Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

The War Protests

6 views
Skip to first unread message

The Evil Chemist

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 12:32:28 AM1/23/03
to
The Next mass protest is in NYC Feb 15. For More Info:

http://www.internationalanswer.org/campaigns/f15/index.html

I went to the War Protest in DC last week. It was more or less just to be
a body and to observe and to 'be counted'. I'm not one for impotent fist
waving, (I prefer calculated action) but there's something different abou
this, something that stirs me to go outside my little comfortable globe of
apathy and feelngs of helpless, something that makes me think beyond my
trivial concerns about weather, distance, money, something that puts into
perspective how meaningless responsibilities such as coming into work to
drink coffee push around paper that will still be there tomorrow (and the
world will not crumble) whether or not I go to the protest.

I think and think about this and no good can come from war with Iraq.

In my observation, I noticed the crowd is not the 'usual characters', the
pool is larger. They are not just leftist radicals, but families who
don't want their children to die, laborers (unions) who feel dropping
bombs is dropping money on Iraq unnecessarily, money that could be used
positively to help our slumping economy, some are conservative Xtians, who
see this as an aggressive war, one that goes against the fundamental
relgious belief of goodness, some who believe Bush completely forgot about
the 'war on terrorism', some who simply feel the US is being an
international bully disregarding the UN and americas steadfast allies.

Like a magnet, it is drawing more people and as it grows in size, it's
attraction grows. There were hundreds of thousands of people in DC
protesting. It took us 5 hours to walk about 1 mile.

I think this protest may do some good if the next one draws more than 1
million people. It does seem to have a unstabilizing effect on political
structures.

I'm not what one would call a pacificst (I have a very martial mentality),
and all that I have studied and experienced in the ways of conflict all
indicate to me war in Iraq is stupidity and sloppiness.

It drains the public coffers, money the govt could use to making the US
less vulnerable to attacks by 'weapons of mass destruction'. I firmly
believe that the best way to win wars without fighting is to make onesself
invulnerable.

If the UN inspectors can't find the weapons, what will the military
targets be? If the U.S. has the information, why aren't we giving it to
the Inspectors, so they can find it.

If the US does invade Iraq, how will this make the U.S. invulnerable to
chemical & Biological weapons. It won't, not in the least. It does nothing
to increase our invulnerability to the things. $10billion in R&D in
combatting these things would be a far more effective strategy.

$10billion towards R&D into replacing inefficient technology that is over
100 years old (the internal combustion engine) so we wouldn't be so weak
and dependent on the Middle east would be an equally effective strategy.

Anyway, if people are fence sitting about whether they should protest, I
recommend they go to the feb 15th protest. This is a war onto it's own and
in war every resource, no matter how large or small, counts.

The groups that organize these protests also organize bus service to/from
them from many cities.


Fuck Apathy.
jv

The Evil Chemist

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 12:49:12 AM1/23/03
to
The Evil Chemist <theevil...@crushed.velvet.net> wrote:
> The Next mass protest is in NYC Feb 15. For More Info:
> http://www.internationalanswer.org

Oh yeah, the protest in NYC is in coordination with other peace groups
around the globe. There will also be protests in the UK and many other
countries. You can find info about this at http://www.international.org


jv

The Evil Chemist

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 4:09:40 AM1/23/03
to
The Next mass protest is in NYC Feb 15. For More Info:

http://www.internationalanswer.org/campaigns/f15/index.html

to increase our invulnerability to the things. $40-$200billion in R&D in
combatting these things would be a far more effective strategy. [1]

$40-$200illion towards R&D into replacing inefficient technology that is


over 100 years old (the internal combustion engine) so we wouldn't be so
weak and dependent on the Middle east would be an equally effective
strategy.

Anyway, if people are fence sitting about whether they should protest, I
recommend they go to the feb 15th protest. This is a war onto it's own and
in war every resource, no matter how large or small, counts.

The groups that organize these protests also organize bus service to/from
them from many cities.

jv

[1] There's an interesting article about the cost of a war on Iraq
compared to the Gulf War, where the US split the cost with many countries.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A58312-2002Nov30&notFound=true

The Evil Chemist

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 4:11:51 AM1/23/03
to
The Evil Chemist <theevil...@crushed.velvet.net> wrote:
> The Next mass protest is in NYC Feb 15. For More Info:
> http://www.internationalanswer.org

Oh yeah, the protest in NYC is in coordination with other peace groups
around the globe. There will also be protests in the UK and many other
countries. You can find info about this at

http://www.internationalanswer.org


jv

Anne Gwish

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 10:07:48 AM1/23/03
to

The Evil Chemist wrote:

> The Next mass protest is in NYC Feb 15. For More Info:
>
> http://www.internationalanswer.org/campaigns/f15/index.html
>
> I went to the War Protest in DC last week. It was more or less just to be
> a body and to observe and to 'be counted'. I'm not one for impotent fist
> waving, (I prefer calculated action) but there's something different abou
> this, something that stirs me to go outside my little comfortable globe of
> apathy and feelngs of helpless, something that makes me think beyond my
> trivial concerns about weather, distance, money, something that puts into
> perspective how meaningless responsibilities such as coming into work to
> drink coffee push around paper that will still be there tomorrow (and the
> world will not crumble) whether or not I go to the protest.


I've thought long and hard about my decision to go to NYC in Feb. to
participate in this protest. I know i'm only one little person, and
nothing i can do or say is ultimately going to matter, but i cannot just
sit here and feel helpless. You've outlined my feelings exactly (albeit
more articulately...) and for that i say "Thanks". I know i'm not in
the minority when i question our motives behind this impending war, and
it is nice to know that the demographics of the movement against war
know no social/political/religious bounds. It is just beginning to
gather steam. Here are a few random thoughts on the subject:

- I find it difficult to believe that GWB can be impartial when it comes
to matters concerning oil. I've strived to separate my general loathing
and distrust of the man from judging his actions as president, but when
your family coffers are so deeply entrenched in the oil business, i find
it hard to believe that this doesn't have anything to do with oil.

-If there is compelling evidence that Iraq is hiding something, why
isn't the information being shared? If it was because of security
issues, surely the inspectors would need to know that information to
keep themselves safe! I think this whole bit about "secret information
too dangerous to share" was made up to keep the dumb masses clamoring
behind the president and his men. If this wasn't the case, then the
information would have been shared with the inspectors and the "smoking
gun" would have been found a long time ago.

- one word: OSAMA! Hello, remember him? The one who ordered his troops
to kill 3,000+ Americans on our own soil?? What the hell ever happened
to trying to find and kill him? Oh yes. We can't -find- him. Oh well,
onto the next project! I'm sure he's probably trembling in glee by the
distraction this whole Iraq fiasco is providing.

-Two words: NORTH KOREA! I do believe they're building a nuclear bomb
right about now? I'm trying to figure out why (other than the
aforementioned oil bit) "we" are so willing to negotiate with them, but
we can't wait a few months to bomb the fuck out of a country still
war-ravished from the LAST time we bombed the fuck out of them.

- If the inspectors find no WMD, then Iraq is lying and we're going to
bomb them. But if the inspectors do find WMD, then they're in violation
of a UN Security Resolution and we're going to bomb them. They're
damned if they do and damned if they don't! What exactly is the Best
Case Scenario for the outcome of all this?


-Along the same lines: If Iraq won't disarm, then we'll send the UN
after them. If the UN won't go after them, then we'll go after them
alone (with Britain). So what was the point of this whole UN inspector
thing if it doesn't matter what they find, and truthfully, in the eyes
of US foreign policy, the UN process is, in the end, irrelevant?

- The whole business of "lets bomb them NOW!!" becomes clearer if you
consider that next year is a presidential election year. Why not give
the inspectors more time to complete their job? Because GWB wants to
get in there, finish daddy's business, take over their oil, and then
brag about what a fine job he did ridding the world of this Monster and
breaking down the Axis of Evil. TIME is the one thing he doesn't have,
as this war has to be a done-deal by this time next year. War didn't
work to re-elect his father... who actually had a much greater public
support going into the Gulf War than does GWB. Do you think it'll work
for him?

- Unemployment is the highest it's been in recent memory. Two years ago,
all the economic pundits were saying this was just a "hiccup" in the
economy, but here we are, almost three years after the dot.com bubble
burst, and the economy SUCKS! By the grace of God alone, i still HAVE a
job... I'm one of the few lucky ones at my company... but I haven't had
a raise in two years due to mandatory pay freezes, yet the cost of
living has gone up, my heat bill just went up 30%, my health insurance
went up for the third year in a row by 12% or more, and i have lost
literally thousands of dollars of my 401k. I have absolutely NO faith
that it is going to get better soon. So let's start a little WAR to
jump-start the ecomony! Let's sacrifice a whole bunch of 18-24 year old
boys to get things moving again! Let's fuck up whatever support we ever
had from other Arab nations in our "War Against Terrorism" and light a
firecracker right in the center of the most volatile part of the world,
and see if that helps warm up the ol' dollar! Hey, here's a great idea,
let's give a GIANT tax break to the millionaires, so y'all can rain
little dollar bills on the little working people.. ya know, help 'em out
a little! Yee Haw!

ARGH! I have succeeded in upsetting myself so badly that now i must go
let out some steam somewhere. I'm sorry for the rant. I'm horribly
discouraged at the direction the leaders of this country are taking. I'm
only glad to know that i'm not alone.


> Fuck Apathy.


Amen.

-AG.

Girl the Bourgeois Individualist

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 10:27:43 AM1/23/03
to

"Greylock" <Grey...@vurt.NOT.net.INVALID> wrote in message
news:3e36ec3b...@news.wn.com.au...

> Last episode The Evil Chemist <theevil...@crushed.velvet.net> said:
> >I think and think about this and no good can come from war with Iraq.
>
> At this point, I dub thee - most sensible American.
> JV, will you run for President?
>
Just be wary of the ANSWER bunch - http://www.infoshop.org/texts/ww_guide.html
(for those who don't know, this isn't right wing propaganda stuff, it's an
anarchist critique).

Girl.


Endymion

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 10:49:57 AM1/23/03
to
"The Evil Chemist" <theevil...@crushed.velvet.net> wrote

> Like a magnet, it is drawing more people and as it grows in size, it's


> attraction grows. There were hundreds of thousands of people in DC
> protesting. It took us 5 hours to walk about 1 mile.

Protest crowds look larger than they are - I've seen estimates as low as
30,000 for this one. There were more people than that at the Pro-Life rally
for Roe v. Wade's 30th. All this really tells us is that the fringe of
dedicated activists and a few hangers on oppose this war as firmly as any
other - in other words, at least as many people as voted for Nader.

Now, if you want to get into a more sophisticated debate, such as how long
weapons inspectors should be given, exactly what constitutes grounds for
war, or what degree of support is necessary from which allies to make war a
viable option, you'll find more grounds for dicussion and a more divided
public, but those aren't the sort of questions one can address with 30,00
people wearing goofy costumes and chanting "Hey, Bush, kiss my ass, no war
for the price of gas."

> I think this protest may do some good if the next one draws more than 1
> million people.

I'd be shocked if 1/10 that many showed up - but in any case, how many of
those people are going to vote for any Republican or moderate Democrat in
any election anyway? No one cares what the fringe thinks - to the extent any
attention is being paid to public opinion, it's in Europe, where the number
of people opposed to war under any circumstances is actually politically
significant, or in the U.S. to more complex issues where the elctorate is
more likely to be split.

> It drains the public coffers, money the govt could use to making the US
> less vulnerable to attacks by 'weapons of mass destruction'. I firmly
> believe that the best way to win wars without fighting is to make onesself
> invulnerable.

And just how eaxctly does one do that? And how does one extend the same
protection to anyone else a nuclear-armed Saddam might threaten? The
rationale for the war, if anyone here has even bothered to read up on it,
has little to do with a direct threat to U.S. soil.

> If the UN inspectors can't find the weapons, what will the military
> targets be?

The people who build and deploy the weapons, naturally.

> If the U.S. has the information, why aren't we giving it to
> the Inspectors, so they can find it.

That I can't answer. Maybe they're just bluffing. Maybe it would be
impossible to do so without exposing a source who would then be killed.

> If the US does invade Iraq, how will this make the U.S. invulnerable to
> chemical & Biological weapons. It won't, not in the least.

That's an astoundingly myopic view. No one ever said it was about "making
the U.S. invulnerable." Invulnerability is not an option anyway.

Now if you were to ask "How would that make the U.S. more secure than not
invading," that would be a more legitimate question, but then it wouldn't
serve your rhetorical purpose because there might actually be an answer.

> It does nothing
> to increase our invulnerability to the things. $40-$200billion in R&D in
> combatting these things would be a far more effective strategy. [1]

R&D towards what, exactly?

> $40-$200illion towards R&D into replacing inefficient technology that is
> over 100 years old (the internal combustion engine) so we wouldn't be so
> weak and dependent on the Middle east would be an equally effective
> strategy.

You can't just force technology that way. Why not $40 billion towards
technology to turn lead into gold cheaply to fund the war?

