous as around 200 baton wielding police set about a
group of 100, feverishly tearing down their banners.
The provocation? Not staying on the pavement. Saddam Hussein's goons would
have been proud.
Then they kept them tightly penned in a car park entrance, enjoying the fear
and confusion on their faces. One officer warned me: "Hey bud, if you know
what's good for you, get the f*** away."
Four days earlier a judge had banned the march, citing "security" anxieties.
Curiously there were no such concerns for the Thanksgiving Parade in
November or next month's St Patrick's Day march. Funny that. ''
--
John Dean
Oxford
De-frag to reply
chris greville
"John Dean" <john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote in message
news:b2qiea$st9$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Andrew Gore wrote:
> > One guy was rousing the rabble with an
> > impassioned speech about how "They (always the mysterious,
> > unidentified "they") will NOT keep us down! They will not silence our
> > will rise in their place! Our voices will not be silenced!", on and
> > on. And the crowd shouted "Right On!" in agreement. What the hell was
> > he talking about? Have you heard of any such 'peace march' being
And, curiously, in London, all the CCTV's were reported to be down, being
routinely
"serviced".
Thankfully, there appeared to be no excesses on either side, although there
is some variance between 750,000 (police) and 2 million (organisers).
Chris Greville
Nick Spalding
No problems in Dublin either even though the Gardai were preparing for a
maximum of 20,000 and an estimated 100,000 turned out, including 3 of my
children (one of whom had travelled 170 miles), their partners, and their
children. The head of the line had to be halted for a while to avoid it
trying to cross the tail.
--
Nick Spalding
Lars Eighner
<UO04a.2424$fa.8...@dca1-nnrp1.news.algx.net>,
the lovely and talented Gary S. Callison
broadcast on alt.fan.cecil-adams:
> Lars Eighner (eig...@io.com) wrote:
>: The idea *isn't* to keep the price of oil down. Why would
>: Bush-Cheney-Haliburton want that? The idea is to control
>: oil. To turn the spigot on and off to maximize profits in
>: the oil business. Oil companies don't want plenty of cheap
>: oil forever, and neither does their regime in Washington.
>: They want to lower oil prices when that helps extend
>: dependency on oil. They want to raise prices when they can.
>: They don't want the oil out of Saddam's wells. They want
>: their hand on the spigot.
> I would categorize this arguement as 'bovine scatology'. By and large, the
> oil companies don't really give a shit about the price of oil any more
> than the rest of the economy does (viz energy costs, one of the costs of
> doing business) much in the same way a bakery doesn't really care about
> the current price of a bushel of wheat. There's a drought, and wheat gets
> more expensive, you gonna close the bakery? No. You're going to raise
> prices to remain competitive in the market.
But the bakery doesn't own the wheat fields, the grain
silos, the mills, etc.
Much of the assets of oil companies is oil in the ground.
When the price of oil goes down, they lose, and they can't
pass their losses on to customers.
A bakery isn't an oil company.
Oil companies are the same
> way. The price of a gallon of gas at the pump goes up or down 25c in a
> given day, and nobody bats an eyelash, because all of that happens at the
> whims of the global market, which 'Bush/Cheney/Haliburton' can only
> influence collaterally - and if this 'war' was purely about their
> exerting their influence on the cost of oil, there wouldn't BE a war,
> because right now the US economy needs low oil prices to stimulate
> growth, not high oil prices in anticipation of a crisis in the middle
> east.
> Ergo, if Lars's theory is correct, and this is entirely about the current
> administration influencing the price of oil, there won't be a war. Yay.
It is not about "influencing the price of oil," it is about
controlling the oil fields.
> Unfortunatly, Lars is smokin' banana peels again.
Whatever I'm smoking, I know the difference between a loaf
of bread and a barrel of oil.
Dave Wilton
Callison) wrote:
>Lars Eighner (eig...@io.com) wrote:
>: The idea *isn't* to keep the price of oil down. Why would
>: Bush-Cheney-Haliburton want that? The idea is to control
>: oil. To turn the spigot on and off to maximize profits in
>: the oil business. Oil companies don't want plenty of cheap
>: oil forever, and neither does their regime in Washington.
>: They want to lower oil prices when that helps extend
>: dependency on oil. They want to raise prices when they can.
>: They don't want the oil out of Saddam's wells. They want
>: their hand on the spigot.
>
>I would categorize this arguement as 'bovine scatology'. By and large, the
>oil companies don't really give a shit about the price of oil any more
>than the rest of the economy does (viz energy costs, one of the costs of
>doing business) much in the same way a bakery doesn't really care about
>the current price of a bushel of wheat. There's a drought, and wheat gets
>more expensive, you gonna close the bakery? No. You're going to raise
>prices to remain competitive in the market. Oil companies are the same
>way.
That's true to a point but it is very simplistic and it doesn't apply
to Halliburton. Halliburton, which sells equipment and services to oil
companies not oil itself, benefits when the price of oil is high. High
prices means that it is worthwhile to explore more fields or open
marginally productive fields; more revenue for Halliburton. Low prices
discourages this activity and results in lower revenues. Halliburton
would also benefit enormously from contracts to upgrade the Iraqi oil
fields--which have been in a sorry state after 20 years of neglect due
to war and sanctions.
The same is true with many of the divisions and subsidiaries of the
big oil companies.
But despite this I don't buy the "blood for oil" argument. While
ensuring the availability of oil is an important national security
issue, it simply is not the primary motivating factor here. During the
first Gulf War, yes, but not now. If any country is acting the way
they are because of oil, it is France.
I actually believe the Bush administration when they state the reasons
for their actions--eliminating a potential proliferator and user of
nukes, bugs, and gas and to help the Iraqi people. Now, I also believe
that this is not the time to fight this war and that the Bush
administration has been unbelievably inept at building a coalition to
support it--this may be the most incompetent foreign policy team in US
history.
--Dave Wilton
da...@wilton.net
http://www.wordorigins.org
David J. Martin
>
> Andrew Gore <dic...@earthlink.net> done said:
>
> << lotsa snippage >>
>
> > Somebody want to 'splain it for me?
>
> There are parts of the current "anti-war" camp that is anti-Bush,
> anti-globalization, and anti-American. "No blood for oil" makes a good
> rallying cry for them. Bush and his cronies are oil men. The oil companies
> are globalized and have footprints in just about every nation on earth. Oil is
> central to the American economy. "No blood for oil" hits all three nicely. It
> makes no difference to these folks what the real issues are. If they see an
> excuse to protest Bush, the oil companies, or America, they are going to take
> it.
I think it helps that Bush hasn't really made the case that Saddam is a
clear danger to us right now. Since there are people more dangerous to
us right now (Al Qaeda), the question is "Why attack Iraq at this
time?" Especially since attacking Iraq may strengthen those who are
attacking us (Al Qaeda). The answer some folks come up with is "Oil". I
guess that's better than "He tried to kill my Daddy".
David
artyw
In our local peace march (no movie types*, alas) speaker quoted Henry
Kissinger as saying "Oil is too valuable a commodity to be left in the
hands of Arabs"
Dunno if Dr. Strangelove, er Henry actually said that, but one can see
how such quotes can lead to "No blood for oil sentiments"
*And how many of them would be willing to freeze their plastic
surgery-enhanced asses to protest the war plans? Damn Saturday was
cold.
Pierre Jelenc
>
> But there are some basic ideas in the anti-war protests that I
> to just say, "Well, we don't like this Saddam fellow, but, well,
> that's their business, and there's all sorts of leaders all over the
> world we may not like, and we can't go around toppling all the leaders
> we don't like, and, well, we'll pass a United Nations resolution
> declaring him to be a bad guy, and we don't want to hurt the Iraqui
> people by passing sanctions and refusing to buy their oil." And we
> would leave Saddam alone, and continue to buy his oil. THAT would be
> what we would be doing if our only concern was to keep the price of
> oil down. Somebody want to 'splain it for me?
And that's exactly what France and Germany are doing. That plus the fact
that they effectively pay for their oil in weapons instead of dollars.
Europeans, wrong in '38, wrong again in '03.
Pierre
--
Pierre Jelenc | H o m e O f f i c e R e c o r d s
| * Marwood * The Cucumbers *
T h e G i g o m e t e r | * Switchblade Kittens * Pawnshop *
www.thegigometer.com | www.homeofficerecords.com
Marc Fleury
subject:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X16C26183
--
Marc.
SoCalMike
"Gary S. Callison" <hu...@interaccess.com> wrote in message
news:UO04a.2424$fa.8...@dca1-nnrp1.news.algx.net...
> Lars Eighner (eig...@io.com) wrote:
> : The idea *isn't* to keep the price of oil down. Why would
> : Bush-Cheney-Haliburton want that? The idea is to control
> : oil. To turn the spigot on and off to maximize profits in
> : the oil business. Oil companies don't want plenty of cheap
> : oil forever, and neither does their regime in Washington.
