[I] Nader spam
Jon
all the pro-Nader spam on almost every ng I read has brassed me off so much.
Anybody else of like mind?
--
Remove 'notme' to reply
Peter Ellis
>
>I can't vote for Nader, of course, but even if I could I wouldn't, because
>all the pro-Nader spam on almost every ng I read has brassed me off so much.
>
>Anybody else of like mind?
Well, I wouldn't, because the electoral system's a FPTP system [1], which
means that all a Nader vote does is decrease the chance of Kerry ousting
the current prick.
I'd not let the spam influence me at all if possible though - certainly
I'd want to frustrate the wishes of the scum that put the spam up, but
there's no way of telling whether it's a naive attempt by pro-Nader voters
to gain support, or a somewhat more clever attempt by one of the other
parties to annoy people into *not* voting Nader.
Peter
[1] Carefully avoiding saying whether this is a good or bad thing, in
these or other circumstances.
Michael J. Schülke
> I can't vote for Nader, of course, but even if I could I wouldn't, because
> all the pro-Nader spam on almost every ng I read has brassed me off so much.
>
> Anybody else of like mind?
Have a look at
http://www.votenader.org/contact/spam.php
They claim:
Michael J. Schülke
> I can't vote for Nader, of course, but even if I could I wouldn't, because
> all the pro-Nader spam on almost every ng I read has brassed me off so much.
>
> Anybody else of like mind?
I'm in exactly the same situation -- so I checked their website. Have a
look at
http://www.votenader.org/contact/spam.php
--8<--- (begin quote) -----------------------------------------------
You may have received spam email recently that appears to come from our
campaign, or be about our campaign ? perhaps the "From" and or "Reply-
to" addresses look like they are coming from VoteNader.org. Or perhaps
you have received a message that appears to come from an individual (if
the address is real, the real owner probably did not send this email
either) with suppressed recipients. Or maybe you received an email that
appeared to come from yourself promoting our site.
These messages are NOT from Nader for President 2004, and these email
tactics are NOT condoned by our campaign in any way.
UPDATE: (8 April 2004) As of late this very spam notice, or variations
of it, have been reposted across USENET under forged email addresses
(many of which don't actually exist). This is a continuation of the joe-
jobbing and we are keeping track of the reports of these events to the
best of our ability. This notice regarding the spoofing of email alleged
to come from the votenader.org domain has been published in one spot by
the campaign -- this page at http://www.votenader.org/contact/spam.php
-- it has not been emailed by the campaign or reposted anywhere else.
Any apparent forwarding or republishing of this document has not been
done by us and is not authorized by us.
--8<--- (end quote) --------------------------------------------------
Regards,
Michael
Brian Howlett
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Jon wrote:
>>
>> I can't vote for Nader, of course, but even if I could I wouldn't,
>> because all the pro-Nader spam on almost every ng I read has brassed
>> me off so much.
>>
>> Anybody else of like mind?
I think that may be the idea...
[snip]
>
> I'd not let the spam influence me at all if possible though -
> certainly I'd want to frustrate the wishes of the scum that put the
> spam up, but there's no way of telling whether it's a naive attempt by
> pro-Nader voters to gain support, or a somewhat more clever attempt by
> one of the other parties to annoy people into *not* voting Nader.
>
I tend towards the latter view myself - it may have started out as Nader
supporters spamming for votes, as the original ones arriving here were
from "votenader.org" addresses, but the later ones are coming from
different addresses.
This may just be because people are just killfiling the "votenader.org"
addresses, of course.
--
Brian Howlett
--------------------------------
"I'm Brian, and so's my wife..."
Michael Mendelsohn
> I can't vote for Nader, of course, but even if I could I wouldn't, because
> all the pro-Nader spam on almost every ng I read has brassed me off so much.
>
> Anybody else of like mind?
It is not clear that the spam orginates with teh nader campaign.
I had a look at the Path: headers on a recent spam, and it was
definitely faked, i.e. it appeared to originate from votenader.org when
it really was inserted somewhere down the line, the origin having been
obscured.
The question is, is this spam originated by Nader opponents to make him
look bad (for spamming)? (This is called a joe-job). Or is it originated
by the Nader campaign, but made to look as if it wasn't? (The appended
right-wing drivel makes me think that is not so). Or was it orginated by
Nader opponents who want to make me think it was originated by the Nader
campaign who wanted to make me think it wasn't originated by them? Or
was it originated by the Nader campaign who want to make me think...
Michael
--
Feel the stare of my burning hamster and stop smoking!
jester
<keine.Wer...@msgid.michael.mendelsohn.de> wrote:
<snip>
>was it originated by the Nader campaign who want to make me think...
I'd say the last thing *any* politician wants the average man in the
streets to do is think.
Especially just before an election.
--
Andy Brown
Quando omni flunkus moritati (when all else fails play dead)
Julia Jones
<Brian_...@btinternet.com> writes
>On 23 Apr, Peter Ellis <pj...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> I'd not let the spam influence me at all if possible though -
>> certainly I'd want to frustrate the wishes of the scum that put the
>> spam up, but there's no way of telling whether it's a naive attempt by
>> pro-Nader voters to gain support, or a somewhat more clever attempt by
>> one of the other parties to annoy people into *not* voting Nader.
>>
>I tend towards the latter view myself - it may have started out as Nader
>supporters spamming for votes, as the original ones arriving here were
>from "votenader.org" addresses, but the later ones are coming from
>different addresses.
>
from that address. After all, it's impossible to forge such things,
isn't it?
(I'm not going to fake this post to prove a point, because
news.individual.net take that sort of thing seriously.)
--
Julia Jones
"The Syndicate" - a heartwarming tale of geek love among the stars. Volumes 1
and 2 available now from http://www.amatory-ink.co.uk Details and free sample
chapters at http://www.julesjones.com/fiction/syndicate/syndicate.htm
Brian Howlett
> In article <5d1923a4...@btinternet.com>, Brian Howlett
> <Brian_...@btinternet.com> writes
[snip]
>> it may have started out as Nader supporters spamming for votes, as
>> the original ones arriving here were from "votenader.org" addresses,
>> but the later ones are coming from different addresses.
>>
> And if it says it comes from an address, obviously it must have come
> from that address. After all, it's impossible to forge such things,
> isn't it?
I'm well aware of that, but at that point I hadn't seen the denial
posted on the votenader.org web site. I was merely speculating.
>
> (I'm not going to fake this post to prove a point, because
> news.individual.net take that sort of thing seriously.)
Rightly so.
--
Brian Howlett
--------------------------------------------------------------
Windows has detected that the mouse has been moved.
You must restart Windows for the new setting to take effect...
rich hammett
häntä, Jon yllätti tuomarin todistamalla:
> I can't vote for Nader, of course, but even if I could I wouldn't, because
> all the pro-Nader spam on almost every ng I read has brassed me off so much.
> Anybody else of like mind?
I read a half-dozen groups, and I haven't seen any spam.
I voted for Nadir in 2000 (in Alabama, so I didn't contribute
to The Shrub), but will probably grit my teeth and vote
for Kerry this time around.
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ "Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world;
\ than the pride that divides
/ when a colorful rag is unfurled."
Thomas Zahr
> This may just be because people are just killfiling the
> "votenader.org" addresses, of course.
>
This they (me) certainly did / do
--
Ciao
Thomas =:-)
<http://www.zahr.de>
Thomas Zahr
> I can't vote for Nader, of course, but even if I could I
> wouldn't, because all the pro-Nader spam on almost every ng
> I read has brassed me off so much.
>
> Anybody else of like mind?
>
Yep
--
Ciao
Thomas =:-)
<Good sig's are rare>
Darin Johnson
> Well, I wouldn't, because the electoral system's a FPTP system [1], which
> means that all a Nader vote does is decrease the chance of Kerry ousting
> the current prick.
Well, the Nader camp might say that why choose between two equally
evil candidates? I'm not voting for Nader, but I feel strongly that
one should vote for someone and not against someone. If the Democrats
want the Nader vote, then all they have to do is start addressing
their concerns instead of calling them names.
--
Darin Johnson
"You used to be big."
"I am big. It's the pictures that got small."
Richard Bos
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 17:25:21 +0200, Michael Mendelsohn
> >was it originated by the Nader campaign who want to make me think...
>
> I'd say the last thing *any* politician wants the average man in the
> streets to do is think.
> Especially just before an election.
Ture, but probably less so of Nader than of the two real contestants.
Richard
Peter Ellis
>Peter Ellis <pj...@cam.ac.uk> writes:
>
>> Well, I wouldn't, because the electoral system's a FPTP system [1], which
>> means that all a Nader vote does is decrease the chance of Kerry ousting
>> the current prick.
>
>Well, the Nader camp might say that why choose between two equally
>evil candidates?
Because under a FPTP system it's the only way your choice will make any
difference.
Peter
David Chapman
> I tend towards the latter view myself - it may have started out as Nader
> supporters spamming for votes, as the original ones arriving here were
> from "votenader.org" addresses, but the later ones are coming from
> different addresses.
>
> This may just be because people are just killfiling the "votenader.org"
> addresses, of course.
Or bcause people have been reporting this spam - which is affecting every
group in existence, SFAIAA - and the votenader.org addys don't exist any
more. I wouldn't rule out the possibility that a lot of ISPs are simply
bouncing votenader.org now.
--
Flatulence: the only truly disposable art form.
Jeroen Wenting
"Peter Ellis" <pj...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.58.04...@yellow.csi.cam.ac.uk...
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Jon wrote:
> >
> >I can't vote for Nader, of course, but even if I could I wouldn't,
because
> >all the pro-Nader spam on almost every ng I read has brassed me off so
much.
> >
> >Anybody else of like mind?
>
> Well, I wouldn't, because the electoral system's a FPTP system [1], which
> means that all a Nader vote does is decrease the chance of Kerry ousting
> the current prick.
>
and never the traitorous b*stard Kerry.
Kerry betrayed his country during th Vietnam war, openly siding with the
enemy while in uniform.
He abused the military system to get medals which allowed him to be retired
after a few months, then abused those medals to portray himself as a warhero
after first openly denouncing he'd even gotten those medals.
Jeroen Wenting
"Darin Johnson" <darin_@_usa_._net> wrote in message
news:cu1brli...@nokia.com...
> Peter Ellis <pj...@cam.ac.uk> writes:
>
> > Well, I wouldn't, because the electoral system's a FPTP system [1],
which
> > means that all a Nader vote does is decrease the chance of Kerry ousting
> > the current prick.
>
> Well, the Nader camp might say that why choose between two equally
> evil candidates? I'm not voting for Nader, but I feel strongly that
> one should vote for someone and not against someone. If the Democrats
> want the Nader vote, then all they have to do is start addressing
> their concerns instead of calling them names.
>
doing this entire campaign is to throw up dirt in the faces of the
competition in case you hadn't noticed.
Nothing else to do when your candidate is a traitor to his country who sold
out to the enemy several times.
Jeroen Wenting
> The question is, is this spam originated by Nader opponents to make him
> look bad (for spamming)? (This is called a joe-job). Or is it originated
honest ways all the time, they definitely have the expertise to pull this
of.
Richard Bos
> "Peter Ellis" <pj...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.4.58.04...@yellow.csi.cam.ac.uk...
> > Well, I wouldn't, because the electoral system's a FPTP system [1], which
> > means that all a Nader vote does is decrease the chance of Kerry ousting
> > the current prick.
>
> That alone would have me vote for the guy (but then my vote would go to Bush
> and never the traitorous b*stard Kerry.
You disappoint me. I honestly cannot conceive anyone in his right mind,
who has not been brainwashed by constant USAnian propaganda, voting for
that mass-murderous son of a bitch. All he愀 ever done is make money for
his oil-baron friends over the backs of all the rest of us in the _real_
free world.