All your alternatives are empty speculation, tossing money in the air and
hoping it will land somewhere where it might do some good. In the real
world, options are more limited than that.

--
Endymion
disinte...@mindspring.com
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like;
and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."


Endymion

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 11:07:16 AM1/23/03
to
"Anne Gwish" <AnneGw...@hotmail.com> wrote

> Here are a few random thoughts on the subject:
>
> - I find it difficult to believe that GWB can be impartial when it comes
> to matters concerning oil. I've strived to separate my general loathing
> and distrust of the man from judging his actions as president, but when
> your family coffers are so deeply entrenched in the oil business, i find
> it hard to believe that this doesn't have anything to do with oil.

Because if there can possibly be any ulterior motive, even if you can't
point to what it might be or show the slightest evidence that it does in
fact exist, that must be the real motive, right?

Gothpolitik: the replacement of childish naivete with an equally childish
forced and irrational cynicism.

> -If there is compelling evidence that Iraq is hiding something, why
> isn't the information being shared? If it was because of security
> issues, surely the inspectors would need to know that information to
> keep themselves safe!

What makes you think it's the security of the *inspectors* at stake? What do
you think Saddam would do if the information released could be traced back
to a source inside the country? Are you aware of the allegations that people
who talked to the previous inspection teams were routinely murdered?

> - one word: OSAMA! Hello, remember him? The one who ordered his troops
> to kill 3,000+ Americans on our own soil?? What the hell ever happened
> to trying to find and kill him?

Please detail the resources necessary to further efforts to find bin Laden,
and explain how those assets would be diverted in a war against Iraq - or
else admit you're just repeating something you heard someone on TV say.

> -Two words: NORTH KOREA! I do believe they're building a nuclear bomb
> right about now? I'm trying to figure out why (other than the
> aforementioned oil bit) "we" are so willing to negotiate with them, but
> we can't wait a few months to bomb the fuck out of a country still
> war-ravished from the LAST time we bombed the fuck out of them.

Probably because war against North Korea is not a practical option. Also
because North Korea has, at least for the past couple of decades, shown more
of a propensity to stir up trouble by making wild threats and selling
weapons than to actually attack its neighbors, unlike Saddam. Would it make
you happier to invade both?

> - If the inspectors find no WMD, then Iraq is lying and we're going to
> bomb them. But if the inspectors do find WMD, then they're in violation
> of a UN Security Resolution and we're going to bomb them. They're
> damned if they do and damned if they don't!

They're damned because they already did.

> What exactly is the Best Case Scenario for the outcome of all this?

Saddam dies or goes into exile, of course.

> -Along the same lines: If Iraq won't disarm, then we'll send the UN
> after them. If the UN won't go after them, then we'll go after them
> alone (with Britain). So what was the point of this whole UN inspector
> thing if it doesn't matter what they find, and truthfully, in the eyes
> of US foreign policy, the UN process is, in the end, irrelevant?

Yes, but sadly one must make a show of going through the motions. Or, less
cynically, we'll give the U.N. the chance to be something other than a
spineless and ineffectual debating society, but if it proves to be the
latter, we're not going to let that stop us.

Did the world learn nothing from the failure of the League of Nations?

> - The whole business of "lets bomb them NOW!!" becomes clearer if you
> consider that next year is a presidential election year.

But much cleaer if you realize that the hottest season in Iraq is a lot
closer than the next election.

> - Unemployment is the highest it's been in recent memory.

Only for those whose recent memory is, well, recent.

> Two years ago,
> all the economic pundits were saying this was just a "hiccup" in the
> economy, but here we are, almost three years after the dot.com bubble
> burst, and the economy SUCKS!

And what does any of that have to do with the situation in Iraq? The
problems of the economy are a bit more complex than that, and a number of
people saw this coimng as far back as the mid-90's. of course a number of
others didn't.

> Hey, here's a great idea,
> let's give a GIANT tax break to the millionaires, so y'all can rain
> little dollar bills on the little working people.. ya know, help 'em out
> a little! Yee Haw!

There never has been, and never will be, any such theory as "trickle-down"
or any "tax break for millionaires"... just people too ignorant of basic
economic theory to understand supply-side theory, which, alas, apparently
includes most left-wing politicians and most of the media (although I'm
confident many of them actually know better and are only pretending because
they think that will be more politically effective than explaining the real
basis for their opposition).

> I'm horribly
> discouraged at the direction the leaders of this country are taking. I'm
> only glad to know that i'm not alone.

But you are in the minority - a rather small minority at that. Don't be
fooled by the amount of noise you can make.

Tamaz

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 8:37:07 PM1/23/03
to
Apathy is destroying the world!!!! Who cares? :)

The Evil Chemist <theevil...@crushed.velvet.net> wrote in message
news:b0nupb$oih$1...@crushed.velvet.net...

Anne Gwish

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 1:56:48 PM1/23/03
to

Endymion wrote:

> "Anne Gwish" <AnneGw...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>
>>Here are a few random thoughts on the subject:
>>
>>- I find it difficult to believe that GWB can be impartial when it comes
>>to matters concerning oil. I've strived to separate my general loathing
>>and distrust of the man from judging his actions as president, but when
>>your family coffers are so deeply entrenched in the oil business, i find
>>it hard to believe that this doesn't have anything to do with oil.
>>
>
> Because if there can possibly be any ulterior motive, even if you can't
> point to what it might be or show the slightest evidence that it does in
> fact exist, that must be the real motive, right?
>
> Gothpolitik: the replacement of childish naivete with an equally childish
> forced and irrational cynicism.

And can you show the "slightest evidence" to the contrary? Talks are
underway at this very moment, to not only ensure that Iraqi oil won't be
set on fire (as protection of oil fields is deemed the "Number One
Priority"), but to discuss how to raise the production of oil four-fold
in a "Post-Saddam Iraq".

whitewash (n): to exonerate by means of a perfunctory investigation or
through biased presentation of data


>
>
>>-If there is compelling evidence that Iraq is hiding something, why
>>isn't the information being shared? If it was because of security
>>issues, surely the inspectors would need to know that information to
>>keep themselves safe!
>>
>
> What makes you think it's the security of the *inspectors* at stake? What do
> you think Saddam would do if the information released could be traced back
> to a source inside the country? Are you aware of the allegations that people
> who talked to the previous inspection teams were routinely murdered?


Your point applies to sharing information with the general public, but
it is irrelevant to the _inspectors_. Obviously, if inspectors are asked
to go over every nook and cranny in the entire country of Iraq, and US
intelligence had knowledge that there existed some dangerous weapon in
some particular area of the country, would it not make sense to let them
know exactly where it is, not only for their safety, (i'd like to hope
their security is at least a consideration) but to speed up the process
that we're in such a big fat hurry to undergo? My point was that if
there was information to be shared, the inspectors would have been privy
to it. Other than these vague claims that "they're burying weapons and
hiding scientists" they have yet to be presented with anything of
substance. Why hide the information from the inspectors, unless it's
all lies?


>
>
>>- one word: OSAMA! Hello, remember him? The one who ordered his troops
>>to kill 3,000+ Americans on our own soil?? What the hell ever happened
>>to trying to find and kill him?
>>
>
> Please detail the resources necessary to further efforts to find bin Laden,
> and explain how those assets would be diverted in a war against Iraq - or
> else admit you're just repeating something you heard someone on TV say.


Hmmm i came to that me very self, thank you. Think about it. If we have
tens of thousands of troops amassing in the Persian Gulf, readying for a
war that will cost billions of dollars, where does that leave the
resources and intelligence that are required to find and stop al Queda?
It leaves them in Iraq, or here in the US, focusing on the war effort.
The military is NOT an infinite resource. How can we fight two wars at
once? Face it, we're not going to. We gave up on the "War on
Terrorism" after we fucked up in Tora Bora. We didn't finish up what we
started in Afghanistan, and Osama Bin Laden got away. But why dwell on
that? Let's start up something we KNOW we can finish.


>
>
>>-Two words: NORTH KOREA! I do believe they're building a nuclear bomb
>>right about now? I'm trying to figure out why (other than the
>>aforementioned oil bit) "we" are so willing to negotiate with them, but
>>we can't wait a few months to bomb the fuck out of a country still
>>war-ravished from the LAST time we bombed the fuck out of them.
>>
>
> Probably because war against North Korea is not a practical option. Also
> because North Korea has, at least for the past couple of decades, shown more
> of a propensity to stir up trouble by making wild threats and selling
> weapons than to actually attack its neighbors, unlike Saddam. Would it make
> you happier to invade both?


Right. It isn't a practical option because they have no fucking oil!
Wanna know what would make me happier? The use diplomacy and
international law instead of playground bully tactics -- across the
board. Like i tell my children... "Use your words, not your fists!"


>
>
>>- If the inspectors find no WMD, then Iraq is lying and we're going to
>>bomb them. But if the inspectors do find WMD, then they're in violation
>>of a UN Security Resolution and we're going to bomb them. They're
>>damned if they do and damned if they don't!
>>
>
> They're damned because they already did.


So what is the point of all of these pre-war machinations, other than to
waste time? Bombs away! While we're at it, why don't we just bomb the
living shit out of every country who's ever allegedly violated a UN
Security Resolution? (heads up!)


>
>
>>What exactly is the Best Case Scenario for the outcome of all this?
>>
>
> Saddam dies or goes into exile, of course.


ok, God! That's a perfect solution! Maybe we'll get lucky and he'll die
in his sleep of an aneurysm or something, and save us the effort. Let's
hope whoever takes his place doesn't make him look like an angel.
Cutting off a wart doesn't kill the virus.


>
>
>>-Along the same lines: If Iraq won't disarm, then we'll send the UN
>>after them. If the UN won't go after them, then we'll go after them
>>alone (with Britain). So what was the point of this whole UN inspector
>>thing if it doesn't matter what they find, and truthfully, in the eyes
>>of US foreign policy, the UN process is, in the end, irrelevant?
>>
>
> Yes, but sadly one must make a show of going through the motions. Or, less
> cynically, we'll give the U.N. the chance to be something other than a
> spineless and ineffectual debating society, but if it proves to be the
> latter, we're not going to let that stop us.


So it's our way or the highway, UN! That really proves nothing more
than that the UN is a puppet of the US.


>
> Did the world learn nothing from the failure of the League of Nations?


Did the world learn nothing from the failure of the Vietnam War?


>
>
>>- The whole business of "lets bomb them NOW!!" becomes clearer if you
>>consider that next year is a presidential election year.
>>
>
> But much cleaer if you realize that the hottest season in Iraq is a lot
> closer than the next election.


Brilliant! Let's plan our little invasion-thingie around the weather,
shall we? We'll just rush the process along a bit, to make sure no one
gets too hot out there in the oil field.. err.. desert. Don't forget the
sand fleas! They're a bitch during the hot months. Ouchie!


>
>
>>- Unemployment is the highest it's been in recent memory.
>>
>
> Only for those whose recent memory is, well, recent.


10 years? I don't know how old you are, but that's almost my entire
adult working life.


>
>
>>Two years ago,
>> all the economic pundits were saying this was just a "hiccup" in the
>>economy, but here we are, almost three years after the dot.com bubble
>>burst, and the economy SUCKS!
>>
>
> And what does any of that have to do with the situation in Iraq? The
> problems of the economy are a bit more complex than that, and a number of
> people saw this coimng as far back as the mid-90's. of course a number of
> others didn't.


I'd rather see our administration direct their furor toward reducing the
increasing number of jobless and homeless citizens AND trying to bring
to justice those people responsible for flying planes into our
buildings. Please don't feed us the "This Is All Clinton's Fault" line.
Whatever. The fact remains that under Bush & Co. our economy has fallen
apart and there is no sign of it getting better any time soon (unless
you're a millionaire...)


>
>
>>Hey, here's a great idea,
>>let's give a GIANT tax break to the millionaires, so y'all can rain
>>little dollar bills on the little working people.. ya know, help 'em out
>>a little! Yee Haw!
>>
>
> There never has been, and never will be, any such theory as "trickle-down"
> or any "tax break for millionaires"... just people too ignorant of basic
> economic theory to understand supply-side theory, which, alas, apparently
> includes most left-wing politicians and most of the media (although I'm
> confident many of them actually know better and are only pretending because
> they think that will be more politically effective than explaining the real
> basis for their opposition).


59% of the proposed tax breaks are going to the top 10% of earners,
while those of us who make under $100k will be paying 73% of all taxes
under the new plan. Call me ignorant or left-wing or whatever the hell
you want, but i know also know a few things about supply and demand. The
richest 10% of people are still only 10% of the people. Ten in 100,
remember? Give more money to more of the people, and more people will
buy refrigerators and cars and houses and clothing and things that
really will create jobs. Eliminating the dividend tax isn't going to do
a damn bit of good for me, nor the 1.2 million people who lost their
jobs last year.


>
>
>>I'm horribly
>>discouraged at the direction the leaders of this country are taking. I'm
>>only glad to know that i'm not alone.
>
> But you are in the minority - a rather small minority at that. Don't be
> fooled by the amount of noise you can make.