> : They want to lower oil prices when that helps extend
> : dependency on oil. They want to raise prices when they can.
> : They don't want the oil out of Saddam's wells. They want
> : their hand on the spigot.
>
> I would categorize this arguement as 'bovine scatology'. By and large, the
> oil companies don't really give a shit about the price of oil any more
> than the rest of the economy does (viz energy costs, one of the costs of
> doing business) much in the same way a bakery doesn't really care about
> the current price of a bushel of wheat
no, but when the price of flour or sugar goes up, they do mind. either find
a cheaper supplier, or pass the cost along.
SoCalMike
"Austkin" <aus...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20030216233255...@mb-cn.news.cs.com...
well, wed need to look long and hard at our chinese buddies, among many
other countries. but we dont wanna piss our chinese buddies off, since
virtually everything we consume is made in their sweatshops.
castros a dictator too, but we just leave his crazy ass alone since all they
have are bananas and cigars.
SoCalMike
> Bush -has- been part of oil companies before being President so all this
Iraqi
> business must mean he wants to grab the oil fields and be new King Bitch
Of
> OPEC Mountain.
pretty much.
>That Iraq's leadership regularly stomps the hell out of it's own
> people, has done so to it's neighbors, violated UN law re: WMD and pays
out
> cashola to suicide bomber families is seemingly something not to be
considered.
which means bush doesnt know what the hell hes getting us in to.
SoCalMike
>
> I think it helps that Bush hasn't really made the case that Saddam is a
> clear danger to us right now.
but.. but... hes got some stuff *circled on a map*! that must mean
something!
>Since there are people more dangerous to
> us right now (Al Qaeda), the question is "Why attack Iraq at this
> time?"
because he couldnt finish the first thing he started. and domestic policy
(read- its the economy, stupid) makes his brane hurt. like father, like son.
>Especially since attacking Iraq may strengthen those who are
> attacking us (Al Qaeda).
well, our saudi "friends" probably have more to do with AQ than iraq does.
but hey- we lubs em!
Max C. Webster III
>> Since there are people more dangerous to us right now (Al Qaeda),
>> the question is "Why attack Iraq at this time?"
>
> because he couldnt finish the first thing he started . . .
Statements such as yours assume that since the administration is going after
Iraq, then it has ceased going after Al Qaeda. Can you show some evidence that
the US has ceased pursuing bin Laden and his henchmen? Do you assume that the
government cannot pursue both tasks at the same time? Do you further assume
that since bin Laden himself hasn't been found that the government has been
one-hundred percent unsuccessful in their pursuit of terrorists?
I want to know what makes people think that attacking Iraq assumes a failure in
the ongoing campaign against Al Qaeda and their ilk.
- Max -
=======
"Force can never be the first answer,
but sometimes it's the only answer."
- Bill Clinton, on Iraq, 02/17/1998
Jeff
wrote:
>|Saddam has demonstrated his desire for territorial expansion. Unless he
>|is stopped now, with WMDs at his disposal there will be little to
>|prevent him from taking over the entire Persian Gulf. Having control of
>|the majority of the world's oil supplies would give him a stranglehold
>|on the rest of the world. 70s embargo redux. Especially if he then
Embargo? Where did I read that it was a 10% reduction but that panic in oil
guzzling countries caused shortages as people hoarded what they could. I'll
gracefully step away if someone has other information.
>|forms a supercartel of anti-Israel Arab & Muslim oil producers (Libya,
>|Nigeria, Indonesia, etc). Bye-bye, USA. Bye-bye, Israel.
Bye bye love. Bye bye happiness.
>|It's not Iraq's oil per se that's important, it's the assurance of
>|maintaining the balance of the current international oil market that is
>|the big concern. It's not about cheap oil, it's about oil availability.
Exactly.
>|In the big picture, maintaining the worldwide flow of oil is valid
>|motivation for war. Blood for oil? You bet.
More properly "Blood for Oil Profits"
J
Jeff
wrote:
>|It makes no difference to these folks what the real issues are.
I see. So, while you're telling me what the "real issues are" please do what
my government hasn't done and offer proof to support your positions. Not just
suggestion or innuendo, but real proof of real danger. And no 'if's' or
guessing. 'k?
Thanks,
J
Jeff
>|During the first Gulf War, yes, but not now
Wait! I thought the first Gulf war was about restoring democracy and liberty
to the freedom loving Kuwaiti's?
J
--
War starts with dubya! [www.bongoboy.com/peace]
Jeff
president) wrote:
>| That Iraq's leadership regularly stomps the hell out of it's own
>|people, has done so to it's neighbors, violated UN law re: WMD and pays out
>|cashola to suicide bomber families is seemingly something not to be considered.
Syria? Saudi Arabia? By the way, whatever happened to Osama bin Laden?
J
Dana Carpender
Well, and blood for Americans to continue to use oil at a profligate
pace. I'm unconvinced that we should put our troops in harm's way and
kill Iraqi women and children to maintain the "right" to drive gas
guzzlers and spend our spare time watching NASCAR, and driving snow
mobiles and jet skis.
--
Dana W. Carpender
Author, How I Gave Up My Low Fat Diet -- And Lost Forty Pounds!
NEW! 500 Low-Carb Recipes
http://www.holdthetoast.com
Check out our FREE Low Carb Ezine!
Andrew Gore
<john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
>Andrew Gore wrote:
>> One guy was rousing the rabble with an
>> impassioned speech about how "They (always the mysterious,
>> unidentified "they") will NOT keep us down! They will not silence our
>> protests! For every march, every peace protest they supress, TEN MORE
>> will rise in their place! Our voices will not be silenced!", on and
>> on. And the crowd shouted "Right On!" in agreement. What the hell was
>> he talking about? Have you heard of any such 'peace march' being
>> 'oppressed', denied, supressed, etc? But it's a classic, ancient trick
>> among rabble-rousers, to get a crowd sympathetic with you to fight
>> "The Man", whoever that may be at that moment - the President, the
>> police, the white man, your parents...
>
>Sure - in good ole NYC http://makeashorterlink.com/?S25551F73
>
>
>''From Richard Wallace, US Editor In New York
>
(SNIP an extremely biased report from the UK Guardian)
You had to go to a British tabloid to get a cite? Note, on the
page, to the right, is a link that allows you to send an email casting
your vote against the war "Not In My Name". Do they offer, there or
anywhere, an email link to cast a vote in FAVOR of the war? And what
will be the outcome of such a poll, do you think? I am reminded of
Saddam's last national election. All Iraqis were given the option of
voting for "Saddam: Yes or No?" I thought THAT was biased, but by
cmparison, the Guardian makes Saddam look like a bastion of democracy.
The incident the article cites is nothing I didn't already know about.
Thousands protested peacefully and without disturbance in varoius
locations in NYC. A small, radical anarchist group protested noisily
and without permit near the United Nations building. In case you
didn't know, we are on Orange Alert for terrorist attacks here, and
the police are simply forbidden to allow such activity there. They
were asked politely, then firmly, to take their protests where they
could be held freely. They refused to do so. They clearly wanted a
confrontation, and they got it. And they got the press they wanted, so
suckers like you can cite it. You are simply proving my point. Here in
L.A., the police stood by while the protestors closed off a major
intersection, Sunset at La Brea, and set up a stage and PA system, for
five hours , causing a huge traffic tie-up for miles around. The
police observed but moved not a muscle, only directing traffic around
the crowd. Then, late in the afternoon, as most of the crowd had
already left, there was a skirmish as a protestor tried to knock a
motorcycle cop off his bike. The lad wasn't satisfied with the
peaceful protest, and wanted to start something. When they arrested
him, about 20 fellow anarchists surged over and attempted to
'liberate' him. The police maced and hancuffed a few, the TV news got
a bit of exciting footage for the 6pm news, and that was that. This
was after hours of amplified shouting about how disgusting and corrupt
Bush is, of hundreds of placards castigating Bush in the most obscene
manner possible. If you think that's an oppressive political
environment, let me ask you this: Make a picket sign that says "Down
With Saddam!". Go stand on a street corner in Baghdad for five
minutes. And then you can lecture me about political oppression.
chris greville
"SoCalMike" <mikein562...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5vh4a.156774$be.139391@rwcrnsc53...
>
> >Since there are people more dangerous to
> > us right now (Al Qaeda), the question is "Why attack Iraq at this
> > time?"
>
> because he couldnt finish the first thing he started. and domestic policy
> (read- its the economy, stupid) makes his brane hurt. like father, like
son.
>
I sometimes get the feeling that you could put all the Bush family into a
shredder and *still* end up with two short planks.
Max C. Webster III
Um, what?
Let's put back in what I wrote and you snipped, so we can see it in context . .
.