> Kerry betrayed his country during th Vietnam war, openly siding with the
> enemy while in uniform.
Then again, during Vietnam Kerry愀 country was, to put it simply, dead
wrong.
Richard
Richard Bos
> They can't because the "Democrats" have no agenda. The ONLY thing they're
> doing this entire campaign is to throw up dirt in the faces of the
> competition in case you hadn't noticed.
>
> Nothing else to do when your candidate is a traitor to his country who sold
> out to the enemy several times.
Well, yes, that愀 true enough of George Bush and his Saudi-Arabic
friends, but what has it got to do with the Democratic party?
Richard
Darin Johnson
> He abused the military system to get medals which allowed him to be retired
> after a few months,
He served TWO tours of duty.
--
Darin Johnson
"Look here. There's a crop circle in my ficus!" -- The Tick
mcv
: "Jeroen Wenting" <beef...@hornet.beefjerky.demon.nl> wrote:
:
:> They can't because the "Democrats" have no agenda. The ONLY thing they're
:> doing this entire campaign is to throw up dirt in the faces of the
:> competition in case you hadn't noticed.
:>
:> Nothing else to do when your candidate is a traitor to his country who sold
:> out to the enemy several times.
:
: friends, but what has it got to do with the Democratic party?
Heh. That's exactly what I was thinking.
But if Kerry really doesn't have an agenda, I think that may still be
better than Bush's agenda. Really, he has to go, no matter what it takes.
mcv.
mcv
The problem is the system. It encourages people to vote for the lesser
of two evils, ensuring that third party candidates will never get a
chance.
Much better would be something like they have in Australia. I believe you
can vote for multiple candidates in order of preference. So even if Kerry
is your second-to-last favourite candidate, and Bush is your last, once
the battle is just between the two of them, your vote would go to Kerry.
But for the presidency, I can live with the current system in the US.
For a parliament, however, I really think equal representation would
be far, far better. More democratic, at least. Whether that is actually
better is open for discussion.
mcv.
mcv
: "Jeroen Wenting" <beef...@hornet.beefjerky.demon.nl> wrote:
:
:> enemy while in uniform.
:
: Then again, during Vietnam Kerry?s country was, to put it simply, dead
: wrong.
Which reminds me: has Netherland ever finally admitted it was wrong in
Indonesia, and forgiven Poncke Princen?
mcv.
Torak
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Jon wrote:
>
>>I can't vote for Nader, of course, but even if I could I wouldn't, because
>>all the pro-Nader spam on almost every ng I read has brassed me off so much.
>>
>>Anybody else of like mind?
>
> Well, I wouldn't, because the electoral system's a FPTP system [1], which
> means that all a Nader vote does is decrease the chance of Kerry ousting
> the current prick.
Actually, I think Bush is probably not as bad as we like to think. I
always used to enjoy making fun of him, but I'm starting to suspect he's
(a) a lot smarter than he seems, possibly deliberately; (b) a lot
*nicer* than he seems (or is made to seem); and (c) the dangerous ones
are Rice and Rumsfeld. At least Dubya seems to be fundamentally a decent
bloke.
Sanity
article <408b9de4$0$566$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>:
Of course not. Because we were obviously right, being whiter and richer
than them </sarcasm>
TTFN,
Michel AKA Sanity
--
"Sanity shall make ye -ing fret": | "Dolphins! They think they're so
www.affordable-prawns.co.uk | cute! Oh, look at me, I'm a flippy
www.affordable-hedgehogs.co.uk | little dolphin, let me flip for
Check the AFPChess Tournament! | you!" -- Chum
Thomas Hamann
They have enough trouble admitting they screwed up *really* badly in
Srebrenica...
Thomas
--
Website: http://www.geocities.com/hamann_td
Sanity
article <408b9de4$0$566$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>:
> Richard Bos <r...@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> wrote:
Of course not. Because we were obviously right, being whiter and richer
than them </cynicism>
TTFN,
Michel AKA Sanity
Daibhid Ceannaideach
Date: 25/04/04 12:57 GMT Daylight Time
>Actually, I think Bush is probably not as bad as we like to think. I
>always used to enjoy making fun of him, but I'm starting to suspect he's
>(a) a lot smarter than he seems, possibly deliberately; (b) a lot
>*nicer* than he seems (or is made to seem); and (c) the dangerous ones
>are Rice and Rumsfeld. At least Dubya seems to be fundamentally a decent
>bloke.
I can believe that Dubya is *either* nicer than he seems or smarter than he
seems. But not both. Either he's got no idea what's going on, and is leaving
it all to Condy and Donald, or he knows *exactly* what he's doing and finds it
convenient to hide behind the "I'm just this misunderestimated guy from Texas"
routine and let them take the flak.
Either way, I'm not *totally* at ease with the idea of him running the free
world. And even less so if my initial instincts were correct and he really is
that dumb *and* that vindictive.
--
Dave
The Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
Four-and-twenty Lib Dems came down from Inverness,
And when the vote was counted there were four-and-twenty less.
-Rory Bremner, 7/3/04
Sanity
wrote in article <0edn801l17lojgpms...@4ax.com>:
> On 25 Apr 2004 11:15:48 GMT, mcv <mcv...@xs1.xs4all.nl> wrote:
[bad country, no bikkit]
>>Which reminds me: has Netherland ever finally admitted it was wrong in
>>Indonesia, and forgiven Poncke Princen?
>>
> They have enough trouble admitting they screwed up *really* badly in
> Srebrenica...
I doubt "we" did. The UN peace force in Srebrenica was underarmed,
overwhelmed, and did not get any (air) support when the Serbs surrounded
the enclave.
They didn't screw up. They (the UN, and the dutch government) were just
incredibly naive about what might happen, and they probably didn't expect
the Serbs to actually attack a UN peacekeeping force.
Lesley Weston
r...@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl wrote on 24/04/2004 2:17 PM:
>
> You disappoint me. I honestly cannot conceive anyone in his right mind,
> who has not been brainwashed by constant USAnian propaganda, voting for
> that mass-murderous son of a bitch.
It's called democracy. It means that everyone gets to vote for the candidate
of *their* choice, not (necessarily) of yours.
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, so as not to upset the sys-apes, but I don't
actually read anything sent to it before I empty it. To reach me, use lesley
att vancouverbc dott nett, changing spelling and spacing as required.
Richard Bos
> On 25 Apr 2004 11:15:48 GMT, mcv <mcv...@xs1.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> >Richard Bos <r...@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> wrote:
> >: "Jeroen Wenting" <beef...@hornet.beefjerky.demon.nl> wrote:
> >:
> >:> Kerry betrayed his country during th Vietnam war, openly siding with the
> >:> enemy while in uniform.
> >:
> >: Then again, during Vietnam Kerry?s country was, to put it simply, dead
> >: wrong.
> >
> >Which reminds me: has Netherland ever finally admitted it was wrong in
> >Indonesia, and forgiven Poncke Princen?
There have been several occasions of politicians speaking out on
Indonesia; how adequate these speeches were as admissions of guilt I am
not in a position to judge. IMO, however, the Dutch government was far
from wrong when it said that Sukarno would hardly be the right man to
run the country - look at the mess he made.
As for Poncke Princen, he actually _shot_ at his former mates. That goes
a bit farther than mere desertion, IMO. He'd be easier to forgive if all
he had done was walk out.
> They have enough trouble admitting they screwed up *really* badly in
> Srebrenica...
That's mainly because the _really_ bad screw-up in Srebrenica was not
perpetrated by the Dutch, but by the UN and that cowardly Frog general.
I mean, really, when you're sent into a death trap with grossly
inadequate weapons and allowances, and when _you_ raise the alarm about
the situation and call for air backup that support is denied you by a
bloody incompetent Frenchman, what the blazes are you expected to do?
Die? That would not have saved a single Bosnian life.
Richard
Thomas Zahr
> Peter Ellis wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Jon wrote:
>>
>>> I can't vote for Nader, of course, but even if I could I
>>> wouldn't, because all the pro-Nader spam on almost every ng
>>> I read has brassed me off so much.
>>>
>>> Anybody else of like mind?
>>
>> Well, I wouldn't, because the electoral system's a FPTP
>> system [1], which means that all a Nader vote does is
>> decrease the chance of Kerry ousting the current prick.
>
> Actually, I think Bush is probably not as bad as we like to
> think. I always used to enjoy making fun of him, but I'm
> starting to suspect he's (a) a lot smarter than he seems,
> possibly deliberately;
Being smarter than he seems would not really be difficult, but
he would need to be real smart, not just smarter than he
seems.
> (b) a lot *nicer* than he seems (or is made to seem); and
Where does nice come into it? Just because he helps out his
pals in the oil business?
> (c) the dangerous ones are Rice and Rumsfeld. At least Dubya
> seems to be fundamentally a decent bloke.
>
He seems to be a *fundamental* bloke, and that is not what one
wants in a leader!
--
Ciao
Thomas =:-)
<http://www.zahr.de>
mcv
: Thomas Hamann <hama...@yahoo.com> wrote:
:> On 25 Apr 2004 11:15:48 GMT, mcv <mcv...@xs1.xs4all.nl> wrote:
:> >Richard Bos <r...@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> wrote:
:> >: "Jeroen Wenting" <beef...@hornet.beefjerky.demon.nl> wrote:
:> >:
:> >:> Kerry betrayed his country during th Vietnam war, openly siding with the
:> >:> enemy while in uniform.
:> >:
:> >: Then again, during Vietnam Kerry?s country was, to put it simply, dead
:> >: wrong.
:> >
:> >Which reminds me: has Netherland ever finally admitted it was wrong in
:> >Indonesia, and forgiven Poncke Princen?
(I wonder what's in this can... Ooh! Worms!)
: There have been several occasions of politicians speaking out on
: Indonesia; how adequate these speeches were as admissions of guilt I am
: not in a position to judge. IMO, however, the Dutch government was far
: from wrong when it said that Sukarno would hardly be the right man to
: run the country - look at the mess he made.
True, but instead of guiding Indonesia gently into independence (like we
did with Suriname -- great job we did there), we said: we've been in
Indie for 300 years, and we'll stay there for another 300 years.
: As for Poncke Princen, he actually _shot_ at his former mates. That goes
: a bit farther than mere desertion, IMO. He'd be easier to forgive if all
: he had done was walk out.
But he still was fighting on the right side. Dutch soldiers were really
misbehaving there. Everything that Vietnam movies tell us about the
behaviour of American soldiers was at least as much true of Dutch soldiers
in Indonesia.
I'm not a big fan of patriotism for its own sake. Poncke Princen could
probably have handled it a lot better than he did, but at least he tried
to do something. I cartainly can't blame him more than all the soldiers
who kept fighting for a wrong cause there.
:> They have enough trouble admitting they screwed up *really* badly in
:> Srebrenica...
:
: That's mainly because the _really_ bad screw-up in Srebrenica was not
: perpetrated by the Dutch, but by the UN and that cowardly Frog general.
: I mean, really, when you're sent into a death trap with grossly
: inadequate weapons and allowances, and when _you_ raise the alarm about
: the situation and call for air backup that support is denied you by a
: bloody incompetent Frenchman, what the blazes are you expected to do?
: Die? That would not have saved a single Bosnian life.
Dutchbat couldn't really have done much there (although they might have
been able to do a bit more than just stand around and turn their head),
but that doesn't mean the Dutch military didn't mess up. The air mobile
brigade is not intended for defending a piece of ground against an
attacking army. It's intended for, funnily enough, air mobility. To
defend Srebrenica, they needed some heavily armed infantry and artillery,
not some lightly armed guys in helicopters. But the Dutch army wanted
to show off their brand new spiffy air mobile brigade, and forget to
tell the UN that they didn't want Srebrenica.