I beg to differ with you. ~60+% of Americans believe that more time
should be given to diplomatic approaches before resorting to UN-backed war.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23564-2003Jan21.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-01-18-iraq-poll_x.htm
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/4920860.htm
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030118/80/dknew.html

I realize they're just polls, and "polls are polls"... but for you to
denounce the swell of dissent as a "very small minority" is simply
ignorant and incorrect.

-AG.

Jodi

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 2:18:20 PM1/23/03
to
On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:07:48 GMT, Anne Gwish wrote:

>- one word: OSAMA! Hello, remember him? The one who ordered his troops
>to kill 3,000+ Americans on our own soil?? What the hell ever happened
>to trying to find and kill him?

On a related note, AFGHANISTAN! They still need massive amounts of help
to rebuild their society, including military aid to stop the warlords
getting out of control until they build up their own security force.
Yet it looks like the West is aiming to forget about that in favour of a
"more exciting" option.

>-Two words: NORTH KOREA! I do believe they're building a nuclear bomb
>right about now? I'm trying to figure out why (other than the
>aforementioned oil bit) "we" are so willing to negotiate with them, but
>we can't wait a few months to bomb the fuck out of a country still
>war-ravished from the LAST time we bombed the fuck out of them.

TBH, I'm not convinced that North Korea are any more of a threat now
than they have been at any time since the Korean War. That doesn't in
any way excuse the North Korean government, it's just an observation.

Jodi
I am angry I am ill and I'm as ugly as sin
My irritability keeps me alive and kicking
- Magazine, "A Song from Under the Floorboards"

Nyx

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 2:39:57 PM1/23/03
to
The Evil Chemist <theevil...@crushed.velvet.net> wrote in
news:b0obgk$124$1...@crushed.velvet.net:

> Anyway, if people are fence sitting about whether they should protest,
> I recommend they go to the feb 15th protest. This is a war onto it's
> own and in war every resource, no matter how large or small, counts.

Yes, and all the looting and violence you want!

Here's your "peace" protest for you,

http://www.cellar.org/showthread.php?s=0ebaf26d03a36216045071668ee00108&thr
eadid=2712

Nyx

--
Day 34 of Aragorn's secret diary:
Frodo went to Mordor. Said he was going alone, but took Sam with him. Why?
My God, is everyone in this movie gay but me?
Not so sure about me either.
Still not King, goddammit.
www.sxxxy.org, www.weirdco.com
aim: nyxxxxx yahoo: nyxxxx icq: 9744630

Nyx

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 2:47:38 PM1/23/03
to
Anne Gwish <AnneGw...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:3E3039B5...@hotmail.com:

>> Only for those whose recent memory is, well, recent.
>
>
> 10 years? I don't know how old you are, but that's almost my entire
> adult working life.

Yeah, and it was higher in 1990. The war was in 91, so that must be pre-
historic to you, right? Wow, what about the recession of the early 80's?
That was when we were all wearing bearskins and hadn't invented fire.

Besides, chemical weapons *were* found last week. Has everyone just decided
to ignore that?

Anne Gwish

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 3:40:01 PM1/23/03
to

Nyx wrote:

> Anne Gwish <AnneGw...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:3E3039B5...@hotmail.com:
>
>
>>>Only for those whose recent memory is, well, recent.
>>>
>>
>>10 years? I don't know how old you are, but that's almost my entire
>>adult working life.
>>
>
> Yeah, and it was higher in 1990. The war was in 91, so that must be pre-
> historic to you, right?


Yah. Perfectly prehistoric. Technically, the jobless rate was lower
than/the same as it is NOW in 1990 (~6%), and it spiked after the war,
in 1992. So much for war being good for the economy!

Wow, what about the recession of the early 80's?
> That was when we were all wearing bearskins and hadn't invented fire.


No but i remember wearing a lot of neon back then, and although fire was
already invented, just remember, "We Didn't Start The Fire"...


>
> Besides, chemical weapons *were* found last week. Has everyone just decided
> to ignore that?


They were EMPTY chemical warheads, Nyx. No chemicals have been found.
The Iraqis claim it was an oversight, and have been cooperative to the
point of offering up four more of these empty warheads. Anyway what the
hell difference does it make? If they don't find anything, Iraq is in
violation of the Resolution. If they do find something, Iraq is in
violation of the Resolution. It's a done deal.

-AG.

Tiny Human Ferret

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 4:34:34 PM1/23/03
to
The Evil Chemist wrote:
> The Next mass protest is in NYC Feb 15. For More Info:
>
> http://www.internationalanswer.org/campaigns/f15/index.html
>
> I went to the War Protest in DC last week. It was more or less just to be

<snip snip>


> In my observation, I noticed the crowd is not the 'usual characters', the
> pool is larger. They are not just leftist radicals, but families who
> don't want their children to die, laborers (unions) who feel dropping
> bombs is dropping money on Iraq unnecessarily, money that could be used
> positively to help our slumping economy, some are conservative Xtians, who
> see this as an aggressive war, one that goes against the fundamental
> relgious belief of goodness, some who believe Bush completely forgot about
> the 'war on terrorism',

Nah. There's just no more-assured way to get them to come out of hiding and
go into an active phase where we can find them and do something about them,
than to go to war with Iraq.

Bomb Iraq, Terrorists Emerge, Terrorists are Dealt-With, Massive Incidental
Casualties all around the world are Eventually Cleaned Up, hrm, population's
a bit lower and no Saddam Hussein in power.

Honestly, with no signs whatsoever of serious violations having been found
by the weapons-inspectors, I'm starting to think that an attack might be
premature. Of course, the second we start withdrawing troops, Saddam tosses
the inspectors out of the country and makes moves to convince the US that
he's researching WMD. The US goes back, Saddam protests, inspectors enter
and find nothing, US troops are withdrawn, Saddam makes moves to convince
the US that he's doing research on WMD, etc etc.

Repeat as necessary until the US is flat broke, and the military feels
totally beaten without having fired a shot, the US looks like a total
buffoon in the eyes of the international community, our enemies become that
much more emboldened, President Bush II is out of power and replaced by a
scared-of-own-shadow pacific and conciliationist, Saddam is still in power,
and actually _does_ produce a lot of weapons of mass-destruction and arms
every single splinter faction who ever chanted "death to the great satan
america" and buys them passage in cargo containers to the US, where we all
suddenly die of something seriously unheard-of.

Nah, fuck that.

Christmas in Baghdad, okay?


--
Be kind to your neighbors, even | "Global domination, of course!"
though they be transgenic chimerae. | -- The Brain
"People that are really very weird can get into sensitive
positions and have a tremendous impact on history." -- Dan Quayle

Tiny Human Ferret

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 4:45:55 PM1/23/03
to
Anne Gwish wrote:
>
>
> Endymion wrote:

<snips>


>> Probably because war against North Korea is not a practical option. Also
>> because North Korea has, at least for the past couple of decades,
>> shown more
>> of a propensity to stir up trouble by making wild threats and selling
>> weapons than to actually attack its neighbors, unlike Saddam. Would it
>> make you happier to invade both?
>
>
>
> Right. It isn't a practical option because they have no fucking oil!

Please don't be ridiculous.

We cannot practically attack North Korea because, first, it would forever
lose us the friendship of South Korea. They don't like the US very much
right now over in SK. Also, everyone is agreed that China, South Korea, and
Japan -- and to a lesser degre, Russiya -- are the parties responsible for
dealing with the North Korea situation. North Korea isn't a threat to the
US, not much of one. We could swat them like a malnourished fly. But it's
very important for us to retain the friendship of South Korea, Japan, and
the PR Chinese. If we were to apply the fly-swatter to the DPRK (North
Korea), it would be a difficult to ensure that there was no fallout to Japan
and the PR China. And South Korea would become an enemy of the US of far
greater danger than the North could ever have been.


> Wanna know what would make me happier? The use diplomacy and
> international law instead of playground bully tactics -- across the
> board. Like i tell my children... "Use your words, not your fists!"

And if words don't work?

Tiny Human Ferret

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 4:58:39 PM1/23/03
to
Jodi wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:07:48 GMT, Anne Gwish wrote:
>
>
>>- one word: OSAMA! Hello, remember him? The one who ordered his troops
>>to kill 3,000+ Americans on our own soil?? What the hell ever happened
>>to trying to find and kill him?
>
>
> On a related note, AFGHANISTAN! They still need massive amounts of help
> to rebuild their society, including military aid to stop the warlords
> getting out of control until they build up their own security force.
> Yet it looks like the West is aiming to forget about that in favour of a
> "more exciting" option.

Ah, "not really". US military elements in Afghanistan are rather entrenched,
and committed to assisting in rebuilding the road between Kabul and Herat
(which they built in the first place in the 1960s, IIRC). The estimated
duration of this project is some three years. Afghanistan will benefit greatly.

<snips>

Anne Gwish

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 5:38:14 PM1/23/03
to

Tiny Human Ferret wrote:

> Anne Gwish wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Endymion wrote:
>
>
> <snips>
>
>
>>> Probably because war against North Korea is not a practical option. Also
>>> because North Korea has, at least for the past couple of decades,
>>> shown more
>>> of a propensity to stir up trouble by making wild threats and selling
>>> weapons than to actually attack its neighbors, unlike Saddam. Would
>>> it make you happier to invade both?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Right. It isn't a practical option because they have no fucking oil!
>
>
> Please don't be ridiculous.
>
> We cannot practically attack North Korea because, first, it would
> forever lose us the friendship of South Korea. They don't like the US
> very much right now over in SK. Also, everyone is agreed that China,
> South Korea, and Japan -- and to a lesser degre, Russiya -- are the
> parties responsible for dealing with the North Korea situation. North
> Korea isn't a threat to the US, not much of one. We could swat them like
> a malnourished fly.


Right, like that big old fly swatter we swung around there in 1950's?
That war cost us 30,000 lives, not to mention the savage fighting and
torture that those soldiers who didn't die had to endure. My grandfather
was a Korean War vet. I was weaned on those stories.

Furthermore, exactly who agreed that China, SK, Japan and Russia are
"responsible" for dealing with NK? We gave them the fucking plutonium,
for Christ's sake! From a global security stance, it smacks of hypocrisy
to allow one country to violate key components of an international
treaty by enriching plutonium with the express intent of building a
nuke, and at the very same time attempt to completely destroy another
country for possessing empty warheads!

But it's very important for us to retain the
> friendship of South Korea, Japan, and the PR Chinese. If we were to
> apply the fly-swatter to the DPRK (North Korea), it would be a difficult
> to ensure that there was no fallout to Japan and the PR China. And South
> Korea would become an enemy of the US of far greater danger than the
> North could ever have been.


I agree it is very important to maintain these friendships. (And i use
that word very loosely, especially with regard to our relationship with
China.) But is it not equally important to maintain the "friendship" of
Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran etc.? Yet we are barely hesitant to upset the
extremely delicate balance there, without concern for offending our
"friends" in the Middle East.


>
>
>> Wanna know what would make me happier? The use diplomacy and
>> international law instead of playground bully tactics -- across the
>> board. Like i tell my children... "Use your words, not your fists!"
>
>
> And if words don't work?


If words don't work with my kids, a swift spank in the ass! Seriously,
my point is that i don't think it's spanking time yet. And i can tell
you that as a parent, reward is a much better teacher than punishment.

How about consideration for lifting the brutal sanctions we've put on
Iraq for the past decade?

-AG.

The Evil Chemist

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 5:47:42 PM1/23/03
to
Girl the Bourgeois Individualist <sor...@nospamsortedmagazine.com> wrote:

>>
> Just be wary of the ANSWER bunch - http://www.infoshop.org/texts/ww_guide.html
> (for those who don't know, this isn't right wing propaganda stuff, it's an
> anarchist critique).

There's not much to be wary about.
This is pretty much standard stuff.
Even peace protests use a sort of martial mentaliity.
You just have to sift through th BS and make decisions on whatevers left.
jv

Endymion the Unfair!

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 5:58:21 PM1/23/03
to
"Tiny Human Ferret" <ixnaxamsp...@earthops.net> wrote

> North Korea isn't a threat to the US, not much of one.

True. And only a limited threat to regional stability: they can bluster, but
they know they can't possibly win a confrontation with China or the US and
don't want to provoke Japan into rearming, and given the above they seem to
have long since given up on military adventurism.

> We could swat them like a malnourished fly.

Not true, or rather, not true without causing massive civilian casualties
which would make Iraq look like a tea party. Possibly even risking nuclear
strikes on Seoul or even Tokyo. It's hard to imagine a more colossal mess,
unless you speculate how such a war might even drag us into a war with
China, which has not exactly been on the best terms with the current
administration anyway.

I think this is one where we have to grit our teeth, give in, and admit that
we really have no power to compel them to comply with our wishes, and
realize that apeeasement which involves giving a country economic aid is not
in the the same ballpark as appeasement which involves looking the other way
while it beats and rapes its neighbors.

--
Endymion the Unfair!