>> There are parts of the current "anti-war" camp that is anti-Bush,
>> anti-globalization, and anti-American. "No blood for oil" makes a
>> good rallying cry for them. Bush and his cronies are oil men. The oil
>> companies are globalized and have footprints in just about every
>> nation on earth. Oil is central to the American economy. "No blood
>> for oil" hits all three nicely. It makes no difference to these folks
>> what the real issues are. If they see an excuse to protest Bush, the
>> oil companies, or America, they are going to take it.
So, are you saying that they're aren't people who won't use any excuse to
protest Bush, globalization or America and you want me to prove it? Are you
saying they're aren't people who would like nothing better than see the current
administration humiliated? Are you saying they're aren't people who blame big
companies, such the big oil companies, for much of the problems in the world?
Are you saying they're aren't people who blame the US for what's wrong in the
world? If these people do exist, are you saying they aren't "protesting" the
upcoming war with Iraq? What's your point, Jeff?
Andrew Gore
president) wrote:
>>
>>I have a lot more respect for Condaleeza Rice than
>>Sean Penn.
>
>I have no respect for either.
>
Perhaps you should:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/ricebio.html
Penn I don't know about. But I can give you the bio of the
movement's leading figure, Martin Sheen., in 30 seconds.
Grew up back East. Tried college, flunked out after two
semesters. Thought he'd try being an actor, so he made his way to
Hollywood. Lucked out with two early, meaty roles: a sympathetic
portrait of a serial killer in "Badlands", and a sympathetic portrait
of a soldier shot for desertion in "The Execution of Pvt. Slovik."
Most recent role is as a Clinton-esqe President in the hit show "West
Wing". Suit y'self who you go to for political advice.
Oliver Sampson
III) wrote:
>"SoCalMike" <mikein562...@hotmail.com> done said:
>
>>> Since there are people more dangerous to us right now (Al Qaeda),
>>> the question is "Why attack Iraq at this time?"
>>
>> because he couldnt finish the first thing he started . . .
>
>Statements such as yours assume that since the administration is going after
>Iraq, then it has ceased going after Al Qaeda. Can you show some evidence that
>the US has ceased pursuing bin Laden and his henchmen?
Yeah, but are they any good at it? Since Afghanistan, what has the US
actually achieved in the War Against al-Qaida? (Color codes and
bogus terror threat warnings don't count.) It sure seems like they've
been concentrating on the low-fruit.
Do you assume that the
>government cannot pursue both tasks at the same time? Do you further assume
>that since bin Laden himself hasn't been found that the government has been
>one-hundred percent unsuccessful in their pursuit of terrorists?
Uh, yeah. All terrorists caught - 1 < 100%.
>
>I want to know what makes people think that attacking Iraq assumes a failure in
>the ongoing campaign against Al Qaeda and their ilk.
I'd like to know how attacking Iraq furthers the campaign against
al-Qaida.
>
>
>- Max -
>=======
>"Force can never be the first answer,
>but sometimes it's the only answer."
>- Bill Clinton, on Iraq, 02/17/1998
Funny I thought he was talking about chicks picked up by state
troopers and brought back to the hotel.
==================
Oliver Sampson
ol...@quickaudio.com
http://www.oliversampson.com
Oliver Sampson
and sugar. Lifting the embargo against cuba would really piss off the
sugar suppliers in the US. All them sugar-beet guys would be looking
for work, y'know.
Thank God for protectionism.
John Dean
> On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:52:57 -0000, "John Dean"
> <john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
>
>> Andrew Gore wrote:
>>> One guy was rousing the rabble with an
>>> impassioned speech about how "They (always the mysterious,
>>> unidentified "they") will NOT keep us down! They will not silence
>>> our protests! For every march, every peace protest they supress,
>>> TEN MORE will rise in their place! Our voices will not be
>>> silenced!", on and on. And the crowd shouted "Right On!" in
>>> agreement. What the hell was he talking about? Have you heard of
>>> any such 'peace march' being 'oppressed', denied, supressed, etc?
>>> But it's a classic, ancient trick among rabble-rousers, to get a
>>> crowd sympathetic with you to fight "The Man", whoever that may be
>>> at that moment - the President, the police, the white man, your
>>> parents...
>>
>> Sure - in good ole NYC http://makeashorterlink.com/?S25551F73
>>
>>
>> ''From Richard Wallace, US Editor In New York
>>
> (SNIP an extremely biased report from the UK Guardian)
For crissake try to get something right. Not the Guardian, the Mirror
>
> You had to go to a British tabloid to get a cite?
The Mirror *is* a tabloid, the Guardian ain't
I didn't 'have to go to a British tabloid'. I read it. Then it was
convenient to go to the same paper on-line to save time searching. But if
you don't think there was a court order banning the march, here ya go:
(Your original question, in case you've forgotten, was ''What the hell was
he talking about? Have you heard of any such 'peace march' being
'oppressed', denied, supressed, etc? ''
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N38C25283
: http://makeashorterlink.com/?U6D433C73
(Noo Yawk Times, no less - ''On a wintry day in New York, huge crowds,
prohibited by a court order from marching, rallied within sight of the
United Nations amid heavy security.''
: http://makeashorterlink.com/?O4BC12283
''In accordance with a federal court order, the demonstrators in New York
were prohibited from marching, which city officials had insisted might be
dangerous to the protesters. A number of angry demonstrators complained that
they could not get to the rally because of crowds and barricades.''
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J4CC65283
''The rally was held under tight security, as New York law enforcement
remained on high alert after recent warnings of a possible terrorist attack.
Earlier this week, the police won a court order prohibiting a march past the
U.N., saying it would create security problems. ''
>Note, on the
> page, to the right, is a link that allows you to send an email casting
> your vote against the war "Not In My Name". Do they offer, there or
> anywhere, an email link to cast a vote in FAVOR of the war? And what
> will be the outcome of such a poll, do you think?
The outcome will be a number of votes against the war. If they get 100 votes
it will be obvious no-one cares. If they get 10,000 it will be obvious the
anti-war people are in a minority. If they get a million it will show there
is a lot of opposition
> The incident the article cites is nothing I didn't already know about.
Then if you already new a march had been suppressed, why did you ridicule
the man who talked about marches being suppressed?
> In case you
> didn't know, we are on Orange Alert for terrorist attacks here, and
> the police are simply forbidden to allow such activity there.
'Orange Alert' Oooo! That makes all the difference, then. Of course I knew
that. Just as I know you cannot cite a single piece of legislation where the
Police are 'forbidden' to allow such activity. If there were, the Police
wouldn't have had to obtain a Court Order to suppress the march
> If you think that's an oppressive political
> environment, let me ask you this: Make a picket sign that says "Down
> With Saddam!". Go stand on a street corner in Baghdad for five
> minutes. And then you can lecture me about political oppression.
Who talked about 'oppressive political environment'? Not me. Don't put words
in my mouth to fuel your rants. I didn't lecture you about political
oppression. I just pointed out the speaker in LA was perfectly correct to
say a peace march had been suppressed and you were wrong to say it was a
propaganda trick.
Why don't you go and stand outside the White House with a 'Down with Bush!'
placard and see if you can beat the five-minute record? The fact that Saddam
is a murderous thug isn't the issue.He was a murderous thug when George's
daddy sent him weapons. He was a murderous thug when my Government sent
weapons. He'll be a murderous thug till the day he dies. Other murderous
thugs are in charge of North Korea, Zimbabwe, Pakistan and many other
states. That doesn't give us the right to kill their citizenry en masse, nor
the right to invade them and force on them a murderous thug of our choosing.
Max C. Webster III
> maxx...@aol.com.mil.gov (Max C. Webster III) wrote:
>
>> "SoCalMike" <mikein562...@hotmail.com> done said:
>>
>>>> Since there are people more dangerous to us right now (Al
>>>> Quad), the question is "Why attack Iraq at this time?"
>>>
>>> because he couldn't finish the first thing he started . . .
>>
>> Statements such as yours assume that since the administration is
>> going after Iraq, then it has ceased going after Al Qaeda. Can you
>> show some evidence that the US has ceased pursuing bin Laden and
>> his henchmen?
>
> Yeah, but are they any good at it? Since Afghanistan, what has the
> US actually achieved in the War Against al-Qaida? (Color codes and
> bogus terror threat warnings don't count.) It sure seems like they've
> been concentrating on the low-fruit.
Since the start of the war in Afghanistan (which, by the way, is an ongoing
campaign) not a month goes by that there isn't a news report about the capture
of some Al Qaeda members and members of other terrorist organizations.
>> Do you assume that the government cannot pursue both tasks at the
>> same time? Do you further assume that since bin Laden himself
>> hasn't been found that the government has been one-hundred percent >>
unsuccessful in their pursuit of terrorists?
>
> Uh, yeah. All terrorists caught - 1 < 100%.
Your answer makes no sense. Go back and reread my question. I didn't ask if
the we were 100% successful.
>> I want to know what makes people think that attacking Iraq assumes
>> a failure in the ongoing campaign against Al Quad and their ilk.