That doesn't mean the French general or the rest of the UN didn't mess up
too. This was a sad case where just about everybody who had anything at
all to do with it, managed to screw up real bad. But the Dutch military
was certainly not the least of those.
mcv.
mcv
[on Bush]
:
: Either way, I'm not *totally* at ease with the idea of him running the free
: world. And even less so if my initial instincts were correct and he really is
: that dumb *and* that vindictive.
Don't worry, it's getting less free as we speak.
mcv.
grahamafforda...@hotmail.com
On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 10:58:31 +0200, "Jeroen Wenting"
<beef...@hornet.beefjerky.demon.nl> wrote:
>They can't because the "Democrats" have no agenda. The ONLY thing they're
>doing this entire campaign is to throw up dirt in the faces of the
>competition in case you hadn't noticed.
So these adverts from the Bush campaign are doing *what* exactly???
http://www.georgewbush.com/News/MultiMedia/VideoPlayer.aspx?ID=772&T=5
Cheers,
Graham.
Darin Johnson
> At least Dubya seems to be fundamentally a decent bloke.
A clueless decent bloke, who's led around on a leash by
the Asses of Evil. Ie, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, and Cheney.
They shield him from all the harmful effects of reality,
and feed him only the information he's allowed to know.
--
Darin Johnson
Where am I? In the village... What do you want? Information...
Sanity
article <408c277c$0$557$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>:
> Dutchbat couldn't really have done much there (although they might have
> been able to do a bit more than just stand around and turn their head),
> but that doesn't mean the Dutch military didn't mess up.
No. They could have gotten themselves killed, and mess up, just before
the massacre of a few thousand men from Srebrenica. Instead of just
standing around. What *could* they have done? They shouldn't have been
there, not with that kind of mandate and that kind of "support". But you
can't blame Dutchbat for that, only the Dutch government and the UN for
pretending that Srebrenica was safe.
Thomas Hamann
<sanityDE...@affordable-hedgehogs.co.uk> wrote:
[Note: may contain evil dripping cynism and sarcasm. Read with care.]
>On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 21:02:52 +0000, mcv <mcv...@xs1.xs4all.nl> wrote in
>article <408c277c$0$557$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>:
>
>> Dutchbat couldn't really have done much there (although they might have
>> been able to do a bit more than just stand around and turn their head),
>> but that doesn't mean the Dutch military didn't mess up.
>
>No. They could have gotten themselves killed,
. . .
I keep getting amazed by the people who complain/whine about people
potentially running the risk of, or actually getting killed while in
the army.
Isn't one of the most OBVIOUS risks of being part of the army that one
might get killed? Perhaps while helping defending something? Or during
fighting?
It hurts my head.
But then, obviously, the life of one armed soldier is more important
than the lives of a thousand helpless civilians. See Iraq. </cynism>
> and mess up, just before
>the massacre of a few thousand men from Srebrenica.
At least they wouldn't have made asses out of themselves, the UN, and
the so-called "protection" they were supposed to provide.
If they had tried doing something more constructive than destroying
evidence after the fact (eg. that one film of photos showing what
happened that "got missing" somehow...), then *perhaps* the survivors
of the Srebrenica genocide wouldn't try to sue them and Holland and
the UN for it. Which, seeing what happened, those survivors are
entirely entitled to do.
> Instead of just
>standing around. What *could* they have done? They shouldn't have been
>there, not with that kind of mandate and that kind of "support".
Once, long, long ago, before they got majorly incompetent, the Dutch
army actually did a pretty decent job of defending themselves against
an invader, while being massively underarmed. They did loose then, but
at least they *tried* something.
That was during the second world war.
> But you
>can't blame Dutchbat for that, only the Dutch government and the UN for
>pretending that Srebrenica was safe.
>
Ah, yes, because soldiers are supposed to be braindead nationalistic
killing machines that do not think at one moment but to save their own
life and let those that are unarmed civilians that do not have the
same nationality as the soldiers die of a bullet in the head. Again,
see Iraq. Where the Dutch Army is happily helping an occupation force
fuck up a country.
It does me such immense pleasure to see my country's army side up with
the God-Sent good guys to catch one OBL and shoot a couple of
civilians. But of course they get OIL. Holy Blessed OIL. And MONEY.
Never mind that Iraq itself, an oil-producing country, currently has
worse electricity problems than during the reign of Saddam the
Dictator and fuel shortage to boot.
Oh, gosh, it appears I might have gotten somewhat abbrasive in those
last few paragraphs. My appologies for that. Blame George W. Bush.
Jennifer & Reinier Sjouw
Thomas Hamann wrote
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 13:37:29 +0200, Sanity
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 21:02:52 +0000, mcv <mcv...@xs1.xs4all.nl> wrote in
> >article <408c277c$0$557$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>:
> >
> >> Dutchbat couldn't really have done much there (although they might have
> >> been able to do a bit more than just stand around and turn their head),
> >> but that doesn't mean the Dutch military didn't mess up.
> >
> >No. They could have gotten themselves killed,
>
> . . .
>
> I keep getting amazed by the people who complain/whine about people
> potentially running the risk of, or actually getting killed while in
> the army.
I keep getting amazed by people who read part of a conversation,
have no clue what the conversation is about, and start some
stupid argument about a wholly different point.
The Dutch goverment sent "Dutchbat" to Bosnia virtually unarmed.
The Dutch military complained this was not an intelligent plan. If
they were to do any protecting, they would need weapons.
The Dutch government subsequently told the military that their
purpose in Bosnia was *not* to fight, but to be present.
This was the difference between peace keeping and
peace enforcing.
The Serbs had objected to sending properly armed troops.
They would only accept peace keepers armed with hand
weapons. The blue helmets were supposed to be enough
deterrent for any attacking force. Both the UN and the
Dutch Government complied with this.
Whether this was a smart plan, may be a different matter.
But Dutchbat was definitely justified in not doing
a "General Custer" when they were left in the lurch.
>
> Isn't one of the most OBVIOUS risks of being part of the army that one
> might get killed? Perhaps while helping defending something? Or during
> fighting?
The prime purpose of having fighting troops is to get the other side
to either not do anything stupid, or to persuade them to give up.
The prime purpose is not to do something really stupid yourself.
>
> It hurts my head.
Good. I think you are entitled to that.
[snip]
>
> Once, long, long ago, before they got majorly incompetent, the Dutch
> army actually did a pretty decent job of defending themselves against
> an invader, while being massively underarmed. They did loose then, but
You're getting carried away, my lad. They didn't loose much. They lost.
> at least they *tried* something.
>
> That was during the second world war.
Yes. Two things about that. First, the military were even then hindered
by the government, which believed that being neutral was more important
than being armed.
Secondly: five days of futile fighting, ending with the agressor flattening
the
centre of Rotterdam, killing thousands, maiming even more, and leaving
immense amounts of people homeless. To what point? Yes, it is nice
to know that it only takes five Dutch marines to stop one German army.
But taking the total toll into account, we might have been better off not
knowing about that.
[snip]
> Oh, gosh, it appears I might have gotten somewhat abbrasive in those
> last few paragraphs. My appologies for that. Blame George W. Bush.
>
Is that a hobby of you, blaming others for things that you do yourself?
--
Reinier Sjouw.
Richard Bos
> in article 408acee1...@news.individual.net, Richard Bos at
> r...@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl wrote on 24/04/2004 2:17 PM:
>
> > You disappoint me. I honestly cannot conceive anyone in his right mind,
> > who has not been brainwashed by constant USAnian propaganda, voting for
> > that mass-murderous son of a bitch.
>
> It's called democracy. It means that everyone gets to vote for the candidate
> of *their* choice, not (necessarily) of yours.
That's a bit of a non-sequitur, isn't it? I'm quite capable of
understanding, nay embracing, the principle of free choice for
everybody, thank you very much; but that needn't keep me from wondering
at, or even being dismayed by, the particular choices made by some part
of that everybody.
Richard
Robert Carnegie
<and...@andrew-perry.com> writes
Didn't Bush appoint Rice and Rumsfeld to their positions, or do I
misunderstand? Royal prerogative?
Robert Carnegie at home, rja.ca...@excite.com at large
--
"Are you sure you want to post?" - my software, every time
Lesley Weston
r...@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl wrote on 26/04/2004 1:58 PM:
> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> in article 408acee1...@news.individual.net, Richard Bos at
>> r...@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl wrote on 24/04/2004 2:17 PM:
>>
>>> You disappoint me. I honestly cannot conceive anyone in his right mind,
>>> who has not been brainwashed by constant USAnian propaganda, voting for
>>> that mass-murderous son of a bitch.
>>
>> It's called democracy. It means that everyone gets to vote for the candidate
>> of *their* choice, not (necessarily) of yours.
>
> That's a bit of a non-sequitur, isn't it?
No.
Lora D
wrote:
>Peter Ellis <pj...@cam.ac.uk> writes:
>
>> Well, I wouldn't, because the electoral system's a FPTP system [1], which
>> means that all a Nader vote does is decrease the chance of Kerry ousting
>> the current prick.
>
>Well, the Nader camp might say that why choose between two equally
>evil candidates? I'm not voting for Nader, but I feel strongly that
>one should vote for someone and not against someone. If the Democrats
>want the Nader vote, then all they have to do is start addressing
>their concerns instead of calling them names.
Right on! I've been a Democrat all my life, and I am very disappointed
in the Democratic Party. Al Gore has only himself to blame for losing
the last election -- I mean, failing to win by enough votes to keep
the Bush family from stealing the election. If he had run a better
campaign, and dealt with some of the issues Nader ran on, he might
have gotten my vote, even though, living where I do, it would have
been wasted. Nader's candidacy could give the Dems a clue, and be a
useful tool, but the powers that be are just circling the wagons to
enhance their finger-pointing capability. I begin to despair that
we'll ever get rid of Bush at this rate.
--
Lora in MT
reply-to address is real
Lora D
wrote:
>Because under a FPTP system it's the only way your choice will make any
>difference.
Fairly Pretentious Trouser Pockets? Ferret-Produced Truck Polish?
Fan-Pratchett Transfer Protocol? Fraternity Party Toga Police?
Oh! You may mean First Past the Post. Right, that's why I voted for
Nader the last time around, and may again if he gets on the ballot in
my state. There seems to be no other way to convince the Democratic
Party that people are more likely to vote if you give them someone
worthwhile to vote for, and discuss issues that are important to them.
Lora D
<Thomasz...@xemaps.com> wrote:
>Jon posted:
>
>> I can't vote for Nader, of course, but even if I could I
>> wouldn't, because all the pro-Nader spam on almost every ng
>> I read has brassed me off so much.
>>
>> Anybody else of like mind?
>>
>
>Yep
Wow. Maybe if I joe-job the Republicans, no matter how obviously,
people will fall for it!
Especially since the Republicans don't have the ethical reputation
VoteNader.org has.
mcv
:
: The Dutch goverment sent "Dutchbat" to Bosnia virtually unarmed.
: The Dutch military complained this was not an intelligent plan. If
: they were to do any protecting, they would need weapons.
: The Dutch government subsequently told the military that their
: purpose in Bosnia was *not* to fight, but to be present.
: This was the difference between peace keeping and
: peace enforcing.
I heard the military wanted to send Dutchbat, and the government and
the UN seriously miscommunicated about what would be a suitable mission
for them.
: The Serbs had objected to sending properly armed troops.
: They would only accept peace keepers armed with hand
: weapons. The blue helmets were supposed to be enough
: deterrent for any attacking force. Both the UN and the
: Dutch Government complied with this.