The Evil Chemist

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 5:55:06 PM1/23/03
to
Nyx <nyx...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The Evil Chemist <theevil...@crushed.velvet.net> wrote in
> news:b0obgk$124$1...@crushed.velvet.net:

>> Anyway, if people are fence sitting about whether they should protest,
>> I recommend they go to the feb 15th protest. This is a war onto it's
>> own and in war every resource, no matter how large or small, counts.

> Yes, and all the looting and violence you want!
> Here's your "peace" protest for you,

That's rather lame don't you think?
Out of thousands and thousands of people at the protest one photo?

If it really was anti-war protestors rather than pro military supporters
or simply thugs looking for an opportunity, do you really think that is
indicative of the protest any more than a bunch of black clad zit faced
teenagers shooting up HS schools is indicative of black clad freaky
people?

You're smarter than that.
jv

The Evil Chemist

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 6:20:29 PM1/23/03
to
Tiny Human Ferret <ixnaxamsp...@earthops.net> wrote:

> And if words don't work?

"war is what happens when all peaceful means of negotiation have
failed"-Churchill.

'cept we haven't exhausted those peaceful means. We're not even
considering them, even though the rest of the world save Israel & Britain,
still are trying the peaceful options.

But you do have to consider this place and time for war and why exactly do
we believe a preemptive strike on a country we fear *may* have weapons
which the *may* use one someone is a legitimate reason for war, when it
has been demonstrated in the past that just b/c a country has them does
not mean they will use them. I will say that perhaps generals of the past
were much more skillful, but should we let an unskilled commander bumble,
when it will cost so much?

Is there even anything to negotiate? We bought up the threat of war and
the negotiation process is to appease us. What other country on the planet
has the gaul to push another into the river and then negotiate their
survival as if we are doing them a favor by our benevolence?

I look at the dispositon of our commander and see the impatience.
The timing is too short and the escalation too fast given the timeline of
other events. The singular focus on bringing war and dismissing other
legitimate concerns of country and state baffle me.

As a startegic manouevre, why would the war on terrorism not be prevalent
in his speeches anymore, except when he alludes rather unsuccessfully that
the IRAQ is somehow involved, yet is unwilling to bring force any
evidence.

Either he is one of the greatest military figures of the ages, or he's a
bumbling fool. I'll leave the option open for the former, but I suspect
he's the latter.

jv

Endymion the Unfair!

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 6:34:43 PM1/23/03
to
"Anne Gwish" <AnneGw...@hotmail.com> wrote

> Furthermore, exactly who agreed that China, SK, Japan and Russia are
> "responsible" for dealing with NK?

They're the ones who'll have to live with the fallout.

> We gave them the fucking plutonium, for Christ's sake!

We did NOT give North Korea the fucking plutonium. It is produced by
theYongbyon reactor which was started in 1980, back in the prehistoric days
of the cold war, remember? The Koreans claim it was built without foreign
assistance, although whether that's true I'm not sure. The reprocessing
technology is believed to have come from Russia and/or China, which North
Korea had a history of playing off one against the other for military aid.

And the second program, the secret one, apparently involves home-grown
uranium enrichment equipment. None of it has anything to do with the US &
Japan providing aid for light-water reactors unsuitable for producing
weapons-grade plutonium.

This is another of those naive and childish cynicism moments I was talking
about. Among subculture-types, it seems to be gospel that the more
outrageous and improbable the story, the more truth there must be to it, and
that if one problem has a small causal relation to unforeseen consequences
of past US actions, the next crisis can just be assumed to be entirely the
deliberate result of US policy.

> From a global security stance, it smacks of hypocrisy
> to allow one country to violate key components of an international
> treaty by enriching plutonium with the express intent of building a
> nuke, and at the very same time attempt to completely destroy another
> country for possessing empty warheads!

Iraq is not being treated this way for simply having those warheads, it's
being treated this way because it violated specific provisions in the
agreements ending the Gulf War which forbade it to develop those weapons.
Thos provisions were not just thrown in maliciously or randomly either, they
were put there to address the likelihood that Saddam would attempt to use
WMDs to accomplish the territorial aggression his conventional arms had
failed to accomplish.

--
Endymion the Unfair!

Mech

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 6:05:03 PM1/23/03
to
In message <b0p41k$mqr$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com>,
"Endymion" <disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> "Anne Gwish" <AnneGw...@hotmail.com> wrote

> > Here are a few random thoughts on the subject:

> > - I find it difficult to believe that GWB can be impartial when it comes
> > to matters concerning oil. I've strived to separate my general loathing
> > and distrust of the man from judging his actions as president, but when
> > your family coffers are so deeply entrenched in the oil business, i find
> > it hard to believe that this doesn't have anything to do with oil.

> Because if there can possibly be any ulterior motive, even if you can't
> point to what it might be

*points at the world's second largest oilfield*

> or show the slightest evidence that it does in
> fact exist, that must be the real motive, right?

> Gothpolitik: the replacement of childish naivete with an equally childish
> forced and irrational cynicism.

Nah, that can't be right 'cos then I'd be agreeing with your arguments.

> > -If there is compelling evidence that Iraq is hiding something, why
> > isn't the information being shared? If it was because of security
> > issues, surely the inspectors would need to know that information to
> > keep themselves safe!

> What makes you think it's the security of the *inspectors* at stake? What do
> you think Saddam would do if the information released could be traced back
> to a source inside the country? Are you aware of the allegations that people
> who talked to the previous inspection teams were routinely murdered?

So they'd kill one of the people that the US is itching to kill anyway.

The better solution it seems to me.

> > - one word: OSAMA! Hello, remember him? The one who ordered his troops
> > to kill 3,000+ Americans on our own soil?? What the hell ever happened
> > to trying to find and kill him?

> Please detail the resources necessary to further efforts to find bin Laden,

I believe the term is "intelligence".

> and explain how those assets would be diverted in a war against Iraq - or
> else admit you're just repeating something you heard someone on TV say.

The US doesn't use intelligence when at war? Explains a lot.

> > -Two words: NORTH KOREA! I do believe they're building a nuclear bomb
> > right about now? I'm trying to figure out why (other than the
> > aforementioned oil bit) "we" are so willing to negotiate with them, but
> > we can't wait a few months to bomb the fuck out of a country still
> > war-ravished from the LAST time we bombed the fuck out of them.

> Probably because war against North Korea is not a practical option. Also
> because North Korea has, at least for the past couple of decades, shown more
> of a propensity to stir up trouble by making wild threats and selling
> weapons than to actually attack its neighbors, unlike Saddam. Would it make
> you happier to invade both?

I can't speak for Anne Gwish, but I'd be happier if it were neither.

What you're basically saying is that the US is going to invade Iraq simply
because it can.

> > - If the inspectors find no WMD, then Iraq is lying and we're going to
> > bomb them. But if the inspectors do find WMD, then they're in violation
> > of a UN Security Resolution and we're going to bomb them. They're
> > damned if they do and damned if they don't!

> They're damned because they already did.

That doesn't work. The weapons they found last time were destroyed.

> > What exactly is the Best Case Scenario for the outcome of all this?

> Saddam dies or goes into exile, of course.

But that wouldn't change a thing would it? One of his generals or a
member of his household would replace him.

> > -Along the same lines: If Iraq won't disarm, then we'll send the UN
> > after them. If the UN won't go after them, then we'll go after them
> > alone (with Britain). So what was the point of this whole UN inspector
> > thing if it doesn't matter what they find, and truthfully, in the eyes
> > of US foreign policy, the UN process is, in the end, irrelevant?

> Yes, but sadly one must make a show of going through the motions. Or, less
> cynically, we'll give the U.N. the chance to be something other than a
> spineless and ineffectual debating society, but if it proves to be the
> latter, we're not going to let that stop us.

So the US would be guilty of attacking another country without
international approval. I thought you said war on Iraq was to prevent
Saddam doing this very thing?

> Did the world learn nothing from the failure of the League of Nations?

> > - The whole business of "lets bomb them NOW!!" becomes clearer if you
> > consider that next year is a presidential election year.

> But much cleaer if you realize that the hottest season in Iraq is a lot
> closer than the next election.

Not really. What would be wrong with next January?

> > - Unemployment is the highest it's been in recent memory.

> Only for those whose recent memory is, well, recent.

> > Two years ago,
> > all the economic pundits were saying this was just a "hiccup" in the
> > economy, but here we are, almost three years after the dot.com bubble
> > burst, and the economy SUCKS!

> And what does any of that have to do with the situation in Iraq?

War is seen as a way of stimulating the economy. Plus, of course, Iraq
has oil. America's own reserves are looking relatively meagre.

> The problems of the economy are a bit more complex than that, and a number
> of people saw this coimng as far back as the mid-90's. of course a number of
> others didn't.

[snip]

> > I'm horribly
> > discouraged at the direction the leaders of this country are taking. I'm
> > only glad to know that i'm not alone.

> But you are in the minority - a rather small minority at that. Don't be
> fooled by the amount of noise you can make.

Globally I suspect you are in the minority.

> --

[snip]

Your .sig seperator is broken.

Cheers,
Dan.
--
__ _______ ______ __
/ |/ / __/ ___/ /_/ / # Dan Maloney.
/ /|_/ / _// /__/ __ / # Disclaimer: Not my fault.
/_/ /_/___/\___/_/ /_/ # mailto:me...@toth.org.uk

Mech

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 6:31:10 PM1/23/03
to
In message <b0p315$bnc$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com>,
"Endymion" <disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote:

[snip]

> > If the UN inspectors can't find the weapons, what will the military
> > targets be?

> The people who build and deploy the weapons, naturally.

I thought the former were Americans? :-)

> > If the U.S. has the information, why aren't we giving it to
> > the Inspectors, so they can find it.

> That I can't answer. Maybe they're just bluffing. Maybe it would be
> impossible to do so without exposing a source who would then be killed.

Well it might also be because they're the weapons the US sold to Iraq in
the 80s... :-)

The weapons inspectors haven't found some stuff they knew was there last
time. I suspect the US gov is making this mean what they want it to mean.

> > If the US does invade Iraq, how will this make the U.S. invulnerable to
> > chemical & Biological weapons. It won't, not in the least.

> That's an astoundingly myopic view. No one ever said it was about "making
> the U.S. invulnerable." Invulnerability is not an option anyway.

The best and easiest way of being invulnerable is to not make onesself a
target. Not attacking other countries would seem a good start in this regard.

> Now if you were to ask "How would that make the U.S. more secure than not
> invading," that would be a more legitimate question, but then it wouldn't
> serve your rhetorical purpose because there might actually be an answer.

It might be a helpful answer though.

> > It does nothing
> > to increase our invulnerability to the things. $40-$200billion in R&D in
> > combatting these things would be a far more effective strategy. [1]

> R&D towards what, exactly?

Star wars? Missile shield? (Shock, horror!) Diplomacy?

> > $40-$200illion towards R&D into replacing inefficient technology that is
> > over 100 years old (the internal combustion engine) so we wouldn't be so
> > weak and dependent on the Middle east would be an equally effective
> > strategy.

> You can't just force technology that way.

No, how silly. Never got anyone to the moon that way...

> Why not $40 billion towards
> technology to turn lead into gold cheaply to fund the war?

Good idea, but easier just to use it to print more money... ;-)

> All your alternatives are empty speculation, tossing money in the air and
> hoping it will land somewhere where it might do some good. In the real
> world, options are more limited than that.

Seizing the oilfields may be a dead cert, but it won't win friends.

Matthew King

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 7:12:26 PM1/23/03
to
Anne Gwish <AnneGw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> -Two words: NORTH KOREA! I do believe they're building a nuclear bomb
> right about now? I'm trying to figure out why (other than the
> aforementioned oil bit) "we" are so willing to negotiate with them, but
> we can't wait a few months to bomb the fuck out of a country still
> war-ravished from the LAST time we bombed the fuck out of them.

The unmentionable reason is that we trust the yellow people not to do
anything crazy more than we trust the brown people. But I don't think
that's the main reason (though it may be the main reason that a lot of
North Americans aren't more worked up about North Korea).

I've always thought that if there is all-out war in Iraq to depose
Hussein, it won't be about oil but about empire and history. (Of course,
many things will go into producing the war, oil among them. But I'm
talking about what the essential meaning of the war will be.[1]) In the
long run, the price of oil doesn't mean anything, and anyway no one can
say with confidence what deposing Hussein will do to the price of oil.[2]

However, if the US brings Iraq into its sphere of influence (which it
could not do with North Korea), it will change world history. It will put
the US back onto the footing of an expanding empire and a world-historical
power. It will help to prevent or stall the rise of an Arab or Muslim
empire and help to make the coalescing European empire irrelevant. It will
help put the current United States of America on the map, and its current
leaders in the history books, forever.

[1] I'm starting to worry, incidentally, that my long-standing prediction
that there will be no such war is endangered by the fact that the
conditional is dropping out of talk about the war. The "if there *is* a
war" is disappearing, probably just because it's too much effort to keep
saying it, but still it may have the effect of making the war seem
inevitable, which will in turn help to make it inevitable.