>
> I'd like to know how attacking Iraq furthers the campaign against
> al-Qaida.
There seems to be some people who need a positive, proven link between Osama
and Saddam before they will think about supporting an Iraqi campaign. Beyond
the fact that they are both middle-eastern madmen with an irrational hatred of
the West, I don't think there is a positive link between the two. Furthermore,
I don't see why a link needs to be shown before removing Saddam from power.
Twelve years of UN resolution violations, threatening his neighbors, and being
an all around dick are good enough reasons for me. Whether or not he's
actually in cahoots with Osama is immaterial to me. Do people need to be shown
a link between Al Qaeda and Kim Jong Il, too?
>> - Max -
>> =======
>> "Force can never be the first answer,
>> but sometimes it's the only answer."
>> - Bill Clinton, on Iraq, 02/17/1998
>
> Funny I thought he was talking about chicks picked up by state
> troopers and brought back to the hotel.
Heck, he was president at the time. All he needed was a wink.
Dana Carpender
Just exactly how, other than being a Democrat, is the character of Jed
Barlett "Clinton-esque"?
Estron
> This was after hours of amplified shouting about how disgusting and corrupt
> Bush is, of hundreds of placards castigating Bush in the most obscene
> manner possible.
I don't know how the signs read, but whatever it was, I can think of a
"more obscene" thing to say, although I don't really feel that way toward
Bush.
> If you think that's an oppressive political
> environment, let me ask you this: Make a picket sign that says "Down
> With Saddam!". Go stand on a street corner in Baghdad for five
> minutes. And then you can lecture me about political oppression.
And here you make the mistake of arguing that, if it's not THE MOST
OPPRESSIVE it can possibly be in the worst of all possible worlds, why
then, it's not oppressive at all and you should spend 23.5 hours each day
on your knees in abject gratitude to your deity that you were born here
rather than in Baghdad. Not to mention that the "qualification test" you
propose is impossible to accomplish in today's world anyway.
--
All opinions expressed above are only that.
Pax vobiscum.
est...@tfs.net
Kansas City, Missouri
Paul L. Madarasz
<ol...@quickaudio.com> wrote, perhaps among other things:
>>castros a dictator too, but we just leave his crazy ass alone since all they
>>have are bananas and cigars.
>>
>and sugar. Lifting the embargo against cuba would really piss off the
>sugar suppliers in the US. All them sugar-beet guys would be looking
>for work, y'know.
"C&H/
Pure Cane sugar..."
Plus Michigan's big aggie product...
--
Paul L. Madarasz
Tucson, Baja Arizona
"How 'bout cuttin' that rebop?"
-- S. Kowalski
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Paul L. Madarasz
wrote, perhaps among other things:
>On 17 Feb 2003 10:02:07 GMT, lot...@aol.comaol.com (Lots42 bomb vice
Haven't you heard? Him 'n' Saddam are asshole buddies! It's true!
Someone in a bar the other day told me he heard it on Fox "News."
Oliver Sampson
III) wrote:
>Oliver Sampson <ol...@quickaudio.com> done said:
>
>> maxx...@aol.com.mil.gov (Max C. Webster III) wrote:
>>
>>> "SoCalMike" <mikein562...@hotmail.com> done said:
>>>
>>>>> Since there are people more dangerous to us right now (Al
>>>>> Quad), the question is "Why attack Iraq at this time?"
>>>>
>>>> because he couldn't finish the first thing he started . . .
>>>
>>> Statements such as yours assume that since the administration is
>>> going after Iraq, then it has ceased going after Al Qaeda. Can you
>>> show some evidence that the US has ceased pursuing bin Laden and
>>> his henchmen?
>>
>> Yeah, but are they any good at it? Since Afghanistan, what has the
>> US actually achieved in the War Against al-Qaida? (Color codes and
>> bogus terror threat warnings don't count.) It sure seems like they've
>> been concentrating on the low-fruit.
>
>Since the start of the war in Afghanistan (which, by the way, is an ongoing
>campaign) not a month goes by that there isn't a news report about the capture
>of some Al Qaeda members and members of other terrorist organizations.
Not to belabor the point, but where's the evidence and the conviction
in an open court of law? If the government says, "we caught somebody"
and then offers no proof evidence and only pictures of the guy, how do
I know they aren't lying? Throwing people they don't like into to a
war-crime like location like Camp X-Ray isn't really a way to win
confidence with the skeptical classes.
>
>>> Do you assume that the government cannot pursue both tasks at the
>>> same time? Do you further assume that since bin Laden himself
>>> hasn't been found that the government has been one-hundred percent >>
>unsuccessful in their pursuit of terrorists?
>>
>> Uh, yeah. All terrorists caught - 1 < 100%.
>
>Your answer makes no sense. Go back and reread my question. I didn't ask if
>the we were 100% successful.
Whoops, in this case the UN actually made a difference.
>
>>> I want to know what makes people think that attacking Iraq assumes
>>> a failure in the ongoing campaign against Al Quad and their ilk.
>>
>> I'd like to know how attacking Iraq furthers the campaign against
>> al-Qaida.
>
>There seems to be some people who need a positive, proven link between Osama
>and Saddam before they will think about supporting an Iraqi campaign. Beyond
>the fact that they are both middle-eastern madmen with an irrational hatred of
>the West, I don't think there is a positive link between the two. Furthermore,
>I don't see why a link needs to be shown before removing Saddam from power.
>Twelve years of UN resolution violations, threatening his neighbors, and being
>an all around dick are good enough reasons for me. Whether or not he's
>actually in cahoots with Osama is immaterial to me. Do people need to be shown
>a link between Al Qaeda and Kim Jong Il, too?
It would depend on the motivation for the invasion now wouldn't it.
'Spose KJI says, "give me oil, or I bring my nuclear arsenal to you,"
the US may have a case. SH on the other hand was basically minding
his own business (except John will remind of potshots at airplanes)
until Sept 11 rolled around. Maybe SH will say, "let me sell my oil,
or I will bring my nuclear arsenal to you." In that case, maybe we
should get SH and KJI a trade agreement?
Geoduck
wrote:
>
>
>Andrew Gore wrote:
>>
>> On 17 Feb 2003 10:02:07 GMT, lot...@aol.comaol.com (Lots42 bomb vice
>> president) wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >>I have a lot more respect for Condaleeza Rice than
>> >>Sean Penn.
>> >
>> >I have no respect for either.
>> >
>> Perhaps you should:
>> http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/ricebio.html
>>
>> Penn I don't know about. But I can give you the bio of the
>> movement's leading figure, Martin Sheen., in 30 seconds.
>>
>> Grew up back East. Tried college, flunked out after two
>> semesters. Thought he'd try being an actor, so he made his way to
>> Hollywood. Lucked out with two early, meaty roles: a sympathetic
>> portrait of a serial killer in "Badlands", and a sympathetic portrait
>> of a soldier shot for desertion in "The Execution of Pvt. Slovik."
>> Most recent role is as a Clinton-esqe President in the hit show "West
>> Wing". Suit y'self who you go to for political advice.
>
>Just exactly how, other than being a Democrat, is the character of Jed
>Barlett "Clinton-esque"?
You obviously missed that sweeps episode with Barlett and the
intern...
--
Geoduck
http://www.olywa.net/cook
Jason Quick
I won't be doing any of that, since I'm actually skeptical of the reasons
thus far provided.
Instead, I have a general question - is there any set of circumstances
wherein you would actually support war? If not, why do you continue to ask
for evidence and/or justification? If you're anti-war, there's no
justification that *could* be made, right?
Jason
Jason Quick
> Haven't you heard? Him 'n' Saddam are asshole buddies!
Hey! I thought I was the only one who'd ever heard the phrase "asshole
buddies."
Jason "had some o' them myself" Q.
N Jill Marsh
<jsq...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>"Paul L. Madarasz" <pl...@dakotacom.net> wrote:
>
>> Haven't you heard? Him 'n' Saddam are asshole buddies!
>
>Hey! I thought I was the only one who'd ever heard the phrase "asshole
>buddies."
Common phrase around here.
nj"still mystifies"m
"And all I have to fear,
is fear itself and bullets."
number one super guy
>Previously on alt.fan.cecil-adams, Andrew Gore wrote:
>
>> This was after hours of amplified shouting about how disgusting and corrupt
>> Bush is, of hundreds of placards castigating Bush in the most obscene
>> manner possible.
>
>I don't know how the signs read, but whatever it was, I can think of a
>"more obscene" thing to say, although I don't really feel that way toward
>Bush.
Hmm, that's funny. Almost all of my feelings towards bush may be properly
characterized as "obscene."
Dutch "and not heard" Courage
--
."Hey, look, Spot, I've captured another crook single-handed, dry or damp I'm
still the champ."
number one super guy
>
>I'd like to know how attacking Iraq furthers the campaign against
>al-Qaida.