That was pretty stupid. The Serbs knew very well that UN troops don't
like to get themselves killed, so that meant that Srebrenica was
basically undefended.
: Whether this was a smart plan, may be a different matter.
: But Dutchbat was definitely justified in not doing
: a "General Custer" when they were left in the lurch.
I agree they weren't in any position to fight, but I do think it's a
colonel's duty to make it really clear to his superiors when he's not
equipped to do anything other than withdraw and run like hell when he's
attacked. And making sure they at least had evidence of what happened,
and didn't misplace it once they got home, would have been nice too.
:> Isn't one of the most OBVIOUS risks of being part of the army that one
:> might get killed? Perhaps while helping defending something? Or during
:> fighting?
:
: The prime purpose of having fighting troops is to get the other side
: to either not do anything stupid, or to persuade them to give up.
: The prime purpose is not to do something really stupid yourself.
Nevertheless, throughout history armies have clashed and exchanged
bullets, arrows and stones.
:> Once, long, long ago, before they got majorly incompetent, the Dutch
:> army actually did a pretty decent job of defending themselves against
:> an invader, while being massively underarmed. They did loose then, but
:
: You're getting carried away, my lad. They didn't loose much. They lost.
:
:> at least they *tried* something.
:>
:> That was during the second world war.
:
: Yes. Two things about that. First, the military were even then hindered
: by the government, which believed that being neutral was more important
: than being armed.
: Secondly: five days of futile fighting, ending with the agressor flattening
: the
: centre of Rotterdam, killing thousands, maiming even more, and leaving
: immense amounts of people homeless. To what point? Yes, it is nice
: to know that it only takes five Dutch marines to stop one German army.
: But taking the total toll into account, we might have been better off not
: knowing about that.
The Germans expected to take Netherland in a single day. Taking four times
as long, and losing 350 planes in the process, may well have changed the
balance for later battles like the Battle of Britain. So it's quite
possible that if Netherland hadn't defended itself, things would have
been even worse. Less dead Dutchmen perhaps, but also no free England
that could keep fighting Germany.
Ofcourse they couldn't have known that, but they also couldn't have
known that Germany would flatten Rotterdam. The Netherlands had been
safe behind their waterline for 400 years, and planes hadn't made a
very big impact during WW1 (which we had stasyed out of anyway).
All things considered, holding the German army off for 4 days was an
impressive feat for such an ill-equipped army, and probably a good idea
too, both in retrospect and with the information they had at that time.
mcv (not a big fan of the military, but some things need to be fought, no
matter what the cost).
Torak
>>always used to enjoy making fun of him, but I'm starting to suspect he's
>>(a) a lot smarter than he seems, possibly deliberately; (b) a lot
>>*nicer* than he seems (or is made to seem); and (c) the dangerous ones
>>are Rice and Rumsfeld. At least Dubya seems to be fundamentally a
>>decent bloke.
>
> Didn't Bush appoint Rice and Rumsfeld to their positions, or do I
> misunderstand? Royal prerogative?
Well, presumably he did. But they seem to be the belligerent ones, he
just seems misguided.
Thomas Zahr
> That was pretty stupid. The Serbs knew very well that UN
> troops don't like to get themselves killed, so that meant
> that Srebrenica was basically undefended.
>
Real question: Would the troops in Srebrenica been more
willing to get themselves killed if they hadn't been there
under UN auspices? Because basically there are no UN troops,
only people seconded to the UN
--
Ciao
Thomas =:-)
<Hencefort, the afpfavourite of Graycat :o)>
mcv
: On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 13:37:29 +0200, Sanity
: <sanityDE...@affordable-hedgehogs.co.uk> wrote:
:>On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 21:02:52 +0000, mcv <mcv...@xs1.xs4all.nl> wrote in
:>article <408c277c$0$557$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>:
:>
:>> Dutchbat couldn't really have done much there (although they might have
:>> been able to do a bit more than just stand around and turn their head),
:>> but that doesn't mean the Dutch military didn't mess up.
:>
:>No. They could have gotten themselves killed,
:
: . . .
:
: I keep getting amazed by the people who complain/whine about people
: potentially running the risk of, or actually getting killed while in
: the army.
:
: Isn't one of the most OBVIOUS risks of being part of the army that one
: might get killed? Perhaps while helping defending something? Or during
: fighting?
I agree that it's a soldier's job to risk his life, but it's also an
officer's job to make sure he doesn't actually lose it. They shouldn't
throw away their lives for nothing.
: It hurts my head.
:
: But then, obviously, the life of one armed soldier is more important
: than the lives of a thousand helpless civilians. See Iraq. </cynism>
I heard the US once calculated that the life of a single US soldier was
worth 80,000 lives of African civilians.
:> Instead of just
:>standing around. What *could* they have done? They shouldn't have been
:>there, not with that kind of mandate and that kind of "support".
:
: Once, long, long ago, before they got majorly incompetent, the Dutch
: army actually did a pretty decent job of defending themselves against
: an invader, while being massively underarmed. They did loose then, but
: at least they *tried* something.
The Dutch army has never been very impressive. However, we were very good
at turning our country into one big fortress by making our biggest enemy,
water, into the attacker's biggest enemy.
:> But you
:>can't blame Dutchbat for that, only the Dutch government and the UN for
:>pretending that Srebrenica was safe.
:>
: Ah, yes, because soldiers are supposed to be braindead nationalistic
: killing machines that do not think at one moment but to save their own
: life and let those that are unarmed civilians that do not have the
: same nationality as the soldiers die of a bullet in the head. Again,
: see Iraq. Where the Dutch Army is happily helping an occupation force
: fuck up a country.
But the way the Dutch marines are doing that, is atually a very fine
example of how a peacekeeping force should behave. The first group of
marines behaved better than I ever imagined possible for guys with guns
in their hands, although later groups got a bit more sloppy. Still, it's
a stark contrast with Americans who keep killing (and getting killed
by) Iraqis.
Ofcourse whether those Dutch marines should be there at all is a
different matter. They're doing a good job, but they're doing it as
part of an occupation force, which is really, really bad.
Still, I'm glad it's the marines, and not the army, that's in Iraq.
I'm very unimpressed by the Dutch army, whereas the marines always
perform quite well on every mission they're sent on.
mcv.
Eric Jarvis
Bear in mind the following facts. He is one of the Bush family. His
brother Neil was IIRC convicted of fraud in a savings and loan scandal.His
brother Jeb is accused of manipulating the election in Florida. His father
was in charge of the CIA prior to becoming president and has kept links
since to many he knew then, for instance Santos Trafficante the former
head of the mob in Habana. For decades everyone in the family has been
treating US Law, and pretty much any moral code known to man, as being at
most a vague guideline as to what they should claim to be doing.
I don't think it's likely that any of them are dumb. They've survived a
lot of scandals and managed to come through wealthier and more powerful as
a family every year. They make the Kennedy clan seem almost decent in
comparison, and yet somehow have managed to avoid the wrath of the voters.
Put it this way, if they had less money they wouldn't be the sort of
people you'd leave your spare house keys with.
--
eric - afprelationships in headers
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Sanity
wrote in article <hsiq8055hm8evn0t6...@4ax.com>:
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 13:37:29 +0200, Sanity
> <sanityDE...@affordable-hedgehogs.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [Note: may contain evil dripping cynism and sarcasm. Read with care.]
>
>>On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 21:02:52 +0000, mcv <mcv...@xs1.xs4all.nl> wrote in
>>article <408c277c$0$557$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>:
>>
>>> Dutchbat couldn't really have done much there (although they might have
>>> been able to do a bit more than just stand around and turn their head),
>>> but that doesn't mean the Dutch military didn't mess up.
>>
>>No. They could have gotten themselves killed,
>
> . . .
>
> I keep getting amazed by the people who complain/whine about people
> potentially running the risk of, or actually getting killed while in
> the army.
Perhaps I didn't express myself as clear as I meant. What I meant was,
that they would have gotten killed without any use. They were there to
keep the peace, not to actually fight a war. And if they would have gotten
killed because they would have defended Srebrenica (which they would,
being outnumbered for a start), what use would they have been then? A
bunch of dead soldiers wouldn't have stopped the Serbs from massacring
those Bosnians.
> Isn't one of the most OBVIOUS risks of being part of the army that one
> might get killed? Perhaps while helping defending something? Or during
> fighting?
I agree with you, but I meant it a bit more complicated than that.
[...]
>> and mess up, just before
>>the massacre of a few thousand men from Srebrenica.
>
> At least they wouldn't have made asses out of themselves, the UN, and
> the so-called "protection" they were supposed to provide.
>
> If they had tried doing something more constructive than destroying
> evidence after the fact (eg. that one film of photos showing what
> happened that "got missing" somehow...), then *perhaps* the survivors
> of the Srebrenica genocide wouldn't try to sue them and Holland and
> the UN for it. Which, seeing what happened, those survivors are
> entirely entitled to do.
I doubt though that Dutchbat can be blamed. The government perhaps, for
sending them out without the resources to do their job, the UN for not
providing a good mandate and pretending that Srebrenica was a "safe
haven". But not Dutchbat. They had their orders, they had no possibility
of doing anything about what happened, except perhaps going on strike.
Which would also have made them look like fools (bunch of sissies who
don't want to defend the Bosnians).
>> Instead of just
>>standing around. What *could* they have done? They shouldn't have been
>>there, not with that kind of mandate and that kind of "support".
>
> Once, long, long ago, before they got majorly incompetent, the Dutch
> army actually did a pretty decent job of defending themselves against
> an invader, while being massively underarmed. They did loose then, but
> at least they *tried* something.
>
> That was during the second world war.
Yes. But that was a real *war* where they were defending *their own*
country. Not a peacekeeping mission where they were basically policemen.
Iraw is a different story alltogether because that's an illegal
occupation. But even then, they are *sent*. And soldiers aren't supposed
to think about why they are sent, but they simply have to do the job
that's in front of them. And the reason the dutch soldiers can't think, is
because anyone with more than a couple of braincells is not going for a
career in the dutch army.
Sanity
article <408e35c7$0$15375$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>:
> However, we were very good
> at turning our country into one big fortress by making our biggest enemy,
> water, into the attacker's biggest enemy.
Actually, before we are getting carried away with this, A Bit Of History.
In the 17th century, the Dutch managed to keep and/or kick out some nasty
foreigner by inundating huge tracts o'land, making many locals go "I
remember when this was all fields". The last time this worked, was in
1672-1674, when the "Waterlinie" stopped the French.
The Dutch then proceeded to make their Waterlinie their primary defense,
mainly defending Amsterdam. In the 19th century they built the
"Nieuwe Hollandse Waterlinie" (the "New Dutch Waterline"), which was
bigger and now included Utrecht. At the higher spots, which couldn't be
inundated, fortresses and bunkers were built.
This expensive and grotesque defense system was first used in 1940, and
failed completely because modern millitary tactics and equipment (planes
and parachutes) had made the whole system redundant.
Because we're still damn proud of this engineering and defense
"masterpiece", turning the enemy water into our defense system, the Nieuwe
Hollandse Waterlinie is protected now and has been put on the UN World
Heritage list. There are several bicycle routes around it, and some
fortresses are open to the public.
However, the whole thing is still extremely silly and completely useless.
So keep that in mind, the next time we dutch speak so proudly about our
liquid defenses. It hasn't "worked" for more than 300 years ;-)
Jonathan Ellis
"Sanity" <sanityDE...@affordable-hedgehogs.co.uk> wrote in
message
news:pan.2004.04.27....@news.affordable-hedgehogs.co.uk...
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 19:49:38 +0200, Thomas Hamann
<hama...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in article <hsiq8055hm8evn0t6...@4ax.com>:
>
> > On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 13:37:29 +0200, Sanity
> > <sanityDE...@affordable-hedgehogs.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > [Note: may contain evil dripping cynism and sarcasm. Read with
care.]