[2] Simplistic leftist interpretations of the drive for war on Iraq claim
it's about making oil cheap for American industry and consumers. Somewhat
more thoughtful leftist interpretations claim it's about making oil
expensive for the American oil barons, among whom Bush is of course one.
The American oil barons (and the Canadian ones--maybe the British ones,
too) would run the risk of bankruptcy if oil flowed freely from the Iraqs
and Venezuelas of the world. Producing oil is much more expensive in the
US than in other places (and more expensive still in Canada); it ceases to
be profitable somewhere below $20/barrel. Many North American oil
producers were destroyed by the "oil glut" of the mid-80s, when Saudi
Arabia threw its taps wide open.

Matthew

-Matthew-King--I-tried-to-tell-her-about-Marx-and-Engels----The------
-Toronto-------God-and-angels-I-don't-really-know-what-for--Sisters--
-Canada--------but-she-looked-good-in-ribbons--The-Sisters--of-Mercy-

Nyx

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 7:22:23 PM1/23/03
to
Anne Gwish <AnneGw...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:3E30516C...@hotmail.com:


>
>
> Yah. Perfectly prehistoric. Technically, the jobless rate was lower
> than/the same as it is NOW in 1990 (~6%), and it spiked after the war,
> in 1992. So much for war being good for the economy!
>
>

War isn't good for the economy....but war spending is. The initial spending
is good, when the government goes into debt spending to have more
battleships, tanks, guns, canned beans, whatever. Then, afterwards, it's
bad for the economy. People spend less on luxuries. After the war lots of
returning troops that don't have jobs, commodities market goes all
wonky, etc. The reason the misconception that war is good for the economy
came about was because after ww2 the US never stopped the intial spending.
They just kept building more and more weapons in a race they knew would
bankrupt the soviets. While Russia could only build so many tanks we knew
that the US did not have that limititation.

But, then, after the cold war we suffered for it. Bad withdrawal from all
that government contract money.


>
> Wow, what about the recession of the early 80's?
>> That was when we were all wearing bearskins and hadn't invented fire.
>
>
> No but i remember wearing a lot of neon back then, and although fire
> was
> already invented, just remember, "We Didn't Start The Fire"...

That song was late 80's. 88, iirc. Boom years, I'm talking about the
recession that started about 77 and lasted until 82.

But, 88 was the year that things went bust, again. The stock market
crashed. Second worst crash in history.


>
>
>>
>> Besides, chemical weapons *were* found last week. Has everyone just
>> decided to ignore that?
>
>
> They were EMPTY chemical warheads, Nyx. No chemicals have been found.
> The Iraqis claim it was an oversight, and have been cooperative to the
> point of offering up four more of these empty warheads. Anyway what
> the hell difference does it make? If they don't find anything, Iraq
> is in violation of the Resolution. If they do find something, Iraq is
> in violation of the Resolution. It's a done deal.
>


Oh, yeah, it was an oversight. Sure, we believe that. Fuck, I wish you
lived nearby so I could rip you off by selling you a used car. Did you know
gullible isn't in the dictionary?

Nyx

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 7:24:56 PM1/23/03
to
Anne Gwish <AnneGw...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:3E306E72...@hotmail.com:

>
> Right, like that big old fly swatter we swung around there in 1950's?
> That war cost us 30,000 lives, not to mention the savage fighting and
> torture that those soldiers who didn't die had to endure. My grandfather
> was a Korean War vet. I was weaned on those stories.

Yeah? Did he tell you that we were winning that war, that MacArthur was
actually in China at one point? Until Truman fired him and sent him home.

Nyx

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 7:27:52 PM1/23/03
to
The Evil Chemist <theevil...@crushed.velvet.net> wrote in
news:b0prsa$d8v$2...@crushed.velvet.net:

>
> That's rather lame don't you think?
> Out of thousands and thousands of people at the protest one photo?

No, I don't. Considering that every time the anti-global types get together
they have a riot and take out a starbucks. It's not a case of it happening
once, it's a case of it happening every fucking time.

It's not a case of it being an exception, it's the rule.

Panurge

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 7:42:00 PM1/23/03
to
"Endymion" <disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>All your alternatives are empty speculation, tossing money in the air and
>hoping it will land somewhere where it might do some good.

You wouldn't be saying that if it weren't government money, would you?

Look, R&D money gets spent. Is it so irrational to say, "We should
spend it on $PROJECT"?
--
"Composers tend to think most people really care a lot about music.
Well, most people don't." --Aaron Copland

Endymion the Unfair!

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 7:49:08 PM1/23/03
to
"Mech" <me...@toth.org.uk> wrote

> In message <b0p41k$mqr$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com>,
> "Endymion" <disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > Because if there can possibly be any ulterior motive, even if you can't
> > point to what it might be
>
> *points at the world's second largest oilfield*

That's not a motive, that's an oilfield. If you're claiming the motive is
simple theft of the oil from Iraq, say so, but that's ridiculous. There are
plenty of nations with less well defended oil reserves.

> > > - one word: OSAMA! Hello, remember him? The one who ordered his
troops
> > > to kill 3,000+ Americans on our own soil?? What the hell ever
happened
> > > to trying to find and kill him?
>
> > Please detail the resources necessary to further efforts to find bin
Laden,
>
> I believe the term is "intelligence".

I believe the term was "detail". What assets, and how will they be diverted,
and for how long?

> > Probably because war against North Korea is not a practical option. Also
> > because North Korea has, at least for the past couple of decades, shown
more
> > of a propensity to stir up trouble by making wild threats and selling
> > weapons than to actually attack its neighbors, unlike Saddam. Would it
make
> > you happier to invade both?
>
> I can't speak for Anne Gwish, but I'd be happier if it were neither.
>
> What you're basically saying is that the US is going to invade Iraq
simply
> because it can.

No, don't be silly. I'm saying that we're not going to invade North Korea
because we can't, or rather it isn't a practical option.

> > > - If the inspectors find no WMD, then Iraq is lying and we're going to
> > > bomb them. But if the inspectors do find WMD, then they're in
violation
> > > of a UN Security Resolution and we're going to bomb them. They're
> > > damned if they do and damned if they don't!
>
> > They're damned because they already did.
>
> That doesn't work. The weapons they found last time were destroyed.

"Last time" being 1991? What about the meltdown of the inspection process in
1998? Were the weapons Saddam was presumably hiding then destroyed?

> > > What exactly is the Best Case Scenario for the outcome of all this?
>
> > Saddam dies or goes into exile, of course.
>
> But that wouldn't change a thing would it? One of his generals or a
> member of his household would replace him.

Well, that depends on a lot of things beyond the scope of this discussion.
Probably not the latter, anyway.

> > Yes, but sadly one must make a show of going through the motions. Or,
less
> > cynically, we'll give the U.N. the chance to be something other than a
> > spineless and ineffectual debating society, but if it proves to be the
> > latter, we're not going to let that stop us.
>
> So the US would be guilty of attacking another country without
> international approval. I thought you said war on Iraq was to prevent
> Saddam doing this very thing?

This is as specious as saying "Dude, like, killing people to say that
killing people is wrong makes no sense." The point is not to deter Iraq from
enforcing arms agreements, it's to deter Iraq from attempting to subjugate
its neighbors for its own aggrandizement, which is not what the Bush
administration is doing.

> > > - The whole business of "lets bomb them NOW!!" becomes clearer if you
> > > consider that next year is a presidential election year.
>
> > But much cleaer if you realize that the hottest season in Iraq is a lot
> > closer than the next election.
>
> Not really. What would be wrong with next January?

It could be too late by then.

> > > Two years ago,
> > > all the economic pundits were saying this was just a "hiccup" in the
> > > economy, but here we are, almost three years after the dot.com bubble
> > > burst, and the economy SUCKS!
>
> > And what does any of that have to do with the situation in Iraq?
>
> War is seen as a way of stimulating the economy.

Only by those who oppose the war and don't believe that will work anyway. No
one has tried to justify it on that ground.

> Plus, of course, Iraq has oil. America's own reserves are looking
relatively meagre.

No one has attempted to justify it on that ground either, except, again,
those who oppose it. You're only refuting your own side's flawed rationale
for war.

> > But you are in the minority - a rather small minority at that. Don't be
> > fooled by the amount of noise you can make.
>
> Globally I suspect you are in the minority.

Probably true. But we weren't discussing protests in Paris or Beijing.

--
Endymion the Unfair!

Girl the Bourgeois Individualist

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 7:50:34 PM1/23/03
to

"Nyx" <nyx...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns930CBBD4...@216.166.71.239...

> The Evil Chemist <theevil...@crushed.velvet.net> wrote in
> news:b0prsa$d8v$2...@crushed.velvet.net:
>
> >
> > That's rather lame don't you think?
> > Out of thousands and thousands of people at the protest one photo?
>
> No, I don't. Considering that every time the anti-global types get together
> they have a riot and take out a starbucks. It's not a case of it happening
> once, it's a case of it happening every fucking time.
>
> It's not a case of it being an exception, it's the rule.
>
Alas Nyx won't see this, but the whole principle of the "anti-globalisation"
movement is convergence, numerous different groups with different agendas and
tactics coming together under the principle of global justice and "Many
yesses, one no" - a slogan taken from the Zapatistas. It's a section of the
anarchist black bloc that usually insist on smashing something, I understand
their reasons, but it's getting tiresome. Their insistence on doing their own
thing whether everyone else wants it or not is against the principles of
building a mass movement. It's one thing when the whole thing become a clash
between the establishment and the movement, like Seattle or Genoa, it's
totally another when it's something like this that's aiming to be a mass
movement. It's not the entire movement, it's not even all anarchists who do
it, it's just a narrow section of it that are stuck in a rut. Direct action,
such as blockading military activity or trying to destroy military equipment a
la Ploughshares, is what's needed from the radical fringe, not pointless
attacks on Starbucks, they're counter-productive. In fact, recent events have
proved that organisation of workers in those organisations, such as the
McDonald's Worker's Resistance, has a much greater effect on damaging them in
the long term. For a much more positive example of direct action, there's the
demos and blockades at Shannon Airport in Ireland -
http://www.struggle.ws/wsm/news/2003/shannonJAN.html.

Girl.


Girl the Bourgeois Individualist

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 8:09:47 PM1/23/03
to

"Endymion the Unfair!" <disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b0q2k9$96a$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com...

I was going to stay out of this, but I'm bored and don't want to go to bed
yet.


> >
> > > Because if there can possibly be any ulterior motive, even if you can't
> > > point to what it might be
> >
> > *points at the world's second largest oilfield*
>
> That's not a motive, that's an oilfield. If you're claiming the motive is
> simple theft of the oil from Iraq, say so, but that's ridiculous. There are
> plenty of nations with less well defended oil reserves.

Saying it's all about oil is far too simple, though that is, without doubt a
factor. However, the greater issue is the hawkish foreign policy of the Bush
cabal, preferring the easy option of a nice big war to the far more difficult
option of actually dealing with the causes of terrorism, suppression of groups
in Palestine, Algeria, Indonesia and the Philippines.


>
> > > > - one word: OSAMA! Hello, remember him? The one who ordered his
> troops
> > > > to kill 3,000+ Americans on our own soil?? What the hell ever
> happened
> > > > to trying to find and kill him?
> >
> > > Please detail the resources necessary to further efforts to find bin
> Laden,
> >
> > I believe the term is "intelligence".
>
> I believe the term was "detail". What assets, and how will they be diverted,
> and for how long?

Even the CIA has said that war in Iraq, particularly unilateral war, will
increase the threat of terrorist action, not decrease it.


>
> > > Probably because war against North Korea is not a practical option. Also
> > > because North Korea has, at least for the past couple of decades, shown
> more
> > > of a propensity to stir up trouble by making wild threats and selling
> > > weapons than to actually attack its neighbors, unlike Saddam. Would it
> make
> > > you happier to invade both?
> >
> > I can't speak for Anne Gwish, but I'd be happier if it were neither.
> >
> > What you're basically saying is that the US is going to invade Iraq
> simply
> > because it can.
>
> No, don't be silly. I'm saying that we're not going to invade North Korea
> because we can't, or rather it isn't a practical option.

This is true, the Bush cabal fucked up by virtually taunting North Korea by
trying to get Japan and South Korea to stop talks and then the Axis of Evil
nonsense. They seem to have realised this and are now back to supporting peace
talks.


>
> > > > - If the inspectors find no WMD, then Iraq is lying and we're going to
> > > > bomb them. But if the inspectors do find WMD, then they're in
> violation
> > > > of a UN Security Resolution and we're going to bomb them. They're
> > > > damned if they do and damned if they don't!
> >
> > > They're damned because they already did.
> >
> > That doesn't work. The weapons they found last time were destroyed.
>
> "Last time" being 1991? What about the meltdown of the inspection process in
> 1998? Were the weapons Saddam was presumably hiding then destroyed?

No, last time would be the inspection process. As for the meltdown of the
process, Scott Ritter has a very different tale to tell about them. One of the
main Iraqi criticisms of the process was that some of the inspectors were
working for the CIA and not the UN. The fact that the US had intelligence that
they initially refused to give to Hans Blix would seem to bear this out.