Indeed, can you think of a better way to alienate moderate, relatively secular
muslims than by attacking a moderate, relatively secular muslim nation? Do you
think those alienated moderates, who currently have relatively little use for
outfits like the Taliban or Al Queda, are going to be more receptive to their
anti-west and anti-US message?
number one super guy
>Do people need to be shown
>a link between Al Qaeda and Kim Jong Il, too?
I would like nothing better than to see the Bush adminstration declare war on
North Korea, oh my yes.
Paul L. Madarasz
wrote, perhaps among other things:
>On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 20:00:15 GMT, "Jason Quick"
><jsq...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>
>>"Paul L. Madarasz" <pl...@dakotacom.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Haven't you heard? Him 'n' Saddam are asshole buddies!
>>
>>Hey! I thought I was the only one who'd ever heard the phrase "asshole
>>buddies."
>
>Common phrase around here.
>
>nj"still mystifies"m
Ditto, which is where I got it from ( being a Detroiter, eh?)
Dana Carpender
Exactly. Reminds me of people who, 25 years ago, if you said *anything*
negative about the government would say, "Would you rather live in
Russia?!" as if that clinched the argument. Why compare us to one of
the worst? The question is not are we less oppressed than Iraqis. The
question is are we more oppressed than, say, the British, or Canadians,
or Swedes, or Costa Ricans, or Finns, or Aussies. Sorry, Andrew, but
the "We're better than Iraq" argument is lame beyond belief.
incandescent blue
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:10:50 +0100, Oliver Sampson
><ol...@quickaudio.com> wrote, perhaps among other things:
>>sugar suppliers in the US. All them sugar-beet guys would be looking
>>for work, y'know.
>
> "C&H/
> Pure Cane sugar..."
Despite the name, C&H is actually importing a lot of its raw sugar
these days -- they used to use only Hawai'i sugar, but a lot of the
sugar cane growers in the islands have been closing down. See
<http://starbulletin.com/96/06/12/business/story1.html> for more
on the decline of the sugar industry in the islands, and
<http://starbulletin.com/1999/11/05/business/story1.html> for a bit
dealing with C&H in particular.
A., who grew up in a neighborhood built on old canefield land
--
Ava Callison <die-bla...@hyacinthine.net>
"I'm sorry," I say, "if I give you the impression that it's only my
mouth that's rough. I do my best to be rough all over."
Peter Hoeg, _Smilla's Sense of Snow_
GrapeApe
>> semesters. Thought he'd try being an actor, so he made his way to
>> Hollywood. Lucked out with two early, meaty roles: a sympathetic
>> portrait of a serial killer in "Badlands", and a sympathetic portrait
>> of a soldier shot for desertion in "The Execution of Pvt. Slovik."
>> Most recent role is as a Clinton-esqe President in the hit show "West
>> Wing". Suit y'self who you go to for political advice.
>
>Just exactly how, other than being a Democrat, is the character of Jed
>Barlett "Clinton-esque"?
He's from the Ozarks too!
Wait... I'm thinking of Jed Clampett....
Adam Smith
> I think it helps that Bush hasn't really made the case that Saddam is a
> clear danger to us right now.
The smart man kills the tiger while its still small. Waiting until
Saddam becomes a danger to us is waiting too long. Every big war
could have been prevented with a much smaller war at the appropriate
time.
Since there are people more dangerous to
> us right now (Al Qaeda), the question is "Why attack Iraq at this
> time?" Especially since attacking Iraq may strengthen those who are
> attacking us (Al Qaeda).
Weakening Al-Quaeda's allies weakens Al-Quaeda. It doesnt strengthen
them.
The answer some folks come up with is "Oil". I
> guess that's better than "He tried to kill my Daddy".
Oil is nonsense. There are many countries in OPEC wiling and able to
to pump enough oil to make up for Iraq.
Dana Carpender
Uh, yuh. Clinton was the poor son of a single mother from Arkansas.
Bartlett is the son of the headmaster of a toney prep school in New
Hampshire (although the school they filmed the flashback scenes at is in
Middletown DE), with an ancestor who signed the Declaration. Clinton
was nominally Baptist, Bartlett is shown to be a fairly devout
Catholic. There's been no sign that Barlett is unfaithful to his wife.
I cannot imagine why Grape called Barlett "Clinton-esque" -- again,
except for the fact that they're both Dems, there's really no
similarity.
Jeff
>|Well, and blood for Americans to continue to use oil at a profligate
>|pace. I'm unconvinced that we should put our troops in harm's way and
>|kill Iraqi women and children to maintain the "right" to drive gas
>|guzzlers and spend our spare time watching NASCAR, and driving snow
>|mobiles and jet skis.
All you commie pinko feminazi's are the same!
Now, repeat after me:
It's not about oil! It's about punishing Saddam Hussein for 9/11.
It's not about oil! It's about punishing Saddam Hussein for 9/11.
It's not about oil! It's about punishing Saddam Hussein for 9/11.
And don't you forget it!
J
Jeff
wrote:
>|So, are you saying that they're aren't people who won't use any excuse to
>|protest Bush, globalization or America and you want me to prove it? Are you
>|saying they're aren't people who would like nothing better than see the current
>|administration humiliated? Are you saying they're aren't people who blame big
>|companies, such the big oil companies, for much of the problems in the world?
>|Are you saying they're aren't people who blame the US for what's wrong in the
>|world? If these people do exist, are you saying they aren't "protesting" the
>|upcoming war with Iraq? What's your point, Jeff?
Quite simple, when we're discussing Iraq at this time in history: where's the
beef?
J
Jeff
>|Instead, I have a general question - is there any set of circumstances
>|wherein you would actually support war? If not, why do you continue to ask
>|for evidence and/or justification? If you're anti-war, there's no
>|justification that *could* be made, right?
I'm not anti-war. I'm not even a pacifist! Sometimes it's good to flex a
little muscle and kick a little ass, but only when there has been an egregious
offense committed - for no reason. Then, all bets are off.
I just think there's no real reason for us to be in Iraq in the first place
and that there's a larger game at play here and the Bush Administration is
being completely disingenuous about it.
(I'm still pissed about Kuwait. I mean, I got it wrong. I thought we were
liberating a DEMOCRACY.)
J
Max C. Webster III
Okay, but why the snotty reply to my post? I wasn't even addressing any of
that. I was, for once, actually on topic for the thread.
GrapeApe
>except for the fact that they're both Dems, there's really no
>similarity.
I didn't, Dana!
(Damn your so an so lack of attribution Grape!)
I just wrote the non sequitur about Jed Clampett being from the ozarks, like
Clinton.
I've seen very little of West Wing... lets see... some staff were in a bar
trying to figure how they were going to spin what President Martin Mull, I
mean, Martin Escovedo, that Sheeny guy whoever, was about to confess to the
public, whether it was his stand on abortion, his stand on running for office,
his stand on his mistresses abortion, whatever the crisis du jour happened to
be; usually something that didn't agree with the polls.
No critters in sea-ment ponds, possum fritters, med-ee-sin, double naught spies
or bankers wives involved.
Dana Carpender
Nor was abortion, a mistress, or the like. If it's the incident I'm
thinking of, it was the fact that the President has multiple sclerosis,
and didn't disclose it while running for office.
Bob Ward
wrote:
>
>
>GrapeApe wrote:
>>
>> >I cannot imagine why Grape called Barlett "Clinton-esque" -- again,
>> >except for the fact that they're both Dems, there's really no
>> >similarity.
>>
>> I didn't, Dana!
>> (Damn your so an so lack of attribution Grape!)
>>
>> I just wrote the non sequitur about Jed Clampett being from the ozarks, like
>> Clinton.
>>
>> I've seen very little of West Wing... lets see... some staff were in a bar
>> trying to figure how they were going to spin what President Martin Mull, I
>> mean, Martin Escovedo, that Sheeny guy whoever, was about to confess to the
>> public, whether it was his stand on abortion, his stand on running for office,
>> his stand on his mistresses abortion, whatever the crisis du jour happened to
>> be; usually something that didn't agree with the polls.
>>
>> No critters in sea-ment ponds, possum fritters, med-ee-sin, double naught spies
>> or bankers wives involved.
>
>Nor was abortion, a mistress, or the like. If it's the incident I'm
>thinking of, it was the fact that the President has multiple sclerosis,
>and didn't disclose it while running for office.
But it makes Grape feel all superior to claim to not have watched the
show.
--
If you would like to view the AFCAlbum,
it is located at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AFCAlbum/
To join, go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AFCAlbum/join
Jeff
>|Exactly. Reminds me of people who, 25 years ago, if you said *anything*
>|negative about the government would say, "Would you rather live in
>|Russia?!" as if that clinched the argument. Why compare us to one of
>|the worst? The question is not are we less oppressed than Iraqis. The
>|question is are we more oppressed than, say, the British, or Canadians,
>|or Swedes, or Costa Ricans, or Finns, or Aussies. Sorry, Andrew, but
>|the "We're better than Iraq" argument is lame beyond belief.