> >
> >>On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 21:02:52 +0000, mcv <mcv...@xs1.xs4all.nl>
wrote in
> >>article <408c277c$0$557$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>:
> >>
> >>> Dutchbat couldn't really have done much there (although they
might have
> >>> been able to do a bit more than just stand around and turn their
head),
> >>> but that doesn't mean the Dutch military didn't mess up.
> >>
> >>No. They could have gotten themselves killed,
> > I keep getting amazed by the people who complain/whine about
people
> > potentially running the risk of, or actually getting killed while
in
> > the army.
>
> Perhaps I didn't express myself as clear as I meant. What I meant
was,
> that they would have gotten killed without any use. They were there
to
> keep the peace, not to actually fight a war.
Keeping the peace sometimes means fighting to do so. You fight against
those that break the peace. Sometimes the only way of stopping force
being used is to use greater force. They were there to keep the peace
and thus *protect the town*. Which means that they should have done
so. They did not even *attempt* to do so. It was their duty to attempt
to do so, otherwise they should not have been there at all. The very
FACT of their being there put them in a position of Having A Duty,
which they abdicated.
> And if they would have gotten
> killed because they would have defended Srebrenica (which they
would,
> being outnumbered for a start), what use would they have been then?
A
> bunch of dead soldiers wouldn't have stopped the Serbs from
massacring
> those Bosnians.
A bunch of dead *Serbian* soldiers would have done so. The UN forces
could have defended the town long *enough* to bring in reinforcements.
Yes, some of them might have been killed. That happens in a WAR. If
somebody shoots the people you are specifically there to protect, then
you shoot back. YOU HAVE A DUTY. Even if you are outnumbered.
When somebody comes in shooting, you shoot back - that is what
soldiers are *for*, they are there to shoot people. When one side is
breaking the peace by shooting people, and the other is not, then you
shoot the people who are breaking the peace. If this looks like
"taking sides", then so be it, that is the way that WAR works. If it
had been the local Srebrenican people who were breaking the peace, you
shoot the troublemakers there: that is also the way that WAR works
when you are trying to keep the peace. But if only one side is
breaking the peace, then you fight against the peace-breakers until
they stop breaking the peace. It is the only way to keep the peace. If
you do not fight against the peace-breakers, having been brought in
specifically to keep the peace, then you are complicit in what they
succeed in doing to innocents.
Jonathan.
Jon
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 10:28:23 +0000, mcv <mcv...@xs1.xs4all.nl> wrote
> in article <408e35c7$0$15375$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>:
>
>> However, we were very good
>> at turning our country into one big fortress by making our biggest
>> enemy, water, into the attacker's biggest enemy.
>
> Actually, before we are getting carried away with this, A Bit Of
> History.
>
> In the 17th century, the Dutch managed to keep and/or kick out some
> nasty foreigner by inundating huge tracts o'land, making many locals
> go "I remember when this was all fields". The last time this worked,
> was in 1672-1674, when the "Waterlinie" stopped the French.
Is it true (as I read once) that the Dutch cavalry captured the Prussian
navy, who were frozen in at the time? Or was that somebody else?
--
Remove 'notme' to reply
David Chapman
> Bear in mind the following facts. He is one of the Bush family. His
> brother Neil was IIRC convicted of fraud in a savings and loan scandal.His
> brother Jeb is accused of manipulating the election in Florida. His father
> was in charge of the CIA prior to becoming president and has kept links
> since to many he knew then, for instance Santos Trafficante the former
> head of the mob in Habana. For decades everyone in the family has been
> treating US Law, and pretty much any moral code known to man, as being at
> most a vague guideline as to what they should claim to be doing.
You forgot to mention that Grandpappy Bush was a banker for the Nazis.
--
Flatulence: the only truly disposable art form.
Sanity
<jona...@franz-liszt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in article
<c6lkqd$8e8$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>:
>> And if they would have gotten
>> killed because they would have defended Srebrenica (which they
> would,
>> being outnumbered for a start), what use would they have been then?
> A
>> bunch of dead soldiers wouldn't have stopped the Serbs from
> massacring
>> those Bosnians.
>
> A bunch of dead *Serbian* soldiers would have done so. The UN forces
> could have defended the town long *enough* to bring in reinforcements.
They called for air support.
They didn't get it.
mcv
: On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 10:28:23 +0000, mcv <mcv...@xs1.xs4all.nl> wrote in
: article <408e35c7$0$15375$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>:
:
:> However, we were very good
:> at turning our country into one big fortress by making our biggest enemy,
:> water, into the attacker's biggest enemy.
:
: Actually, before we are getting carried away with this, A Bit Of History.
:
: In the 17th century, the Dutch managed to keep and/or kick out some nasty
: foreigner by inundating huge tracts o'land, making many locals go "I
: remember when this was all fields". The last time this worked, was in
: 1672-1674, when the "Waterlinie" stopped the French.
I think I read somewhere that the French were also stopped by the waterline
in 1793, and that in 1794/95, they succeeded because a very severe winter
had frozen the water. (In 1672/73, the French also penetrated the
waterline because it had frozen, but they had to pull back when it
thawed again.)
: The Dutch then proceeded to make their Waterlinie their primary defense,
: mainly defending Amsterdam. In the 19th century they built the
: "Nieuwe Hollandse Waterlinie" (the "New Dutch Waterline"), which was
: bigger and now included Utrecht. At the higher spots, which couldn't be
: inundated, fortresses and bunkers were built.
:
: This expensive and grotesque defense system was first used in 1940, and
: failed completely because modern millitary tactics and equipment (planes
: and parachutes) had made the whole system redundant.
It worked to the extend that the German army couldn't penetrate it. It
did exactly what it was supposed to do. It just couldn't do anything
against an attack from the air.
: However, the whole thing is still extremely silly and completely useless.
: So keep that in mind, the next time we dutch speak so proudly about our
: liquid defenses. It hasn't "worked" for more than 300 years ;-)
Don't forget it may even have prevented invasions. I don't know how well
known it was among foreign military leaders, but I can imagine that some
armies just didn't even try because they didn't think it would work.
For an extreme example, imagine what WW1 would look like if it had been
fought around the Dutch waterline.
It was nowhere near perfect, ofcourse, and highly vulnerable to severe
winters, inundating too late, and attacks from the air, but it was still
pretty useful for a militarily completely inept country like ours.
But its glory days were clearly in the 17th century.
mcv.
mcv
: ?us cw?? Sanity ;
Vaguely rings a bell. According to
http://www.frommers.com/destinations/amsterdam/0043034659.html
it was the French cavalry that captured the Dutch navy, however.
mcv.
mcv
: "Sanity" <sanityDE...@affordable-hedgehogs.co.uk> wrote in
Their duty was not to commit suicide. Their duty should have been to
protect it, but they were completely unable to do so, because they
weren't equiped for it. Had the powers that be really intended Srebrenica
to be defended, they should have sent a force capable of doing so.
:> And if they would have gotten
:> killed because they would have defended Srebrenica (which they
: would,
:> being outnumbered for a start), what use would they have been then?
: A
:> bunch of dead soldiers wouldn't have stopped the Serbs from
: massacring
:> those Bosnians.
:
: A bunch of dead *Serbian* soldiers would have done so. The UN forces
: could have defended the town long *enough* to bring in reinforcements.
: Yes, some of them might have been killed. That happens in a WAR. If
: somebody shoots the people you are specifically there to protect, then
: you shoot back. YOU HAVE A DUTY. Even if you are outnumbered.
Do you really believe they had a duty to get themselves killed by
fighting a larger, better equipped army, that is perfectly capable of
squashing them like a bug? A few dead Serbs wouldn't have stopped
Mladic; it would only have made him angry. Sure it would have been
heroic, but it wouldn't have accomplished anything meaningful.
: When somebody comes in shooting, you shoot back - that is what
: soldiers are *for*, they are there to shoot people.
But the people who failed to understand that weren't the soldiers
themselves, but the people who sent them there. They should have sent
a force capable of shooting back. In fact, they should have sent a
force that wouldn't even have been attacked in the first place.
: When one side is
: breaking the peace by shooting people, and the other is not, then you
: shoot the people who are breaking the peace. If this looks like
: "taking sides", then so be it, that is the way that WAR works. If it
: had been the local Srebrenican people who were breaking the peace, you
: shoot the troublemakers there: that is also the way that WAR works
: when you are trying to keep the peace.
That's the stupid way to do it. The smart way to do it is to prevent it
from happening in the first place, by giving the locals no reason to
make trouble (for example by treating them with respect, like the
Dutch marines in Iraq did), and by sending a force big enough that
Mladic wouldn't even have considered attacking it. Like Sun Tzu says,
the best defense is where there is no attack. When the attack comes,
you have already done something wrong.
mcv.
Richard Bos
> in article 408d7781...@news.individual.net, Richard Bos at
> r...@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl wrote on 26/04/2004 1:58 PM:
>
> > Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> in article 408acee1...@news.individual.net, Richard Bos at
> >> r...@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl wrote on 24/04/2004 2:17 PM:
> >>
> >>> You disappoint me. I honestly cannot conceive anyone in his right mind,
> >>> who has not been brainwashed by constant USAnian propaganda, voting for
> >>> that mass-murderous son of a bitch.
> >>
> >> It's called democracy. It means that everyone gets to vote for the candidate
> >> of *their* choice, not (necessarily) of yours.
> >
> > That's a bit of a non-sequitur, isn't it?
>
> No.
Then please explain how you get from "I do not understand how someone
with a working brain can possibly make _that_ choice" to "I do not
understand that you should have a choice at all", because the logic of
that conclusion escapes me completely.
Richard
Torak
>
> But the way the Dutch marines are doing that, is atually a very fine
> example of how a peacekeeping force should behave. The first group of
> marines behaved better than I ever imagined possible for guys with guns
> in their hands, although later groups got a bit more sloppy. Still, it's
> a stark contrast with Americans who keep killing (and getting killed
> by) Iraqis.
As a military sort myself, I actually found this line of discussion -
and this comment in particular - rather offensive.
Yes, there are bad apples, but you'll get that in any organisation. But
most soldiers don't want to hurt anyone. And the thing about "behaved
better than I imagined possible for guys with guns"... I don't know any
soldier who actually *liked* the idea of using their weapon. We knew
that we might *have* to, but we made damn sure we always behaved
properly. Those who didn't seem to have thought about the *reason* we
were issued guns were usually seen as a bit worrying, it's a huge
responsibility.
When the rifles were first issued, a lot of us (not including me, I'm
pleased to say) came out of the armoury waving the guns in the air as if
to say "Look, I've got a gun!"
Two weeks later we'd started to think about their purpose, and realised
that it's really just a massive responsibility (that also, I might add,
gives you a nasty neckache).
On the whole, soldiers are a decent bunch, and this discussion is really
very insulting to those - like KFOR and the like - who risk their lives
in an attempt (almost always sincere, if sometimes somewhat misguided)
to help people. Peacekeeping forces go in to try to keep the peace, to
prevent people killing each other because of what their mam said about
Our Shawn four hundred years ago, they're not there to - as some people
seem to suggest - use random civvies for target practise.
Sure, it would be nice if armies were unnecessary. But they'll always be
needed, there's always going to be a war somewhere. Humans are bastards,
yet another thing where Pterry got it right, in his comments on
Borogravia... or whichever one it was.
Sorry, I'm not terribly coherent tonight, it's been a really bad year,
and I hope I haven't been overly irritable here. I just oculdn't let a
comment like that pass, I know far too many soldiers - serving and
retired - who deserve more respect and appreciation than that.