>
> > > > What exactly is the Best Case Scenario for the outcome of all this?
> >
> > > Saddam dies or goes into exile, of course.
> >
> > But that wouldn't change a thing would it? One of his generals or a
> > member of his household would replace him.
>
> Well, that depends on a lot of things beyond the scope of this discussion.
> Probably not the latter, anyway.

But, basically you're saying that the best case scenario would be no need for
war. It's a pity the US betrayed the Kurds and Shi'ia when they rose up in
'91.


>
> > > Yes, but sadly one must make a show of going through the motions. Or,
> less
> > > cynically, we'll give the U.N. the chance to be something other than a
> > > spineless and ineffectual debating society, but if it proves to be the
> > > latter, we're not going to let that stop us.
> >
> > So the US would be guilty of attacking another country without
> > international approval. I thought you said war on Iraq was to prevent
> > Saddam doing this very thing?
>
> This is as specious as saying "Dude, like, killing people to say that
> killing people is wrong makes no sense." The point is not to deter Iraq from
> enforcing arms agreements, it's to deter Iraq from attempting to subjugate
> its neighbors for its own aggrandizement, which is not what the Bush
> administration is doing.

Iraq has been successfully constrained for ten years and there's fuck all
chance of him resuming any policy, if it exists, of building WMDs with the
inspectors actually in the country.


>
> > > > - The whole business of "lets bomb them NOW!!" becomes clearer if you
> > > > consider that next year is a presidential election year.
> >
> > > But much cleaer if you realize that the hottest season in Iraq is a lot
> > > closer than the next election.
> >
> > Not really. What would be wrong with next January?
>
> It could be too late by then.

Not with the inspectors actually in the country. IF they are hiding stuff by
burying them, they're not continuing to develope them.


>
> > > > Two years ago,
> > > > all the economic pundits were saying this was just a "hiccup" in the
> > > > economy, but here we are, almost three years after the dot.com bubble
> > > > burst, and the economy SUCKS!
> >
> > > And what does any of that have to do with the situation in Iraq?
> >
> > War is seen as a way of stimulating the economy.
>
> Only by those who oppose the war and don't believe that will work anyway. No
> one has tried to justify it on that ground.

The Bush cabal was planning war in Afghanistan before 11th Sept to build a
pipeline through the country. War was at the top of the agenda when they came
to power, they're hawks that's what they do. The cabal contains people who
were warmongering a long time ago.


>
> > Plus, of course, Iraq has oil. America's own reserves are looking
> relatively meagre.
>
> No one has attempted to justify it on that ground either, except, again,
> those who oppose it. You're only refuting your own side's flawed rationale
> for war.

Not all those who oppose the war buy the simple explanation, it's about a lot
more.


>
> > > But you are in the minority - a rather small minority at that. Don't be
> > > fooled by the amount of noise you can make.
> >
> > Globally I suspect you are in the minority.
>
> Probably true. But we weren't discussing protests in Paris or Beijing.

Alas, unilateralism seems to be the choice of the right. Goddess help us.

Girl.


DJ Daimon

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 9:35:12 PM1/23/03
to
On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:11:51 +0000 (UTC), The Evil Chemist
<theevil...@crushed.velvet.net> wrote:

>The Evil Chemist <theevil...@crushed.velvet.net> wrote:
>> The Next mass protest is in NYC Feb 15. For More Info:
>> http://www.internationalanswer.org
>

>Oh yeah, the protest in NYC is in coordination with other peace groups
>around the globe. There will also be protests in the UK and many other
>countries. You can find info about this at
>http://www.internationalanswer.org

There is for sure one happening in Toronto... We had 15,000 people
at the last one, we're hoping for many times that number on February
15th.


Chris Wagner ICQ: 2436745 MSN: buyyou...@hotmail.com

Ontario Metal Pages - The Ultimate Authority on Metal in Ontario
http://www.ontariometal.xroad.net

Remove Fuck You to reply.

Nyx

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 11:46:32 PM1/23/03
to
--nightshade-- <ns_de_cybax_yahoo...@microsoft.com> wrote in
news:ns_de_cybax_yahoo.com_not.really.at-
8C8654.224...@news.comcast.giganews.com:

> perhaps they ought not sell concentrated caffeine products to the burly
> gentlemen carrying baseball bats...

More like the hairy hippies with dreadlocks.

Nyx

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 11:52:02 PM1/23/03
to
--nightshade-- <ns_de_cybax_yahoo...@microsoft.com> wrote
in
news:ns_de_cybax_yahoo.com_not.re...@news.comca
st.giganews.com:

> it's all about perspective, really. we're justified, because we say
> so, and we've got the nukes to prove it.
>

Wow, you've just proven life is unfair. You graduate kindergarten.

The Evil Chemist

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 11:53:49 PM1/23/03
to
Nyx <nyx...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> No, I don't. Considering that every time the anti-global types get together
> they have a riot and take out a starbucks. It's not a case of it happening
> once, it's a case of it happening every fucking time.

It's kind of funny how you consider the anti-war folks to all be
anti-global people when I stated in my 1st post this is not the case.

I suppose it's an easy mistake. I have to say I was sort of perplexed to
see a bunch of anti-war protestors with Stabuck cups in their hands and
Starbucks near Capitol hill filled with protestors. This was another
example of how anti-war sentiment is bringing in more mainstream
americans.

jv

The Evil Chemist

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 1:04:52 AM1/24/03
to
Nyx <nyx...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --nightshade-- <ns_de_cybax_yahoo...@microsoft.com> wrote

>> it's all about perspective, really. we're justified, because we say
>> so, and we've got the nukes to prove it.
>>

> Wow, you've just proven life is unfair. You graduate kindergarten.

Nah, you're just saying that it's ok to be a bully as long as you can beat
people up.

You fail kindergarten.
jv

The Evil Chemist

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 1:14:55 AM1/24/03
to

I bet you guys missed me me :)

Endymion <disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote:


> Protest crowds look larger than they are - I've seen estimates as low as
> 30,000 for this one. There were more people than that at the Pro-Life rally
> for Roe v. Wade's 30th.

I'm going by my own experience with crowds, like some 40,000-90,000
football games and the taste of Chicago which draws 1,000,000 people on
the 4th. My esitmates are around 150,000-250,000

> All this really tells us is that the fringe of
> dedicated activists and a few hangers on oppose this war as firmly as any
> other - in other words, at least as many people as voted for Nader.

All this tells me is that you base conclusions on statements you make. :)

> Now, if you want to get into a more sophisticated debate, such as how long
> weapons inspectors should be given, exactly what constitutes grounds for
> war, or what degree of support is necessary from which allies to make war a
> viable option, you'll find more grounds for dicussion and a more divided
> public, but those aren't the sort of questions one can address with 30,00
> people wearing goofy costumes and chanting "Hey, Bush, kiss my ass, no war
> for the price of gas."

True, I agree with this to an extent, but that's not really the focus of
the protest. These issues ideally should have been thought about before
the protest. Personally, I went b/c I thought about these things and
weighed them against the cost of war.

> I'd be shocked if 1/10 that many showed up - but in any case, how many of
> those people are going to vote for any Republican or moderate Democrat in
> any election anyway?

I've voted democratic in the past 3 elections. As I stated from my
observations, this protest was different. It's not just radical leftists
and it is more organized.

> No one cares what the fringe thinks - to the extent any
> attention is being paid to public opinion, it's in Europe, where the number
> of people opposed to war under any circumstances is actually politically
> significant, or in the U.S. to more complex issues where the elctorate is
> more likely to be split.

Why do you dismiss the protest as simply 'the fringe'? In my own city
(chicago) which is not small by any means, the city council passed an
anti-war resolution 46-1. The Chicago's teachers union did the same and
sponsored bus service to the protests . 42 cities in the US have passed
similar resolutions, including NYC, SF & SEA, Detroit, Baltimore,
Philadelphia, even DC. These are not small cities. city councils, labor
unions are not fringe groups.

The Dems are also starting to show dissent, most likely as an escape pod
should public anti-war sentiment increase, but it shows that feelings of
uneasiness against a unilaterial preemptive strike against Iraq are
growing.

> And just how eaxctly does one do that? And how does one extend the same
> protection to anyone else a nuclear-armed Saddam might threaten?

It's an ideal we strive to achieve and meant more as a military objective
to approach, but never truly obtain, much like the 'war on terrorism.'

The point is to work intensely on it. How do we do this? There are a
number of ways we can bolster defenses by improving radiation detection
techniques, aerial analytical surveilance equipment used to detect
airborne emissions from chemical production. there are solid state sensors
assembled on microchips that can detects several types of gasses at once.

There's more. Spend some time
reading Science, it's a great journal and one of the most prestigous
refereed journals. :)

I don't really support this,b/c our govt is far to opportunistic to use
any technology responsibly, but I'd prefer bolstering defense to war.

Practical micro surveillance seems to be the best option. We already have
'micro analytical labs' for combinatorial chemistry. I can see
implementing this on tiny aeriel equipment to be a feasible method of
early detection. This isn't 'fantasy science' scientist are using these
things already.

There's already 'electronic noses' used in the food and beverage industry.
(I used one). It profiles component and can identify distinct types of
coffee beans and other formulations (like a olfactory fingerprint) using
solid state chemical sensors with very good sensitivity. It wouldn't take
much work to introduce these sort of devices into airports.

While people are skeptical about these things, I see the technology
emerging when I read journals. The biggest problem is the interim
(initial) manufacturing costs, which are large, but once the production
plant is in place, the cost goes down significantly.

Aside: Michaelson spent much of his life proving that
ether (the medium not the chemical) existed, even when his experiments
showed otherwise. Had he been more open minded to possibilites, he
would've stumbled across QM before anyone else (which QM theory also
led to the creation of the A bomb).

> The
> rationale for the war, if anyone here has even bothered to read up on it,
> has little to do with a direct threat to U.S. soil.

There's been no rationale presented other than there is some suspicion
Iraq is in violation of the Gulf War treaty, but the US itself is in
violation of The Chemical Weapons Convention with it's experimentation on
'calmant bombs', N. Korea is in violation of the non-proliferation
treaty. Based on this, violation of a treaty is not a declaration of war,
nor is it irresolvable by peaceful negotiations.

Yes, the current Iraqi regime is belligerent and has used chemical
weapons to calm kurd rebellions (which we didn't seem to mind in 1988, we
just blamed Iran), yet this does not warrant a unliateral preemptive
strike when there is a much large international committee working to
resolve the crisis (which really we created, since therre's no proof they
are in violation of the treaty).

i suspect the the time for engagement has been accelerated. As more time
elapses without evidence, it deflates Bush's assertions more and more to
the rest of the world. And when Germany takes over the presidency of the
UN Security council at the end of February, there will be even more
international resistance.

> > If the UN inspectors can't find the weapons, what will the military
> > targets be?
>
> The people who build and deploy the weapons, naturally.

I suspect the term 'people', stripped of conditional pharses is more
appropriate. The people who build such weapons will be safely hidden.
People who deploy them (the military) will also be targets, so I 1/3 agree
with you.

> > If the U.S. has the information, why aren't we giving it to
> > the Inspectors, so they can find it.
>
> That I can't answer. Maybe they're just bluffing. Maybe it would be
> impossible to do so without exposing a source who would then be killed.

In a matter so grave such as war, there must be just cause. If one cannot
provide proper evidence (how many months it's been), I cannot see it being
just.

> > If the US does invade Iraq, how will this make the U.S. invulnerable to
> > chemical & Biological weapons. It won't, not in the least.
>
> That's an astoundingly myopic view. No one ever said it was about "making
> the U.S. invulnerable." Invulnerability is not an option anyway.

It's not myoptic, but rather pragmatic. We have a war on terrorism to deal
with. $200 Billion on non-invasive security measures would do a hell of a
lot more good than dropping it from the sky on Bagdad and then spending an
extra $15 Billion/year for a peace keeping force.

Invulnerability is what every good army, country, general strives for.
Defending takes far less resources than attacking. It's a constant
struggle, but one that should take top priority over attacking. Siege
warfare is the least effective, the most costly, and the most
imcompetent.

> Now if you were to ask "How would that make the U.S. more secure than not
> invading," that would be a more legitimate question, but then it wouldn't
> serve your rhetorical purpose because there might actually be an answer.

I can say the same to you. Attacking Iraq can easily mushroom into
strained relations with Germany & France, decreased support from most of
europe, increased hostility towards americans and the U.S., increased
terrorist activity, increased production of weapons whether overtly or
covertly as protective measure against american aggression.

As I have contended for years, dropping bombs and using large infantry are
archaic weapons, just as regimented infantry formation became useless in
the French & Indian war.

Did all our million dollar bombs flush out Osama? Oh we killed a
few Canadians, which we dragged our feet about when asked to apologize.

> > It does nothing
> > to increase our invulnerability to the things. $40-$200billion in R&D in
> > combatting these things would be a far more effective strategy. [1]
>
> R&D towards what, exactly?

Towards early detection of weapons production. Toward better less invasive
homeland security.



> > $40-$200illion towards R&D into replacing inefficient technology that is
> > over 100 years old (the internal combustion engine) so we wouldn't be so
> > weak and dependent on the Middle east would be an equally effective
> > strategy.
>

> You can't just force technology that way. Why not $40 billion towards


> technology to turn lead into gold cheaply to fund the war?