What's even lamer is when people drive past our vigils and yell at us:
"Go back to Iraq!" I guess the stars and stripes throws them off. Or
something.
J
Paul L. Madarasz
wrote, perhaps among other things:
>What's even lamer is when people drive past our vigils and yell at us:
>"Go back to Iraq!" I guess the stars and stripes throws them off. Or
>something.
>
>J
Thanks for the vigils, Jeff.
GrapeApe
>>thinking of, it was the fact that the President has multiple sclerosis,
>>and didn't disclose it while running for office.
>
>
>But it makes Grape feel all superior to claim to not have watched the
>show.
If you say so Bob. I am master of the universe! But it sounded as if I indeed
was not watching terribly closely. I hope every episode was not like that...
they could have been AFAIK. I don't think it was Law and Order because it
didn't have the singing teapot from the Fantastiks.
I don't watch much TV at all, at least, not attentively. GOD I AM SO
SUPERIOR!!!
MASTER OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!!
kay w
Someone (Damnit, Grape) said:
>>> >I cannot imagine why Grape called Barlett "Clinton-esque" -- again,
>>> >except for the fact that they're both Dems, there's really no
>>> >similarity.
I haven't been following this, so it's probably been discussed (or isn't even
on topic anymore), but isn't he doing Kennedy? Aren't some of the still
pictures in the show's opening bit deliberately posed to evoke some of those
"Life" or "Look" photos of JFK?
--
Liberals insisted on a lily fair economy, where it was hands off the lily.
Non Campus Mentis
Address munged. AOL isn't necessarily comatose.
GrapeApe
>I haven't been following this, so it's probably been discussed (or isn't
>even
>on topic anymore), but isn't he doing Kennedy? Aren't some of the still
>pictures in the show's opening bit deliberately posed to evoke some of those
>"Life" or "Look" photos of JFK?
I would be fairly sure he is supposed to evoke the situations of several
presidents.
Sheen did a biopic playing JFK once did he not?
kay w
Me(kay):
....>but isn't he doing Kennedy?
Grape:
>Sheen did a biopic playing JFK once did he not?
You know, I believe you're right. That may be why the Kennedy likeness seems
so clear, I already connect the two of them.
I was stationed in the PI when they were there filming Apocolypse Now south of
where we were (Clark AB.) We AF folk were forbidden from participating in the
film in any way, so all the extras there were from the Navy base, where the
commander wasn't such a stick-in-the-mud.
Damn, that was a long time ago.
Opus the Penguin
> Why don't you go and stand outside the White House with a 'Down
> with Bush!' placard and see if you can beat the five-minute
> record?
Is that really the record? I'd think someone could march up and down
the 1600 block of Pennsylvania Ave all week with a sign like that.
> The fact that Saddam is a murderous thug isn't the
> issue.He was a murderous thug when George's daddy sent him
> weapons. He was a murderous thug when my Government sent weapons.
> He'll be a murderous thug till the day he dies. Other murderous
> thugs are in charge of North Korea, Zimbabwe, Pakistan and many
> other states. That doesn't give us the right to kill their
> citizenry en masse, nor the right to invade them and force on them
> a murderous thug of our choosing.
What would give us the right to invade them? Possession of biological
weapons? Nuclear weapons? Violation of treaties in which it was
stipulated that Saddam would be ousted if they were violated? Invasion
of Kuwait? Invasion of Israel? Invasion of the Kurdish territories and
a program of genocide? A nuclear first strike?
For myself, I don't have enough information to have an opinion on the
advisability of war. I doubt I'd have enough information even after
reading every relevant publicly available document. I don't want to
deny anyone their right to an opinion, but it seems to me the opinions
ought to be a little more tentative.
One exception to this would be Mike Muth. If I recall, he's a pacifist.
That entitles him to a firm opinion because he has all the facts he
requires. But it also means he's reasoning from different
presuppositions than most of us, so his arguments may not seem
persuasive.
--
Opus the Penguin
"I wasn't trying to be obtuse, really. Sometimes it's just effortless."
- groo
Max C. Webster III
There are some hawks who want war with Iraq no matter what. They want blood,
and by Ged, they're going to get it no if they have to walk over heaven and
earth to do it.
Then there are some "antiwar" people who are, in reality, Bush whackers,
anti-corporation, anti-globalization, anti-American, Marxists, etc. (the "Free
Mumia" freaks are the most laughable of the bunch). To them, they don't truly
care about the people of Iraq or even about the evil that is Saddam. They're
just out there to protest the West in general and America in particular.
The rest of us fall in between these two groups. Last September, I was in the
No War camp. I didn't understand why the administration was stirring up
trouble with Iraq and would have preferred us leaving well enough alone. After
Bush's speech to the UN in October, I changed my mind. I was then in the
show-me-the-smoking-gun camp -- if inspections showed WoMD, and Iraq wasn't
willing to get rid of them, then good-bye, Saddam. When it became clear that
Saddam wasn't cooperating with the inspections, I moved into (and am currently
in) the disarm-now-or-we-will-disarm-you camp. If Saddam doesn't voluntarily
disarm immediately and give a full accounting, then it's time to go in with
full force. I'd like to go in under the auspices of the UN, but if the French
won't allow that, then it's not a requirement for me.
To those who say the inspections are working; you are clearly wrong. The
inspectors are only seeing what Saddam wants them to see, and he doesn't want
them to see the bad stuff. UN inspector Hans Blix's reports say so. To those
who say give the inspections more time; you are clearly fooling yourself. As
long as Saddam thinks nothing will happen to him, he will not fully cooperate.
The French, who willingly voted for UN Resolution 1441, claim they want a
disarmed Iraq, but by being obstructionist, they are only emboldening Saddam.
The large "antiwar" demonstrations over the weekend did nothing to convince the
US and her allies to go slow with Iraq. Those marches did, however, give
comfort to Saddam. As long as he knows there are people who are willing to
appease him, he will not cooperate with those who will no longer tolerate him.
If you don't want a war in Iraq, and you want to see a quick and peaceful end
to the current situation, the best thing you can do it line up with the US, the
UK and their numerous allies. If Saddam will not disarm in the face of a truly
united front, then it is clear that he will never disarm willing. At that
point force is the only option.
I can be quite respectful of the opinions of those who disagree, like the folks
at the CATO institute. There are also some genuine pacifists who would not
condone war for any reason. I don't agree with their arguments, but I can
respect them because they are based on reason and moral foundations. If you,
however, are a member of axis-of-idiots who want to blame the West for all the
evils in the world, then I'm not really concerned with what you have to say
because you are a fool. As someone (and I forget his name) once said, "You can
twist perception, reality won't budge." You're going believe your deluded
little fantasy no matter what reality is.
SoCalMike
> There seems to be some people who need a positive, proven link between
Osama
> and Saddam before they will think about supporting an Iraqi campaign.
Beyond
> the fact that they are both middle-eastern madmen with an irrational
hatred of
> the West, I don't think there is a positive link between the two
bingo! we have a winner!
so were spending all this money and energy on someone whos ass we thoroughly
kicked already, not that he doesnt deserve it, but OBL and the terrorist
cells deserve it oh so much worse. seems bush has ADD, or something.
thats like getting bit on the leg by a dog who runs away, then going and
shooting the neighbors dog, whose ass you already beat because it barked too
loud 10 years ago.
priorities, people... priorities.
SoCalMike
"number one super guy" <mutigho...@aol.comhiyah> wrote in message
news:20030218153415...@mb-ci.aol.com...
> maxx...@aol.com.mil.gov (Max C. Webster III) writes:
>
> >Do people need to be shown
> >a link between Al Qaeda and Kim Jong Il, too?
>
> I would like nothing better than to see the Bush adminstration declare war
on
> North Korea, oh my yes.
that would definately make things interesting, but i believe thats a bit too
much for bush to bite off. he needs an EASY target, remember... not someone
who *has* nukes. bush knows he wont be reelected if he starts WWIII
SoCalMike
>
> Instead, I have a general question - is there any set of circumstances
> wherein you would actually support war? If not, why do you continue to
ask
> for evidence and/or justification? If you're anti-war, there's no
> justification that *could* be made, right?
money transfers between saddam and OBL
proof terrorists trained there
working bombs n stuff
nuclear stuff
catching terrorist cells that have saddam on speed dial on their celly
cells.
GrapeApe
>that would definately make things interesting, but i believe thats a bit
>too
>much for bush to bite off. he needs an EASY target, remember... not someone
>who *has* nukes. bush knows he wont be reelected if he starts WWIII
Yeah, traditionally the public kicks out the guy in office when the war starts.
Not.
He might wait until closer to 2004....
SoCalMike
"Adam Smith" <loc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8130079e.03021...@posting.google.com...