Torak
>
> I don't think it's likely that any of them are dumb. They've survived a
> lot of scandals and managed to come through wealthier and more powerful as
> a family every year. They make the Kennedy clan seem almost decent in
> comparison, and yet somehow have managed to avoid the wrath of the voters.
Precisely my point, I'm certain he's nowhere near dumb. Idiots don't get
their wings.
Besides, anyone who brings in legislation to curb frivolous lawsuits
can't be *all* bad.
Richard Bos
> Richard Bos <r...@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> wrote:
> : Thomas Hamann <hama...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> :> On 25 Apr 2004 11:15:48 GMT, mcv <mcv...@xs1.xs4all.nl> wrote:
> :> >Which reminds me: has Netherland ever finally admitted it was wrong in
> :> >Indonesia, and forgiven Poncke Princen?
>
> (I wonder what's in this can... Ooh! Worms!)
>
> : There have been several occasions of politicians speaking out on
> : Indonesia; how adequate these speeches were as admissions of guilt I am
> : not in a position to judge. IMO, however, the Dutch government was far
> : from wrong when it said that Sukarno would hardly be the right man to
> : run the country - look at the mess he made.
>
> True, but instead of guiding Indonesia gently into independence (like we
> did with Suriname -- great job we did there), we said: we've been in
> Indie for 300 years, and we'll stay there for another 300 years.
Myeah. And then the UK got what it had always wanted: it got to tell us
to bog off out of there _now_, because it was not a good thing for a
country like us to tell a people like the Indonesians how to run their
country. Which left them as the only large colonial power in the entire
far east...
Ok, it wasn't _just_ the UK who forced that decision. But it was very
convenient to them.
> : As for Poncke Princen, he actually _shot_ at his former mates. That goes
> : a bit farther than mere desertion, IMO. He'd be easier to forgive if all
> : he had done was walk out.
>
> But he still was fighting on the right side.
Well, no. He was fighting on the almost-as-bad-as-us side. That's hardly
an excuse for shooting at your former colleagues. That's not just
treason, it's a personal betrayal.
> Dutch soldiers were really misbehaving there.
True enough; but they were not the only ones. For example, did you ever
wonder why the Atjeers, of all people, asked us, of all people, to
mediate in their conflict with the Indonesian government? Persumably we
are the devil they know... and given what _we_ did to them, the
Indonesian government must have been evil indeed.
> :> They have enough trouble admitting they screwed up *really* badly in
> :> Srebrenica...
> :
> : That's mainly because the _really_ bad screw-up in Srebrenica was not
> : perpetrated by the Dutch, but by the UN and that cowardly Frog general.
> : I mean, really, when you're sent into a death trap with grossly
> : inadequate weapons and allowances, and when _you_ raise the alarm about
> : the situation and call for air backup that support is denied you by a
> : bloody incompetent Frenchman, what the blazes are you expected to do?
> : Die? That would not have saved a single Bosnian life.
>
> Dutchbat couldn't really have done much there (although they might have
> been able to do a bit more than just stand around and turn their head),
> but that doesn't mean the Dutch military didn't mess up. The air mobile
> brigade is not intended for defending a piece of ground against an
> attacking army. It's intended for, funnily enough, air mobility. To
> defend Srebrenica, they needed some heavily armed infantry and artillery,
> not some lightly armed guys in helicopters. But the Dutch army wanted
> to show off their brand new spiffy air mobile brigade, and forget to
> tell the UN that they didn't want Srebrenica.
That was not a military decision. The Dutch troops in Srebrenica were
not allowed big guns - by the UN! Yes, they needed heavy artillery, but
they were not, ever, going to get it, no matter who got sent.
The big Dutch cock-up in Srebrenica was not sending soldiers, nor even
sending those soldiers, it was sending them under that UN mandate. You
do _not_ send soldiers to defend a site when they are not allowed to
actually defend it. But that was a _political_ cock-up, not a military
one. Colonel wossname got blamed all this time, but the big imbecile was
Joris Voorhoeve, who made the decision.
Richard
Richard Bos
> mcv posted:
>
> > That was pretty stupid. The Serbs knew very well that UN
> > troops don't like to get themselves killed, so that meant
> > that Srebrenica was basically undefended.
>
> Real question: Would the troops in Srebrenica been more
> willing to get themselves killed if they hadn't been there
> under UN auspices?
Who knows? If they hadn't been there under UN auspices but as a real
military mission, chances are they'd had enough fire-power to actually
make a job of protecting the town to begin with.
Richard
Richard Bos
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 13:37:29 +0200, Sanity
> <sanityDE...@affordable-hedgehogs.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [Note: may contain evil dripping cynism and sarcasm. Read with care.]
>
> >On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 21:02:52 +0000, mcv <mcv...@xs1.xs4all.nl> wrote in
> >article <408c277c$0$557$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>:
> >
> >> Dutchbat couldn't really have done much there (although they might have
> >> been able to do a bit more than just stand around and turn their head),
> >> but that doesn't mean the Dutch military didn't mess up.
> >
> >No. They could have gotten themselves killed,
>
> I keep getting amazed by the people who complain/whine about people
> potentially running the risk of, or actually getting killed while in
> the army.
>
> Isn't one of the most OBVIOUS risks of being part of the army that one
> might get killed? Perhaps while helping defending something? Or during
> fighting?
Has it ever entered your head that soldiers are supposed to get killed
_for a reason_, and not just for the hell of it? The Dutch contingent at
Srebrenica could not, under no circumstances, have defended the
civilians against the massively better armed Serbian forces. The only
thing they could have done is get killed _as well as_, not instead of,
the people the UN expected them to defend with light arms.
> But then, obviously, the life of one armed soldier is more important
> than the lives of a thousand helpless civilians. See Iraq. </cynism>
Yeah. No good letting the facts get in the way of a good opinion.
> If they had tried doing something more constructive than destroying
> evidence after the fact (eg. that one film of photos showing what
> happened that "got missing" somehow...),
Tell me again, did that get missing in Srebrenica, or in the military
and political headquarters back home?
> Once, long, long ago, before they got majorly incompetent, the Dutch
> army actually did a pretty decent job of defending themselves against
> an invader, while being massively underarmed. They did loose then, but
> at least they *tried* something.
>
> That was during the second world war.
You've just lost any credibility you had, do you realise that?
Richard
Richard Bos
> "Sanity" <sanityDE...@affordable-hedgehogs.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.04.27....@news.affordable-hedgehogs.co.uk...
> > Perhaps I didn't express myself as clear as I meant. What I meant was,
> > that they would have gotten killed without any use. They were there to
> > keep the peace, not to actually fight a war.
>
> Keeping the peace sometimes means fighting to do so. You fight against
> those that break the peace. Sometimes the only way of stopping force
> being used is to use greater force.
You don't actually know the facts of the case, do you? They did not
_have_ greater force. They were not _allowed_ to have greater force.
They were supposed to be a "peace-keeping" force, in an area where there
was no peace to keep.
They should never have been sent into Srebrenica, under the orders they
had, equipped as they were. But they _were_ sent there, and the UN - get
that: the United Nations, _not_ their own squadron commanders - decided
that they were not allowed to be anything but tin soldiers.
> They were there to keep the peace
> and thus *protect the town*. Which means that they should have done
> so. They did not even *attempt* to do so. It was their duty to attempt
> to do so, otherwise they should not have been there at all. The very
> FACT of their being there put them in a position of Having A Duty,
> which they abdicated.
Yes. Wisely so. Because having tried to do their duty, the outcome would
have been no different, no different at all, except that they themselves
would have died as well.
> > A bunch of dead soldiers wouldn't have stopped the Serbs from
> > massacring those Bosnians.
>
> A bunch of dead *Serbian* soldiers would have done so.
And how would you have created these dead Serbian soldiers? It's hard to
kill a bunch of people when you're out-numbered, out-gunned, and
completely, but completely unsupported by a treacherous UN.
> The UN forces could have defended the town long *enough* to bring
> in reinforcements.
Again: what with? They'd asked for air support, remember, and this had
been quite merrily refused from an armchair somewhere in Paris. At the
rate at which reinforcements had been sent them, they'd have had to
defend the town 'till 2010 or so.
> Yes, some of them might have been killed. That happens in a WAR.
It was not a war. It was a peace-keeping mission. Hah. Well, the
Serbians knew it was a war; the Bosnians knew it was a war; the Dutch
knew it was a war; but the French, and the UN in general, refused to
treat it as anything but a peace-keeping mission.
> If somebody shoots the people you are specifically there to protect, then
> you shoot back. YOU HAVE A DUTY.
Listen, shouter: read the reports. Their duty was, most specifically,
_not_ to shoot at the Serbs. They were explicitly commanded to treat the
situation as an armed peace, and _not_ as a war. They were not even
_allowed_ to shoot, even if shooting pop-guns at cannons would have made
a difference.
Richard
Darin Johnson
> When one side is
> breaking the peace by shooting people, and the other is not, then you
> shoot the people who are breaking the peace. If this looks like
> "taking sides", then so be it, that is the way that WAR works.
If one side is shooting poeple and the other is not, and the
peacekeepers do nothing, then the peacekeepers are still taking
sides.
--
Darin Johnson
"Particle Man, Particle Man, doing the things a particle can"
jester
<and...@andrew-perry.com> wrote:
<snip everything>
Have you ever served with Americans?
If half the stories I've heard from family and friends are true, I worry
about exactly what some of them are picking up from training.
--
Andy Brown
There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX.
We don't believe this to be a coincidence. -- Jeremy S. Anderson
Jon
Ah, that would be it. Makes more sense that way round.
(and I dunno about being 'militarily incompetent' ... you beat us twice)
--
remove 'notme' to reply
AFPfiance to Ssirienna, chocolate baths a speciality
AFPfilkslave to CCA, talented authoress
Aaron Dick
news:etgr80pq4pjtgeuu0...@4ax.com...
> Right on! I've been a Democrat all my life, and I am very disappointed
> in the Democratic Party. Al Gore has only himself to blame for losing
> the last election -- I mean, failing to win by enough votes to keep
> the Bush family from stealing the election. If he had run a better
> campaign, and dealt with some of the issues Nader ran on, he might
> have gotten my vote, even though, living where I do, it would have
> been wasted.
I've been wonderinf about that since Bush got into the Presidency. How do
they tally up all the votes in the US? Apparantly it's not a straight count
and the states get different shares of the vote?
--
Mr Aaron Dick, DHI
Raven House
Julia Jones
<and...@andrew-perry.com> writes
did it. The "frivolous" lawsuits being targeted tend to be one or both
of
a) by individuals or small businesses against large corporate
Bush/Republican donors
b) run by lawyers who are left-wing by US standards (i.e. moderate
right-wing rather than closet fascists), who tend to donate time and
money to that bunch of commies, the Democratic Party. Often in states
like Florida, which is why brother Jeb is so keen on curbing the evil of
medical malpractice suits by banning them instead of kicking the
insurance companies into cleaning up their act. (It's a long complicated
story, but a large part of liability insurance cost is to do with *how*
these insurance firms make their money, and it's not by charging more in
premiums than they pay out in claims. You can blame the WTC terrorists
for this one too, indirectly.)
--
Julia Jones
"The Syndicate" - a heartwarming tale of geek love among the stars. Volumes 1
and 2 available now from http://www.amatory-ink.co.uk Details and free sample
chapters at http://www.julesjones.com/fiction/syndicate/syndicate.htm
Mary Messall
> I've been wonderinf about that since Bush got into the Presidency. How do
> they tally up all the votes in the US? Apparantly it's not a straight count
> and the states get different shares of the vote?
Correct. It's not the number of points you win (individual votes)
but the number of games (electoral votes)...