A rediculous analogy and exemplifies your ingnorance on the subject or
simply this post-modern refusal to think attitude so preavlent in america.

Bush talks of american resolve and determination, yet this doesn't seem to
apply to making america self-sufficient.

Alternative fuel technolgy is already here.

The $200billion would go towards the infrastructure to support it and an
ad campaign to popularize it. From a strictly scientific perspective, once
you introduce electricity into the equation you have many sources of
power; nuclear, thermoelectric, hydroelectric, wind, solar, even voltaic
potential from redox reactions occuring below (reductive) and above
(oxidative) the ocean. even Water purification can generate electricity
through biological redox reactions.

Where have you been hiding?

> All your alternatives are empty speculation, tossing money in the air and
> hoping it will land somewhere where it might do some good.

Dropping million dollar bombs hoping it will do some good is tossing money
in the air literally and figuratively.

> In the real
> world, options are more limited than that.

In the real world successful people & govts are the one who create
options. The A-bomb in 1939 was about as real as the technolgy in
development now.

My alternatives are real. You just don't want to think about it.
it's that same post modern refusal to think attitude that plagues this
country.

It's very easy to pretend the govt is doing a great job, that it really is
doing what is best for the people, but....

"Hitler is good proof that one cannot assume people(and govts) will stay
within reasonable limits" sound familiar?

You can use this both for Iraq & the U.S. but I
see the U.S. being the more belligerent, much to my sadness.

Anyway, From a purely thermodynamical perspective internal combustion is
grossly inefficient, which is why even a hybrid electric car can get up
to up to 3x more mpg (and better performance) than strictly gas vehicles.

NASA has been using thermoelectric devices and solid stae fuel cells for
years. If you want me to go into detail about why these technolgies are
feasible I think I can present you with plenty of evidence. This isn't
high super inaccessible technology, it just needsd a boost financially for
interim production.

jv


Endymion the Unfair!

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 5:47:14 PM1/23/03
to
"Anne Gwish" <AnneGw...@hotmail.com> wrote

> Endymion wrote:
> > Because if there can possibly be any ulterior motive, even if you can't

> > point to what it might be or show the slightest evidence that it does in


> > fact exist, that must be the real motive, right?
> >
> > Gothpolitik: the replacement of childish naivete with an equally
childish
> > forced and irrational cynicism.
>

> And can you show the "slightest evidence" to the contrary?

I'm not the one making wild accusations about ulterior motives, but how
about this: the US fought a war a decade ago involving three of the richest
oil-producing nations on Earth; how many of those oilfields were seized and
turned over to U.S. oil companies? And if it's just an excuse to seize the
oil, why isn't the government planning to invade Saudi Arabia, which has
more oil and a smaller army? Hell, if it's just about the oil, why not just
buy it from Saddam straight up or on the sly? He'd be more than willing to
sell, probably at lower than OPEC prices, if we'd just drop all the other
opposition.

> Talks are
> underway at this very moment, to not only ensure that Iraqi oil won't be
> set on fire (as protection of oil fields is deemed the "Number One
> Priority"), but to discuss how to raise the production of oil four-fold
> in a "Post-Saddam Iraq".

Do you think that could possibly be not because the plans are to turn the
oil and money over to US corporations, but so Iraq could fund its own
postwar redevelopment without becoming dependent on foreign aid? Because
it's the one resource that's vital to the future of the country? Because the
object of the war is to remove the regime, not to wreck the country?

> >>-If there is compelling evidence that Iraq is hiding something, why
> >>isn't the information being shared? If it was because of security
> >>issues, surely the inspectors would need to know that information to
> >>keep themselves safe!
> >>
> > What makes you think it's the security of the *inspectors* at stake?
What do
> > you think Saddam would do if the information released could be traced
back
> > to a source inside the country? Are you aware of the allegations that
people
> > who talked to the previous inspection teams were routinely murdered?
>

> Your point applies to sharing information with the general public, but
> it is irrelevant to the _inspectors_.

True, although that assumes the inspectors' information security is as good
as that of whatever agency collected the intelligence, which is doubtful.

> Obviously, if inspectors are asked
> to go over every nook and cranny in the entire country of Iraq, and US
> intelligence had knowledge that there existed some dangerous weapon in
> some particular area of the country, would it not make sense to let them
> know exactly where it is,

That assumes that the information Bush and Blair have referred to would be
helpful in finding specific locations in real time. We know that in Saddam's
previous weapons programs a priority was making them mobile to evade
inspectors, so I think it's safe to assume the same would be true now. Intel
on an anthrax factory from 1999 would be plenty damning, but of no use to
inspectors today.

> My point was that if
> there was information to be shared, the inspectors would have been privy
> to it.

That doesn't follow. You might argue that they *should* have been privy to
it, but that's not the same thing. It's an argument as to the competency of
the Bush administration in general, but says nothing about whether there is
or is not a basis for war.

> > Please detail the resources necessary to further efforts to find bin
Laden,

> > and explain how those assets would be diverted in a war against Iraq -
or
> > else admit you're just repeating something you heard someone on TV say.
>

> Hmmm i came to that me very self, thank you. Think about it. If we have
> tens of thousands of troops amassing in the Persian Gulf, readying for a
> war that will cost billions of dollars, where does that leave the
> resources and intelligence that are required to find and stop al Queda?

At this point in time, what use are aircraft carriers and armored divisions
in tracking down bin Laden or the rest of al Queda? Do you think we'd find
him faster using them? How?

I'm not saying there's no drain on resources, but it's not the cut-and
dried, zero-sum conflict you make it out to be.

> The military is NOT an infinite resource. How can we fight two wars at
> once?

That's always been a challenge the military has been expected to meet.

> Face it, we're not going to. We gave up on the "War on
> Terrorism" after we fucked up in Tora Bora.

No, we realized that the opportunity for use of massive force had passed and
it was time to move on to other methods. Everyone said from the beginning
that the war on terrorism would not be a conventional war, although it might
have conventional phases.

> > Probably because war against North Korea is not a practical option. Also
> > because North Korea has, at least for the past couple of decades, shown
more
> > of a propensity to stir up trouble by making wild threats and selling
> > weapons than to actually attack its neighbors, unlike Saddam. Would it
make
> > you happier to invade both?
>
>

> Right. It isn't a practical option because they have no fucking oil!

It isn't practical for military reasons, including the distinct possibility
that they have nukes now as opposed to having a program to develop them
sometime in the near future. It isn't a practical option because there's not
just opposition from bystanders like France and Germany, there's zero
support from militarily necessary players - most notably South Korea,
without whose tacit approval an invasion of Korea would be virtually
impossible.

> Wanna know what would make me happier? The use diplomacy and
> international law instead of playground bully tactics -- across the
> board.

In other words, to continue letting Saddam play all of us for idiots like he
did for ten years - but this time until he has the Bomb and can stop playing
around? No thanks, Neville

> >>- If the inspectors find no WMD, then Iraq is lying and we're going to
> >>bomb them. But if the inspectors do find WMD, then they're in violation
> >>of a UN Security Resolution and we're going to bomb them. They're
> >>damned if they do and damned if they don't!
> >
> > They're damned because they already did.
>

> So what is the point of all of these pre-war machinations, other than to
> waste time?

You've got me. Making a show of pacifying the allies, I suppose.

> > Saddam dies or goes into exile, of course.
>

> ok, God! That's a perfect solution! Maybe we'll get lucky and he'll die
> in his sleep of an aneurysm or something, and save us the effort. Let's
> hope whoever takes his place doesn't make him look like an angel.
> Cutting off a wart doesn't kill the virus.

That is a problem, yes, but it's a problem whatever happens. One of the
advantages of a war is that it gives the West much more control over who or
what replaces Saddam. A balancing disadvantage is that it causes so much
suffering, damage, and long-term resentment.

But I do thank you for starting to raise sensible points, that's a much more
serious concern then "Why bomb Iraq and not North Korea?"

> > Yes, but sadly one must make a show of going through the motions. Or,
less
> > cynically, we'll give the U.N. the chance to be something other than a
> > spineless and ineffectual debating society, but if it proves to be the
> > latter, we're not going to let that stop us.
>

> So it's our way or the highway, UN! That really proves nothing more
> than that the UN is a puppet of the US.

That's a non sequitur. It proves that the UN is an unrealistic and
ineffective organ because it does not accurately reflect the real world
political power structure. If it were a US puppet, the debate would be over
and the war on by now.

> > Did the world learn nothing from the failure of the League of Nations?
>

> Did the world learn nothing from the failure of the Vietnam War?

It's called the Powell Doctrine.

> >>- The whole business of "lets bomb them NOW!!" becomes clearer if you
> >>consider that next year is a presidential election year.
> >
> > But much cleaer if you realize that the hottest season in Iraq is a lot
> > closer than the next election.
>
>

> Brilliant! Let's plan our little invasion-thingie around the weather,
> shall we?

Failure to do so would be criminally negligent.

> >>- Unemployment is the highest it's been in recent memory.
> >
> > Only for those whose recent memory is, well, recent.
>

> 10 years? I don't know how old you are, but that's almost my entire
> adult working life.

There's no reason being young has to mean being naive or uninformed, but if
you're young and want to be informed, it is incumbent on you to understand
things that happened before you were old enough to be aware of or affected
by them. (That's true of anyone, but obviously more true the younger you
are.) Political and economic history did not begin in 1993. (And it's most
of my adult working life too.)

> > And what does any of that have to do with the situation in Iraq? The


> > problems of the economy are a bit more complex than that, and a number
of
> > people saw this coimng as far back as the mid-90's. of course a number
of
> > others didn't.
>

> I'd rather see our administration direct their furor toward reducing the
> increasing number of jobless and homeless citizens AND trying to bring
> to justice those people responsible for flying planes into our
> buildings.

None of those are mutually incompatible, although the first is only
marginally a governmental function.

> Please don't feed us the "This Is All Clinton's Fault" line.

I won't. It's not Clinton's fault, because this is not a centraly planned
economy, and contrary to the Conventional Wisdom in media which cater to
the ill-informed (i.e., TV), economic performance is one of the least
important measures of presidential effectiveness. There are exceptions, but
only where a direct link between a specific government action or inaction
and a specific economic condition can be established.

> 59% of the proposed tax breaks are going to the top 10% of earners,
> while those of us who make under $100k will be paying 73% of all taxes
> under the new plan.

All of which is meaningless. You're comparing newtons and grams there; your
statistics don't correlate. Tell me what percentage of income is earned by
those earning above and below $100k and what percentage of taxes is paid by
either group, or maybe relate your top 10% to your $100k figure. All you've
done is Michael Moore me: come up with lots of numbers that sound ominous
but don't relate to each other or to any real-world phenomenon.

The top 10% of earners get 59% of the breaks because they pay most of the
taxes. People who make $100k or less pay most of the taxes because they earn
most of the income. There is a limited area of overlap between the top10% of
earners and those making under $100k, and in fact this is a very significant
band because it includes the largest number of people in the higher brackets
(much lower, you're in a lower bracket; much higher, there aren't nearly as
many of you), so it is possible for those statistics to be true without
changing the fact that upper middle class people pay the vast majority of
the taxes and thus will be receiving the majority of the tax break.

>Call me ignorant or left-wing or whatever the hell
> you want, but i know also know a few things about supply and demand.

Maybe, but not, it seems, about how supply-side economists apply them. The
gist of your argument seems to be that the Bush tax cuts must be cynical
ploys to line the pockets of his cronies and hurt the country, because they
don't make sense when viewed through the very theories which Bush, his
advisors, and their school of economists reject. Again, you don't have to
agree with Bush's policy, but thinking he's mistaken should be distinguished
from thinking he must be evil and cynical because he does something your
theory says will be bad for the country. It's the difference between a child
failing to understand what the doctor is trying to do and thinking the
doctor must be an evil man to torture her so with needles, and an adult
understanding what the doctor is trying to do but thinking he is mistaken to
treat her based on an outmoded or misapplied theory.

> The richest 10% of people are still only 10% of the people. Ten in 100,
> remember? Give more money to more of the people, and more people will
> buy refrigerators and cars and houses and clothing and things that
> really will create jobs.

What you're saying just doesn't make sense when compared to what Bush is
trying to do, and I suspect it is based on erroneous theory. (The "broken
window" theory, which holds that if you throw a rock through a window you've
created wealth because of the economic stimulus replacement of the window
provides. A number of economists have thoroughly debunked this; the best
summary for those of us who aren't professionals is probably given by Walter
Williams.) The best answer I can give is that the underlying theory of
supply-side economics is that economic growth, which includes jobs, is not
spurred by spending, it's spurred by investment, and that Keynesian
tax-and-spend government policy discourages investment and hence growth
rather than encouraging it. You don't have to agree, but at least understand
it and understand that this is the theory the Reagan and Bush II tax cuts
were based on, not some idiotic straw man called "trickle-down".