> "David J. Martin" <david-j...@tamu.edu> wrote in message
news:<3E510D50...@tamu.edu>...
>
> > I think it helps that Bush hasn't really made the case that Saddam is a
> > clear danger to us right now.
>
>
> The smart man kills the tiger while its still small. Waiting until
> Saddam becomes a danger to us is waiting too long. Every big war
> could have been prevented with a much smaller war at the appropriate
> time.
the smart man kicked the young tigers ass 10 years ago, yet let it live...
stunted and deformed. tiger has not recovered.
SoCalMike
news:<3E510D50...@tamu.edu>...
>
> > I think it helps that Bush hasn't really made the case that Saddam is a
> > clear danger to us right now.
>
>
> The smart man kills the tiger while its still small. Waiting until
> Saddam becomes a danger to us is waiting too long. Every big war
> could have been prevented with a much smaller war at the appropriate
> time.
>
>
>
> Since there are people more dangerous to
> > us right now (Al Qaeda), the question is "Why attack Iraq at this
> > time?" Especially since attacking Iraq may strengthen those who are
> > attacking us (Al Qaeda).
>
>
> Weakening Al-Quaeda's allies weakens Al-Quaeda. It doesnt strengthen
> them.
then we should weaken saudi arabia
>
>
>
> The answer some folks come up with is "Oil". I
> > guess that's better than "He tried to kill my Daddy".
>
>
> Oil is nonsense. There are many countries in OPEC wiling and able to
> to pump enough oil to make up for Iraq.
but if we took over iraq, wed have all the oil wed ever need. we wouldnt be
asking for other countries oil.
Max C. Webster III
> Max C. Webster III:
The two goals are not mutually exclusive. The US can prosecute a war in Iraq
at the same time as pursuing Al Qaeda. If needed, we could kick the kimchee
out of Kim Jong Il at the same time. Remember, the US and the UK fought a
multi-front, multi-enemy global war sixty years ago when doing so was actually
difficult. We can certainly do more than one thing at a time now.
I understand your concern, but I'm not sure it's completely valid. Dragging
Saddam in front of the UN does not mean Al Qaeda and the world-wide pursuit of
terrorists has been forgotten.
Sean Houtman
> Imagine how life was in Iraq before, say, 50
>years ago. Iraquis were, for the most part, a bunch of primitive
>tribesmen, living in nomadic tents and riding about on camels.
Not. Iraq has a lot of agriculture and regular culture. Baghdad is an ancient
city and has been an Arab capital for a long time. The Tigris and Euphrates
rivers provide water to feed a huge number of people. Sure, most of Iraq is
desert, but desert only supports a few primitive tribesmen. Read 1001 Nights
and compare that to European literature from the 13th century.
Sean
--
Visit my photolog page; http://members.aol.com/grommit383/myhomepage
Last updated 08-04-02 with 15 pictures of the Aztec Ruins.
Address mungled. To email, please spite my face.
Estron
> I was then in the show-me-the-smoking-gun camp -- if inspections showed WoMD,
> and Iraq wasn't willing to get rid of them, then good-bye, Saddam. When it
> became clear that Saddam wasn't cooperating with the inspections, I moved
> into (and am currently in) the disarm-now-or-we-will-disarm-you camp. If
> Saddam doesn't voluntarily disarm immediately and give a full accounting,
> then it's time to go in with full force. I'd like to go in under the auspices
> of the UN, but if the French won't allow that, then it's not a requirement for me.
Maybe I'm reading too cursorily, but it seems your sticking point is
Iraqi possession of weapons of mass destruction. In the last five
years, both India and Pakistan have developed nuclear-weapon capacity.
I recall no hue and cry among the American people or in this newsgroup
for the U.S., or the U.N., to go in and forcibly disarm either
country.
The difference I see with Iraq is that the administration seems to
have a collective bug up its butt about Saddam, possibly because of
recent history.
--
All opinions expressed are only that.
Pax vobiscum.
est...@tfs.net
Kansas City, Missouri
go go dog person
>The Tigris and Euphrates
>rivers provide water to feed a huge number of people. Sure, most of Iraq is
>desert, but desert only supports a few primitive tribesmen.
I gather at one time that was part of what was called "the fertile crescent."
Now, a lot of America, prior to about 200 years ago, that was primitive
tribesmen, living in nomadic tents, only they had to walk because they hadn't
invented the horse yet.
A lot of Europe, prior to about 300 years ago, was primitive filthy people,
living in muddy trenches, watching the people to whom they all belonged riding
about on horses.
--
."Uh, you talking about me BF? Gosh!"
go go dog person
> If needed, we could kick the kimchee
>out of Kim Jong Il at the same time.
Only if China gives us permission. I bet we could trade them Taiwan for it, but
that's about what it would take.
go go dog person
>
>"David J. Martin" <david-j...@tamu.edu> wrote in message
>news:<3E510D50...@tamu.edu>...
>
>> I think it helps that Bush hasn't really made the case that Saddam is a
>> clear danger to us right now.
>
>
>The smart man kills the tiger while its still small
in bed.
> Waiting until
>Saddam becomes a danger to us is waiting too long.
It is not clear he'll ever become a danger to us. He was dangerous to Kuwait,
but I seem to recall him asking us permission for that one, and we actually had
to send our navy over there, after giving him money to buy weapons, helicopters
to deploy them from, and intelligence as to where to target them.
> Every big war
>could have been prevented with a much smaller war at the appropriate
>time.
You're an idiot.
> Since there are people more dangerous to
>> us right now (Al Qaeda), the question is "Why attack Iraq at this
>> time?" Especially since attacking Iraq may strengthen those who are
>> attacking us (Al Qaeda).
>
>
>Weakening Al-Quaeda's allies weakens Al-Quaeda.
Okay, so why attack Iraq again?
> It doesnt strengthen
>them.
What does attacking Al-queda's enemies do?
> The answer some folks come up with is "Oil". I
>> guess that's better than "He tried to kill my Daddy".
>
>
>Oil is nonsense.
I think it would be more honest and respectable, not that we associate these
thing with the boy here, to say "well, maybe, but oil is some serious shit."
> There are many countries in OPEC wiling and able to
>to pump enough oil to make up for Iraq.
This would have what effect on the price of oil? Say, Oil is a pretty inelastic
good, isn't it?
StarChaser Tyger
dog person) !
> A lot of Europe, prior to about 300 years ago, was primitive filthy people,
>living in muddy trenches, watching the people to whom they all belonged riding
>about on horses.
"'ow can you tell 'e's a king?"
"Woll, he's not covered in shit, izze?"
--
Visit the Furry Artist InFURmation Page! Contact information, which artists
do and don't want their work posted. http://web.tampabay.rr.com/starchsr/
Address no longer munged for the inconvienence of spammers.
(Yes, this really is me.)
chris greville
"Jeff" <the_dudeATbongoboy.com> wrote in message
news:4pn55vg51k1ho36nt...@4ax.com...
>
> All you commie pinko feminazi's are the same!
Motto!
RM Mentock
>
> "Paul L. Madarasz" <pl...@dakotacom.net> wrote:
>
> > Haven't you heard? Him 'n' Saddam are asshole buddies!
>
> Hey! I thought I was the only one who'd ever heard the phrase "asshole
> buddies."
So, like, you heard it in your head?
--
RM Mentock
It is not enough to be wrong, you must also be polite - Niels Bohr
RM Mentock
> The smart man kills the tiger while its still small. Waiting until
> Saddam becomes a danger to us is waiting too long. Every big war
> could have been prevented with a much smaller war at the appropriate
> time.
or abortion even
Oliver Sampson
Congratulations, you're the first one to list specifics. Now, if you
wouldn't mind, cites please. (Especially about that first one; I
hadn't heard it before.)
==================
Oliver Sampson
ol...@quickaudio.com
http://www.oliversampson.com
Mike Muth
On 19-Feb-2003, Opus the Penguin <opusthe...@netzero.net> wrote:
> One exception to this would be Mike Muth. If I recall, he's a pacifist.
> That entitles him to a firm opinion because he has all the facts he
> requires. But it also means he's reasoning from different
> presuppositions than most of us, so his arguments may not seem
> persuasive.
Well, I am not quite a strict a pacifist as I probably ought to be. I do
believe that it is wrong to unnecessarily harm others. The only case of
necessary harm I could accept would be the minimum amount of force to
prevent greater harm. In some cases, this might even include minimally
hurting another in order to preclude greater harm to that person. (Please
note: I don't automatically equate pain with harm. Not all things which
harm require the infliction of pain and painful things do not necessarily
harm.)