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/case/3pt/electoral.html
And...
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3A0EF630.5626BB10%40ups.edu&rnum=6
-Mary (but I think I heard recently that there *is* going to be a
directly elected head of the EU? Someday?)
Alec Cawley
<SPAMaa...@slingshot.co.nz> writes
Much, much more complicated than that, and embedded in history.
You have to go back to the founding of the US. 13 states scattered along
a 1500 mile coastline with very little in common. Very few in one state
had visited another; after New York, the second commonest city visited
by the Founding Fathers was London. How to choose a President when most
candidates would be unknown outside their own state? Remember - no mass
media at all. Even newspapers circulated only in their own state, and it
could take two months for new to travel from North to South of the US.
Solution: an Electoral Collage. Every state chooses a number of people
who they send to some central location to meet the actual candidates,
talk to them, talk to their fellow College members, compare notes, and
choose a president. Each state to have the same number of College
members in the college as it has Congressmen + Senators (I think). How
to choose the members? Each state to exercise its own discretion, though
the Supreme Court later ruled that there had to be some sort of election
(i.e. the State Governor couldn't appoint them).
Time passes... We now have mass media, and everybody knows more than
they ever wanted to know about the candidates. But the system still
remains. Theoretically, voters in November are not voting for a
President, they are voting for a slate of delegates to go to the
Constitutional Convention and pick a President. Most states have a
winner-takes-all: the party getting the most votes grabs all the
Electoral College places (particularly, in this case, Florida). But some
split their votes in proportion to the results.
The members if the Electoral College are mostly required to vote for the
candidate they have declared for. However, theoretically, if there were
a real N-way contest, where N > 2, I think that when their main choice
dropped out, they would be free to make their own choice.
Archaic. But you need some sort of aggregation system: the thought of
multiple recounts of the whole US in the case of a very close election
is very worrying.
--
@lec Šawley
Darin Johnson
> -Mary (but I think I heard recently that there *is* going to be a
> directly elected head of the EU? Someday?)
Which I expect, would be somewhat similar to the US. Ie, it probably
won't be a direct popularity contest, but each individual state would
have an allotment of votes.
But every voting system has its own peculiarities. I happen to think
that voting for parties instead of individuals to be weird and
undemocratic, but it's a common practice.
--
Darin Johnson
My shoes are too tight, and I have forgotten how to dance -- Babylon 5
Stacie Hanes
> Eric Jarvis wrote:
>>
>> I don't think it's likely that any of them are dumb. They've
>> survived a lot of scandals and managed to come through wealthier
>> and more powerful as a family every year. They make the Kennedy
>> clan seem almost decent in comparison, and yet somehow have
>> managed to avoid the wrath of the voters.
>
> Precisely my point, I'm certain he's nowhere near dumb. Idiots
> don't get their wings.
Mmm. I'm a veteran. Naval aviation, in fact--I've met lots of pilots. No,
you don't get your wings if you're an actual idiot in the outmoded, but
technical, sense. However, the kind of intelligence necessary to pilot a
plane isn't the same kind, necessarily, as that required to do anything else
that doesn't have to do in some way with spatial relations.
It leaves him sort of high and dry in the diplomacy department, among
others. He can fly--so what?
> Besides, anyone who brings in legislation to curb frivolous lawsuits
> can't be *all* bad.
No. Maybe not. But "not all" encompasses everything from 0% to
99.99999........%
You want 'im, you can have him. Customer pickup only, please.
--
Stacie, fourth swordswoman of the afpocalypse.
"If you can't be a good example, you'll just have to be a horrible
warning." Catherine Aird, _His Burial Too_
"swordswomen of the afpocalypse" copyright Jon of afp, 2004.
Darin Johnson
> Besides, anyone who brings in legislation to curb frivolous lawsuits
> can't be *all* bad.
Depends upon how you define "frivolous lawsuit". Ie, one could say
that any lawsuit that is doomed to eventual failure is frivolous,
meaning that no one was ever allowed to sue Microsoft. Or it could
mean that if 10% of all similar lawsuits are just about people trying
to get money they don't deserve, then all such suits will be called
frivolous. Or frivolous could mean that attempting to slow down the
government from implementing some of its goals before the next
administration takes over.
But the real problem is that attempts to curb frivolous lawsuits don't
involve any judicial decision about the frivolous nature of any
particular lawsuit. After all, judges already have the power to
dismiss most of the real frivolous cases anyway. Instead, the
attempts at curbing this involve either eliminating whole classes of
lawsuits, making certain entities immune to lawsuits, or limiting
settlements. Ie, all apriori limits determined without regard to
the actual cases.
--
Darin Johnson
Luxury! In MY day, we had to make do with 5 bytes of swap...
Aaron Dick
"Alec Cawley" <al...@spamspam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:y+JFJ0dw...@cawley.demon.co.uk...
> Much, much more complicated than that, and embedded in history.
[snip details]
So, as summary, the voters are voting for people who will go on to vote for
the presidency?
Aaron Dick
news:cu1n04x...@nokia.com...
> But every voting system has its own peculiarities. I happen to think
> that voting for parties instead of individuals to be weird and
> undemocratic, but it's a common practice.
In general, I quite like the way NZ's MMP works. We vote for parties but
every party that gets more than 5% of the vote gets into parliament in the
proportion they won. It can result in a few headaches when parties won't
compromise and issues cannot move forward but nothing is perfect.
Out of curiosity, what elements of systems similar to that do you find
undemocratic? It's all representative democracy rather than the original
direct democracy ideal anyway.
Darin Johnson
> Out of curiosity, what elements of systems similar to that do you find
> undemocratic? It's all representative democracy rather than the original
> direct democracy ideal anyway.
That you vote for parties instead of people. Ie, parties are
invariably corrupt, and always impersonal. Politicians then appointed
by the parties are then accountable to the parties instead of to the
voters. Reformer politicians will never be appointed if they
threaten the party leadership.
Of course, in reality the same thing happens with direct elections,
since the party primaries tend to weed out all but the "official"
party candidates. But still the primaries let the party members do
the voting at least, so that you do get party shakeups happening on a
regular basis. It seems a lot better than signing away my proxy.
How does this fit in with regional representation, something I don't
want to give up? If a small party gets 5% of the vote, and are thus
guaranteed a seat in the legislature, then who gets to decide which
district gets stuck with those politicians? Ie, if my city voted 90%
Democrat, what keeps us from getting stuck with a Libertarian as our
official representative to the government? Ie, it doesn't sound
like representative democracy.
--
Darin Johnson
Gravity is a harsh mistress -- The Tick
Lora D
wrote:
>Torak and...@andrew-perry.com wrote:
>> Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> > In article <408BA78C...@andrew-perry.com>, Torak
>> >>
>> >>Actually, I think Bush is probably not as bad as we like to think. I
>> >>always used to enjoy making fun of him, but I'm starting to suspect he's
>> >>(a) a lot smarter than he seems, possibly deliberately; (b) a lot
>> >>*nicer* than he seems (or is made to seem); and (c) the dangerous ones
>> >>are Rice and Rumsfeld. At least Dubya seems to be fundamentally a
>> >>decent bloke.
>> >
>> > Didn't Bush appoint Rice and Rumsfeld to their positions, or do I
>> > misunderstand? Royal prerogative?
>>
>> Well, presumably he did. But they seem to be the belligerent ones, he
>> just seems misguided.
>>
>
>Bear in mind the following facts. He is one of the Bush family. His
>brother Neil was IIRC convicted of fraud in a savings and loan scandal.His
>brother Jeb is accused of manipulating the election in Florida. His father
>was in charge of the CIA prior to becoming president and has kept links
>since to many he knew then, for instance Santos Trafficante the former
>head of the mob in Habana. For decades everyone in the family has been
>treating US Law, and pretty much any moral code known to man, as being at
>most a vague guideline as to what they should claim to be doing.
>
>I don't think it's likely that any of them are dumb. They've survived a
>lot of scandals and managed to come through wealthier and more powerful as
>a family every year. They make the Kennedy clan seem almost decent in
>comparison, and yet somehow have managed to avoid the wrath of the voters.
>
>Put it this way, if they had less money they wouldn't be the sort of
>people you'd leave your spare house keys with.
I wouldn't leave my house keys with them, period. I really do think
Dubya has brain damage, though. Not just because of his lack of
interest in and understanding of issues, but because of his facial
expressions, which remind me of people I have known who are
brain-damaged or excessively drugged.
--
Lora in MT
reply-to address is real
Lora D
<beef...@hornet.beefjerky.demon.nl> wrote:
>That alone would have me vote for the guy (but then my vote would go to Bush
>and never the traitorous b*stard Kerry.
WTF are you talking about? You seem to be taking Kerry's anti-VNwar
position, which was activated and informed by his experience in
Vietnam, awfully personally. Perhaps you are a US citizen who fought
iin that war, or had loved ones involved in it?
>Kerry betrayed his country during th Vietnam war, openly siding with the
>enemy while in uniform.
How do you figure? By all accounts he served honorably, took a
standard rotation in a dangerous area, where he was wounded in action
several times.
>He abused the military system to get medals which allowed him to be retired
>after a few months,
Could you give a citation for that, please? In what way could someone
abuse the military system to get the particular decorations Kerry
received? Was the end of his tour of duty in any way out of the
ordinary?
>then abused those medals
What an image! Actually, I believe they're hanging on his office wall.
> to portray himself as a warhero
He doesn't need to "portray himself" as a war hero. He was awarded a
Silver Star. According to the citation: "With utter disregard for his
own safety and the enemy rockets, [Kerry] again ordered a charge on
the enemy, beached his boat only 10 feet from the Viet Cong rocket
position and personally led a landing party ashore in pursuit of the
enemy . . . The extraordinary daring and personal courage of Lt. Kerry
in attacking a numerically superior force in the face of intense fire
were responsible for the highly successful mission."
His Bronze Star was for rescuing an overboard sailor under heavy fire.
I'm willing to take the Navy's word for it.
>after first openly denouncing he'd even gotten those medals.
I don't really get your point, here. If he had thrown his Silver Star
over the White House fence, that would not change his service record,
nor erase his citation.
I guess you're trying to say that Kerry, who served in the US Navy, in
a combat zone, and then returned home to take a position on principle
against the war, is less honorable than G.W. Bush, who dodged the
draft by joining the National Guard, wasted the government money by
taking flight training he never used, disappeared from all records for
a period of months during his contracted term of service, and then
left the Guard early to go to college. AFAIAA, Bush never spoke out
against the war; he simply avoided taking any personal risk regarding
it.
You certainly have a peculiar view of what constitutes "traitorous"
behavior. I don't like Kerry much, but he has a history of being far
more responsible than Bush.
Thomas Zahr
Dunno, but the op seemed to imply [1]
that when troops get put under UN command, they suddenly turn
into cowards.
And while the UN (or rather it's members, i.e. all our
governments) let the ball drop quite as often as any
combinations of individual governments (see Iraq), UN bashing
does seem slightly over the top.
[1] pretty strongly IMHO
--
Ciao
Thomas =:-)
<http://www.zahr.de/blog/blogger.html>
Thomas Zahr
> Mary (but I think I heard recently that there *is* going to
> be a directly elected head of the EU? Someday?)
>
I doubt it. Not in my lifetime anyway. That would require people with big egos (i.e.
heads of state and / or government) to give up a big part of their prestige (since they
can not all fill that one slot))
Thomas Zahr
> "Aaron Dick" <SPAMaa...@slingshot.co.nz> writes:
>
>> Out of curiosity, what elements of systems similar to that
>> do you find undemocratic? It's all representative democracy
>> rather than the original direct democracy ideal anyway.