Now, this runs counter to NT teaching. I concede that I have a problem
doing the turn the other cheek thing. Still, I am a pacifist and I remain
unconvinced that a war with Iraq is the right thing to do. I really wish
someone would come up with a way to disarm Iraq without waging war, but I
have yet to see any real alternatives. OTOH, I am not convinced that we
*need* to disarm Iraq. Granted, they did transfer some BW material to the
PLO in 1992 and they are possibly connected to the ricin which found it's
way into the UK. Still, I'm not sure we need to dismantle the programs
(although I am convinced that the BW and CW programs are alive and well in
Iraq).
After Iraq, what then? In 1995, 17 countries had active BW programs. The
number has grown since then. France had 2 BW related facilities in 1988
and Germany had such a facility near Muenster. South Korea and Taiwan had
(and probably still have) such programs. Hmmm. When one looks at the list
of countries from 1995 and 1988 and compares that to the countries most
opposed to disarming Iraq, there is an interesting correlation...
Mike
"A report submitted by the U.S. Office of Technological Assessment to
hearings at the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations in late
1995 identified seventeen countries believed to possess biological
weapons--Libya, North Korea, South Korea, Iraq, Taiwan, Syria, Israel,
Iran, China, Egypt, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, Bulgaria, India, South Africa, and
Russia. More have joined the list since."
- Ken Alibek, _Biohazard_, Page 277
Estron
of circumstances wherein you (by which term I think he meant
SoCalMike) would actually support war?"
Mike answered:
> >money transfers between saddam and OBL
> >proof terrorists trained there
> >working bombs n stuff
> >nuclear stuff
> >catching terrorist cells that have saddam on speed dial on their celly
> >cells.
Then Oliver asked:
> Congratulations, you're the first one to list specifics. Now, if you
> wouldn't mind, cites please. (Especially about that first one; I
> hadn't heard it before.)
Unless I've read these messages wrong, Mike was responding to your
speculative question about "any set of circumstances," not stating
what circumstances he thought actually had occurred.
Max C. Webster III
> Previously on alt.fan.cecil-adams, Max C. Webster III wrote:
>
>> I was then in the show-me-the-smoking-gun camp -- if inspections
>> showed WoMD, and Iraq wasn't willing to get rid of them, then
>> good-bye, Saddam. When it became clear that Saddam wasn't
>> cooperating with the inspections, I moved into (and am currently in) the
>> disarm-now-or-we-will-disarm-you camp. If Saddam doesn't voluntarily
>> disarm immediately and give a full accounting, then it's time to go in
>> with full force. I'd like to go in under the auspices of the UN, but if the
>> French won't allow that, then it's not a requirement for me.
>
> Maybe I'm reading too cursorily, but it seems your sticking point is
> Iraqi possession of weapons of mass destruction. In the last five
> years, both India and Pakistan have developed nuclear-weapon capacity.
> I recall no hue and cry among the American people or in this newsgroup
> for the U.S., or the U.N., to go in and forcibly disarm either
> country.
My sticking point is acutally Iraq being in violation of their cease-fire
agreement. In 1991, the coalition stopped prosecuting the war on some
conditions, and disarmament was on of them. Saddam has thumbed his nose at
that condition since then. If the UN doesn't forcable hold Iraq to the
agreement, the then agreement is irrelevant, as will be the UN. While I am
not, by and large, a fan of the United Nations, they can be at times a force
for good. Now is one of those times. If they don't step up to the challenge,
then they are pretty much worthless. If a Saddam can stop them, then just
about anyone can.
> The difference I see with Iraq is that the administration seems to
> have a collective bug up its butt about Saddam, possibly because of
> recent history.
I agree. Although it is highly doubtful the Iraqis had anything to do with
09/11, that terrorist attack was the catalyst. The US would talk a lot about
fighting terrorism, but didn't really do anything until the war dropped onto
our doorstep. Now the fight against those that wish to harm us been brought to
the front of American policy.
You mentioned India and Pakistan, and questioned why no is complaining about
their nuclear weapons. The answer is that they only ones they are threatening
are each other. They are living under MAD, mutually assured destruction, much
as the US and USSR did throughout the cold war (not to as great an extent, of
course). Saddam, however, is a threat not only to his neighbors, but to the
rest of the world.
ra...@westnet.poe.com
<snip>
> Well, and blood for Americans to continue to use oil at a profligate
> pace. I'm unconvinced that we should put our troops in harm's way and
> kill Iraqi women and children to maintain the "right" to drive gas
> guzzlers and spend our spare time watching NASCAR, and driving snow
> mobiles and jet skis.
Good thing that's nothing more than the Peacniks' straw man.
John
--
Remove the dead poet to e-mail, tho CC'd posts are unwelcome.
Ask me about joining the NRA.
ra...@westnet.poe.com
No, the smart man chased the tiger out of his neighbors house with a
strong swat to tyhe behind, while the tiger is stunted it's still a
growing threat.
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> On 17 Feb 2003 02:48:26 GMT, maxx...@aol.com.mil.gov (Max C. Webster III)
> wrote:
>>|It makes no difference to these folks what the real issues are.
> I see. So, while you're telling me what the "real issues are" please do what
> my government hasn't done and offer proof to support your positions. Not just
> suggestion or innuendo, but real proof of real danger. And no 'if's' or
> guessing. 'k?
It's been done, but you're blindly denying it, while chanting Iraqi
propoganda.
Estron
> Although it is highly doubtful the Iraqis had anything to do with
> 09/11, that terrorist attack was the catalyst. The US would talk a lot about
> fighting terrorism, but didn't really do anything until the war dropped onto
> our doorstep. Now the fight against those that wish to harm us been brought to
> the front of American policy.
So the U.S. response to a terrorist attack includes (among other things)
a war against a country that probably had nothing to do with the attack?
> You mentioned India and Pakistan, and questioned why no is complaining about
> their nuclear weapons. The answer is that they only ones they are threatening
> are each other. They are living under MAD, mutually assured destruction, much
> as the US and USSR did throughout the cold war (not to as great an extent, of
> course). Saddam, however, is a threat not only to his neighbors, but to the
> rest of the world.
As far as you can tell, has Saddam Hussein caused Americans any harm
since the end of the Gulf War?
--
All opinions expressed above are only that.
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 19:57:23 GMT, "Jason Quick" <jsq...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>|Instead, I have a general question - is there any set of circumstances
>>|wherein you would actually support war? If not, why do you continue to ask
>>|for evidence and/or justification? If you're anti-war, there's no
>>|justification that *could* be made, right?
> I'm not anti-war. I'm not even a pacifist! Sometimes it's good to flex a
> little muscle and kick a little ass, but only when there has been an egregious
> offense committed - for no reason. Then, all bets are off.
I see, so by your criterion, the US has never been involved in a war you'd
support. Since there has always been some reasons behind our enemies (oh,
but that should be oppresed nations, right?) commiting egregious opffense
against us.
> I just think there's no real reason for us to be in Iraq in the first place
> and that there's a larger game at play here and the Bush Administration is
> being completely disingenuous about it.
I don't credit them with that much ingenuity. The reasons are plain and
straightforeward, but you've got blinders on.
> (I'm still pissed about Kuwait. I mean, I got it wrong. I thought we were
> liberating a DEMOCRACY.)
Well, you're appalingly ill-informed then. The political structure of
Kuwait was widely known. Still that doesn't mean that we can't liberate
them if we've got a reason to.
Did you succede in sending your sister to Iraq?
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 08:04:17 -0800, Dave Wilton <da...@wilton.net> wrote:
>>|During the first Gulf War, yes, but not now
> Wait! I thought the first Gulf war was about restoring democracy and liberty
> to the freedom loving Kuwaiti's?
Nope, it was about kicking the Iraqi's out of Kuwait.
Estron
> My sticking point is acutally Iraq being in violation of their cease-fire
> agreement.
Dear Abby:
I have a friend named Fred. A couple years ago, Fred's cat was attacked
and nearly killed by a dog belonging to Joe, over in the next block.
Fred called the police on Joe, but while they were on their way, Fred
went over and beat Joe up himself. When the police got there, they
decided not to press charges if Joe promised to get rid of the dog, and
Joe made that promise.
Last month, Fred's little boy was jumped by a dog, and got some pretty
serious bites. The kid was in the hospital for days. He couldn't tell
what kind of dog had attacked him, and Fred is pretty sure it wasn't
Joe's dog. Nonetheless, Fred has a pretty good idea Joe hasn't gotten
rid of his dog, like he promised, but is keeping it hidden in the
basement. Fred has asked the police several times to go find out if Joe
still has that dog, but they keep saying they're going to check it out
"in a few days."
Fred is frustrated. He told me last night he's going to take his new .50
Magnum pistol over to Joe's house, shoot that dog if he finds it, and
make Joe move out of the house, or he'll blow Joe away. Fred says he's
sure that Joe's abusive to his family and that dog is a threat to the
neighborhood, and if the police won't do anything, Fred has to. He says
he's sure that's what Joe's family and the rest of the block wants.
What do you think, Abby? Is Joe being reasonable?
--
All opinions expressed above are only that.