>
> That you vote for parties instead of people. Ie, parties
> are invariably corrupt, and always impersonal. Politicians
> then appointed by the parties are then accountable to the
> parties instead of to the voters. Reformer politicians will
> never be appointed if they threaten the party leadership.
Well, you can actually have that cake and eat it too. In
Germany we have direct representation (where you vote for a
person) and party representation (where you vote for a party
list). The direct mandates (people) are FPTP, then the
Bundestag is topped up to give every party the percentage of
MP's that corresponds to their percentage of the overall vote. [1]
... snip
[1] ok, the rules are slightly more complex than this, but this is the
overall effect
--
Ciao
Thomas =:-)
<Hencefort, the afpfavourite of Graycat :o)>
Jon
> "Darin Johnson" <darin_@_usa_._net> wrote in message
> news:cu1n04x...@nokia.com...
>
>> But every voting system has its own peculiarities. I happen to think
>> that voting for parties instead of individuals to be weird and
>> undemocratic, but it's a common practice.
>
> In general, I quite like the way NZ's MMP works. We vote for parties
> but every party that gets more than 5% of the vote gets into
> parliament in the proportion they won. It can result in a few
> headaches when parties won't compromise and issues cannot move
> forward but nothing is perfect.
The UK system lags behind in many respects, but at least we've got a
prettier PM.
There's no need to /throw/ my coat at me ...
--
Remove 'notme' to reply
Sanity
<SPAMaa...@slingshot.co.nz> wrote in article
<10831204...@radsrv1.tranzpeer.net>:
> In general, I quite like the way NZ's MMP works. We vote for parties but
> every party that gets more than 5% of the vote gets into parliament in the
> proportion they won. It can result in a few headaches when parties won't
> compromise and issues cannot move forward but nothing is perfect.
>
> Out of curiosity, what elements of systems similar to that do you find
> undemocratic? It's all representative democracy rather than the original
> direct democracy ideal anyway.
But a minority group of just under 5% won't make it into parliament. AFAIK
the Dutch parliament is one of the easiest to get in, because it's
basically:
amount of votes / 150 seats = votes you need to get a seat in parliament.
In other words, 0,67% of the votes is enough.
TTFN,
Michel AKA Sanity
--
"Sanity shall make ye -ing fret": | "Dolphins! They think they're so
www.affordable-prawns.co.uk | cute! Oh, look at me, I'm a flippy
www.affordable-hedgehogs.co.uk | little dolphin, let me flip for
Check the AFPChess Tournament! | you!" -- Chum
Aaron Dick
> That you vote for parties instead of people. Ie, parties are
> invariably corrupt, and always impersonal. Politicians then appointed
> by the parties are then accountable to the parties instead of to the
> voters. Reformer politicians will never be appointed if they
> threaten the party leadership.
Yes, that's fairly true. There are a few MP's at the moment who aren't
towing party line and putting their jobs on the line over a Maori issue.
But, unless those MP's wher electorate MP's and thus representing a
particular section of the population (see below), than should they be doing
what the party wants? The party was what got voted in, as a bloc.
It's all rather confusing really...
> Of course, in reality the same thing happens with direct elections,
> since the party primaries tend to weed out all but the "official"
> party candidates. But still the primaries let the party members do
> the voting at least, so that you do get party shakeups happening on a
> regular basis. It seems a lot better than signing away my proxy.
So, what happens at the primaries? The party votes for who will represent
them? Or the citizens vote for the party they like? I'm unclear what you're
saying here.
> How does this fit in with regional representation, something I don't
> want to give up? If a small party gets 5% of the vote, and are thus
> guaranteed a seat in the legislature, then who gets to decide which
> district gets stuck with those politicians? Ie, if my city voted 90%
> Democrat, what keeps us from getting stuck with a Libertarian as our
> official representative to the government? Ie, it doesn't sound
> like representative democracy.
The party votes account for a good proportion of the house HOWEVER there are
electorate seats as well. A person votes for a party to determine how many
seats they get and for an electorate MP who represents their electorate.
I've noticed the electorates are just treated as a 'guaranteed entry' for
some politicians and most people don't know who their local is or what they
do. However, everyone knows the parties. (I wish the McGillicuddy Serious
party would return. they promised to declare themselves monarch and build a
castle. And a hydroslide from the Skytower in Auckland if I remember
correctly).
There are a few places that vote for National (mildly right wing though
getting further) or Labour (mildly left wing but getting further)
electorates but just the opposite in party.
I've been looking at Binding Referenda as a tool in government. I think it
might be useful, in our parliament there have been some shakeups recently
that had large outcrys (legalising prostitution for example) and if
referenda had to be listened to it might make people feel their voice was
being heard. Still not perfect though.
Aaron Dick
"Jon" <brier...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c6no88$dpard$1...@ID-184931.news.uni-berlin.de...
> The UK system lags behind in many respects, but at least we've got a
> prettier PM.
http://www.filibustercartoons.com/nov2603.htm
Jon
> "Jon" <brier...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:c6no88$dpard$1...@ID-184931.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
>> The UK system lags behind in many respects, but at least we've got a
>> prettier PM.
>
> http://www.filibustercartoons.com/nov2603.htm
Snirk. I was discussing this matter in a minibus (on a wine tour of the
Wairarapa) and expressed the opinion that Ms. Clark needed a makeover. The
driver said she'd had one.
They had a nice Spitting-Image puppet style caricature of her as Joan of Arc
in the Backbencher pub in Wellington -
http://www.menus.co.nz/backbencher/index.html?RID=33
Pretty good pub, actually. Shame my camera was playing up when I was in it.
Kimberley Verburg
>"Aaron Dick" <SPAMaa...@slingshot.co.nz> writes:
>
>> Out of curiosity, what elements of systems similar to that do you find
>> undemocratic? It's all representative democracy rather than the original
>> direct democracy ideal anyway.
>
>That you vote for parties instead of people.
Aaron has forgotten to mention that you also directly vote for people. You
get two votes in NZ, one for the party and one for the person who will
represent the electorate. The threshold for getting into Parliament is 5%
of the party votes *or* one electorate seat. NZ's system is based on
Germany's by the way.
>How does this fit in with regional representation, something I don't
>want to give up? If a small party gets 5% of the vote, and are thus
>guaranteed a seat in the legislature, then who gets to decide which
>district gets stuck with those politicians? Ie, if my city voted 90%
>Democrat, what keeps us from getting stuck with a Libertarian as our
>official representative to the government? Ie, it doesn't sound
>like representative democracy.
List MPs and electorate MPs are two separate creatures. The electorate
seats are filled by the winners of the electorates. List seats are then
added to electorate seats so that the party has the right number of seats
in Parliament according to the party list vote. The scenario you describe
doesn't happen.
--
Kimberley Verburg, k...@lspace.org
* Discworld Convention 2004, UK *
* August 20-23, 2004 * http://www.dwcon.org/ *
Kimberley Verburg
>So keep that in mind, the next time we dutch speak so proudly about our
>liquid defenses. It hasn't "worked" for more than 300 years ;-)
I dunno, what about Heineken?
--
Kimberley Verburg
k...@lspace.org
esmi
>mcv wrote:
>> But the way the Dutch marines are doing that, is atually a
>> very fine example of how a peacekeeping force should behave.
>> The first group of marines behaved better than I ever
>> imagined possible for guys with guns in their hands,
>> although later groups got a bit more sloppy. Still, it's
>> a stark contrast with Americans who keep killing (and
>> getting killed by) Iraqis.
>As a military sort myself, I actually found this line of
>discussion - and this comment in particular - rather
>offensive.
<snip>
I don't think anyone is trying to insult soldiers in general.
Merely questioning the moral capability of some of those who are
in charge of specific groups.
esmi
--
AFP: www.blackwidows.org.uk/afp/
Internet Guide: www.imp-guide.blackwidows.org.uk
Graphic Art: www.deitydiva.co.uk
Web Design: www.blackwidows.org.uk
Alec Cawley
<SPAMaa...@slingshot.co.nz> writes
>"Darin Johnson" <darin_@_usa_._net> wrote in message
>news:cu1n04x...@nokia.com...
>
>> But every voting system has its own peculiarities. I happen to think
>> that voting for parties instead of individuals to be weird and
>> undemocratic, but it's a common practice.
>
>In general, I quite like the way NZ's MMP works. We vote for parties but
>every party that gets more than 5% of the vote gets into parliament in the
>proportion they won. It can result in a few headaches when parties won't
>compromise and issues cannot move forward but nothing is perfect.
The allegation is that leads to a predominance of party jobsworths. The
was for the individual to succeed is by climbing up the party list, not
by pleasing the voters or expressing the tiniest shred of individuality.
Does it turn out like that?
AIUI, the German system has 50% of the MPs elected directly, then the
other 50% by the method you describe topping up the direct electors to
the "fair" values.
--
@lec Šawley
Alec Cawley
<SPAMaa...@slingshot.co.nz> writes
>
>"Alec Cawley" <al...@spamspam.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:y+JFJ0dw...@cawley.demon.co.uk...
>
>> Much, much more complicated than that, and embedded in history.
>
>[snip details]
>
>So, as summary, the voters are voting for people who will go on to vote for
>the presidency?
Yes, but in blocks, not as individuals. The Electoral College does, I
believe, meet, but it is a formality. Though there are theoretical
problems if a number of members of the College die before meeting. One
or two have done in the past, but not enough to affect the result.
--
@lec Šawley
Sanity
wrote in article <26bv805fatfkmhqi8...@news.individual.net>:
> Sanity <sanityDE...@affordable-hedgehogs.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>So keep that in mind, the next time we dutch speak so proudly about our
>>liquid defenses. It hasn't "worked" for more than 300 years ;-)
>
> I dunno, what about Heineken?
biertje?
Lesley Weston
r...@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl wrote on 27/04/2004 11:27 AM:
> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> in article 408d7781...@news.individual.net, Richard Bos at
>> r...@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl wrote on 26/04/2004 1:58 PM:
>>
>>> Lesley Weston <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> in article 408acee1...@news.individual.net, Richard Bos at
>>>> r...@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl wrote on 24/04/2004 2:17 PM:
>>>>
>>>>> You disappoint me. I honestly cannot conceive anyone in his right mind,
>>>>> who has not been brainwashed by constant USAnian propaganda, voting for
>>>>> that mass-murderous son of a bitch.
>>>>
>>>> It's called democracy. It means that everyone gets to vote for the
>>>> candidate
>>>> of *their* choice, not (necessarily) of yours.
>>>
>>> That's a bit of a non-sequitur, isn't it?
>>
>> No.
>
> Then please explain how you get from "I do not understand how someone
> with a working brain can possibly make _that_ choice" to "I do not
> understand that you should have a choice at all", because the logic of
> that conclusion escapes me completely.
If that were what you had written, perhaps, though the thought is still
rather dubious. What you did actually write is still above. You are quite
clearly saying that roughly half the voting population of the US are insane
and/or unable to make informed choices, which, I suppose, is all right for
joke-making purposes (though again rather dubious), but hardly a useful
addition to a political discussion. Especially when that discussion seems to
be mainly among people who aren't eligible to vote in US elections.
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, so as not to upset the sys-apes, but I don't
actually read anything sent to it before I empty it. To reach me, use lesley
att vancouverbc dott nett, changing spelling and spacing as required.
Torak
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 19:33:20 GMT, Torak
>
> <snip everything>
>
> Have you ever served with Americans?
Nope, and yes, I do get rather worried about some of the things I hear.
But I seem to recall we were talking about *Dutch* peacekeepers in this
case?
> If half the stories I've heard from family and friends are true, I worry
> about exactly what some of them are picking up from training.
Hehehe, if a *third* of the stories I hear from people who've *served*
with them are true, I worry!