Again, it's not that I am a die-hard Bush supporter; I have seen
knowledgeable critiques of his tax policy based on an understanding of the
theories on which it is based and questioning whether these particular cuts
are the best way to spur investment, but you need to gain that basic
understanding before you have anything intelligent to say about them.

> Eliminating the dividend tax isn't going to do
> a damn bit of good for me, nor the 1.2 million people who lost their
> jobs last year.

Not directly, no. Neither are drug treatment programs or funding for the
arts. It's not just a question of who directly benefits this instant, it's
about what's best for everyone in the foreseeable future. It wouldn't do you
or anyone else any good to jack taxes on investors up for supplemental
unemployment insurance or federal jobs programs if the result was to stifle
growth even further and send the economy into a depression that would make
current conditions look rosy.

> >>I'm horribly
> >>discouraged at the direction the leaders of this country are taking. I'm
> >>only glad to know that i'm not alone.
> >

> > But you are in the minority - a rather small minority at that. Don't be
> > fooled by the amount of noise you can make.
>

> I beg to differ with you. ~60+% of Americans believe that more time
> should be given to diplomatic approaches before resorting to UN-backed
war.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23564-2003Jan21.html
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-01-18-iraq-poll_x.htm
> http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/4920860.htm
> http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030118/80/dknew.html
>
> I realize they're just polls, and "polls are polls"... but for you to
> denounce the swell of dissent as a "very small minority" is simply
> ignorant and incorrect.

I don't dismiss the significant differences between public opinion and the
administration's position as a very small minority. But those polls don't
show what you're trying to say. They show that most Americans want more
time, yes, but they also say that 81% of Americans support a war with UN
backing, only 25-35% show general opposition to a war when no timing is
specified, and around 50-55% give the President a favorable rating on
foreign policy, with his disapproval (not even strong disapproval) rating
still hovering around the 20% mark..

None of this indicates that a significant number of people are "horribly
discouraged at the direction the leaders of this country are taking." People
who agree with the latter, which is what we were talking about, are only a
fraction of the number who are more or less on board with the administration
but feel we should proceed a little more deliberately, and it's failure to
recognize *that* divergence of opinion that I'd describe as "ignorant and
incorrect".

Mech

unread,
Jan 23, 2003, 7:07:57 PM1/23/03
to
In message <b0ptbt$8o9$1...@crushed.velvet.net>,

The Evil Chemist <theevil...@crushed.velvet.net> wrote:

> What other country on the planet has the gaul...

Why, Rome! But wait... one small village of indomitable
Gauls still holds out against the invaders...

Girl the Bourgeois Individualist

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 8:25:32 AM1/24/03
to

"Endymion the Unfair!" <disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b0prfq$mtt$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com...

> "Anne Gwish" <AnneGw...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > Endymion wrote:
> > > Because if there can possibly be any ulterior motive, even if you can't
> > > point to what it might be or show the slightest evidence that it does in
> > > fact exist, that must be the real motive, right?
> > >
> > > Gothpolitik: the replacement of childish naivete with an equally
> childish
> > > forced and irrational cynicism.
> >
> > And can you show the "slightest evidence" to the contrary?
>
> I'm not the one making wild accusations about ulterior motives, but how
> about this: the US fought a war a decade ago involving three of the richest
> oil-producing nations on Earth; how many of those oilfields were seized and
> turned over to U.S. oil companies? And if it's just an excuse to seize the
> oil, why isn't the government planning to invade Saudi Arabia, which has
> more oil and a smaller army?

Because they don't need to, there are already US troops based in Saudi, and it
has appeared, until recently, to be a good puppet state. However, there is
increasing evidence that much of the Saud regime is funding "bad" terrorists
(funding terrorists isn't necessarily bad, they're only bad when they threaten
US interests) and the possibility of war isn't all that remote.

> Hell, if it's just about the oil, why not just
> buy it from Saddam straight up or on the sly? He'd be more than willing to
> sell, probably at lower than OPEC prices, if we'd just drop all the other
> opposition.
>
> > Talks are
> > underway at this very moment, to not only ensure that Iraqi oil won't be
> > set on fire (as protection of oil fields is deemed the "Number One
> > Priority"), but to discuss how to raise the production of oil four-fold
> > in a "Post-Saddam Iraq".
>
> Do you think that could possibly be not because the plans are to turn the
> oil and money over to US corporations, but so Iraq could fund its own
> postwar redevelopment without becoming dependent on foreign aid? Because
> it's the one resource that's vital to the future of the country? Because the
> object of the war is to remove the regime, not to wreck the country?

Don't need another war to do that, depleted uranium, ten years of sanctions
that destroyed the countries industrial and medical infrastructure, protection
and enforced autonomy to separatist ethnic groups in the north and south - the
country's already wrecked. In fact, the country known as Iraq is unlikely to
survive in its present state for very much longer.


>
> > >>-If there is compelling evidence that Iraq is hiding something, why
> > >>isn't the information being shared? If it was because of security
> > >>issues, surely the inspectors would need to know that information to
> > >>keep themselves safe!
> > >>
> > > What makes you think it's the security of the *inspectors* at stake?
> What do
> > > you think Saddam would do if the information released could be traced
> back
> > > to a source inside the country? Are you aware of the allegations that
> people
> > > who talked to the previous inspection teams were routinely murdered?
> >
> > Your point applies to sharing information with the general public, but
> > it is irrelevant to the _inspectors_.
>
> True, although that assumes the inspectors' information security is as good
> as that of whatever agency collected the intelligence, which is doubtful.

So, the US, with much pressure, supports the reintroduction of the inspectors,
but deliberately handicaps them by sitting on information that would allow the
inspectors to find the very thing the US wants them to find. The reality is,
there is no evidence of a smoking gun, in fact, the inspectors have disproved
some of the main contentions of the US and Britain about what was being made
where.


>
> > Obviously, if inspectors are asked
> > to go over every nook and cranny in the entire country of Iraq, and US
> > intelligence had knowledge that there existed some dangerous weapon in
> > some particular area of the country, would it not make sense to let them
> > know exactly where it is,
>
> That assumes that the information Bush and Blair have referred to would be
> helpful in finding specific locations in real time. We know that in Saddam's
> previous weapons programs a priority was making them mobile to evade
> inspectors, so I think it's safe to assume the same would be true now. Intel
> on an anthrax factory from 1999 would be plenty damning, but of no use to
> inspectors today.

Wrong, testing on the factory would prove that anthrax had been produced
there, even if the whole thing had been cleaned out.


>
> > My point was that if
> > there was information to be shared, the inspectors would have been privy
> > to it.
>
> That doesn't follow. You might argue that they *should* have been privy to
> it, but that's not the same thing. It's an argument as to the competency of
> the Bush administration in general, but says nothing about whether there is
> or is not a basis for war.
>
> > > Please detail the resources necessary to further efforts to find bin
> Laden,
> > > and explain how those assets would be diverted in a war against Iraq -
> or
> > > else admit you're just repeating something you heard someone on TV say.
> >
> > Hmmm i came to that me very self, thank you. Think about it. If we have
> > tens of thousands of troops amassing in the Persian Gulf, readying for a
> > war that will cost billions of dollars, where does that leave the
> > resources and intelligence that are required to find and stop al Queda?
>
> At this point in time, what use are aircraft carriers and armored divisions
> in tracking down bin Laden or the rest of al Queda? Do you think we'd find
> him faster using them? How?

You're assuming that the resources have to be in the same form, which is
nonsense. The Bush cabal has increased spending on military in the run up to
war, rather than spending it on other things that would help destroy al-Qaeda.
The money was spent wrongly and continues to be spent wrongly.


>
> I'm not saying there's no drain on resources, but it's not the cut-and
> dried, zero-sum conflict you make it out to be.
>
> > The military is NOT an infinite resource. How can we fight two wars at
> > once?
>
> That's always been a challenge the military has been expected to meet.

Except a "war" to destroy al-Qaeda is not simply a military one, which is the
problem with funding the military to the expense of other sections, such as
diplomacy, intelligence gathering and any large-scale attempts at removing the
causes of conflict. Europe was dragged out of militancy by the Marshall Plan,
which is what's needed in Africa and would seriously undercut support for
al-Qaeda in Arab North Africa, one of the primary sources of al-Qaeda support.
Jesus, it's Libya who's making the most effort to do this, pushing the
establishment of the EU-like African Union and funding democratic developments
across the continent. The US needs to do the same, particularly if it wants to
lessen the influence of an old enemy (who does not support Islamist action,
however, and should be counted as an enemy of the US enemies).


>
> > Face it, we're not going to. We gave up on the "War on
> > Terrorism" after we fucked up in Tora Bora.
>
> No, we realized that the opportunity for use of massive force had passed and
> it was time to move on to other methods. Everyone said from the beginning
> that the war on terrorism would not be a conventional war, although it might
> have conventional phases.

Yet the US is persisting in ONLY using conventional methods and undermining
the non-conventional methods of Britain such as the Middle East peace talks
sabotaged by Israel with support from the US.


>
> > > Probably because war against North Korea is not a practical option. Also
> > > because North Korea has, at least for the past couple of decades, shown
> more
> > > of a propensity to stir up trouble by making wild threats and selling
> > > weapons than to actually attack its neighbors, unlike Saddam. Would it
> make
> > > you happier to invade both?
> >
> >
> > Right. It isn't a practical option because they have no fucking oil!
>
> It isn't practical for military reasons, including the distinct possibility
> that they have nukes now as opposed to having a program to develop them
> sometime in the near future. It isn't a practical option because there's not
> just opposition from bystanders like France and Germany, there's zero
> support from militarily necessary players - most notably South Korea,
> without whose tacit approval an invasion of Korea would be virtually
> impossible.

The basic reality is that the Southeast Asia is no longer part of the US
sphere of influence and the Bush cabal's diplomatic blunders have turned some
of the relations to low level hostility. A war in North Korea would actually
increase Chinese influence on the region, the last thing anyone wants.
Personally, I agree with Endymion here and really don't understand the
anti-war point of view that the US is fighting the "wrong" war!


>
> > Wanna know what would make me happier? The use diplomacy and
> > international law instead of playground bully tactics -- across the
> > board.
>
> In other words, to continue letting Saddam play all of us for idiots like he
> did for ten years - but this time until he has the Bomb and can stop playing
> around? No thanks, Neville

As I said elsewhere, it's virtually impossible for Iraq to continue any
developments of WMDs while the inspections are ongoing, and the inspections
could be made permanent like they were in North Korea until the inspectors
were expelled. On the other hand, if the US really wanted to provoke Saddam
and then gain real justification for war, how about the UN granting autonomy
to the Kurdish region and accepting their longstanding claim for independence.
Then, if he invaded, there would be the same justification as there was in
'91. There's only one thing standing in the way of this and that's the Turkish
oppression of their own Kurds and their unwillingness to accept a Kurdish
stronghold that wasn't being persecuted by someone else. Such a war might
actually be, shock horror, a just war as it would begin to undo the British
betrayal of the Kurds and would be the only longterm way of actually
protecting the non-Arab Kurds after years of persecution.


>
> > >>- If the inspectors find no WMD, then Iraq is lying and we're going to
> > >>bomb them. But if the inspectors do find WMD, then they're in violation
> > >>of a UN Security Resolution and we're going to bomb them. They're
> > >>damned if they do and damned if they don't!
> > >
> > > They're damned because they already did.
> >
> > So what is the point of all of these pre-war machinations, other than to
> > waste time?
>
> You've got me. Making a show of pacifying the allies, I suppose.
>
> > > Saddam dies or goes into exile, of course.
> >
> > ok, God! That's a perfect solution! Maybe we'll get lucky and he'll die
> > in his sleep of an aneurysm or something, and save us the effort. Let's
> > hope whoever takes his place doesn't make him look like an angel.
> > Cutting off a wart doesn't kill the virus.
>
> That is a problem, yes, but it's a problem whatever happens. One of the
> advantages of a war is that it gives the West much more control over who or
> what replaces Saddam. A balancing disadvantage is that it causes so much
> suffering, damage, and long-term resentment.

A post-Saddam Iraq is going to be about as stable as the post-Tito Yugoslavia.
Many of the Kurds oppose the war because, particularly due to Turkish
pressure, the main option is to create a multi-ethnic government controlling
the whole country, ending the current Kurdish autonomy.


>
> But I do thank you for starting to raise sensible points, that's a much more
> serious concern then "Why bomb Iraq and not North Korea?"
>
> > > Yes, but sadly one must make a show of going through the motions. Or,
> less
> > > cynically, we'll give the U.N. the chance to be something other than a
> > > spineless and ineffectual debating society, but if it proves to be the
> > > latter, we're not going to let that stop us.
> >
> > So it's our way or the highway, UN! That really proves nothing more
> > than that the UN is a puppet of the US.
>
> That's a non sequitur. It proves that the UN is an unrealistic and
> ineffective organ because it does not accurately reflect the real world
> political power structure. If it were a US puppet, the debate would be over
> and the war on by now.

Actually, a large part of the problem for the US isn't just the UN, it's
opposition from within NATO as the partners finally find some balls.


>
> > > Did the world learn nothing from the failure of the League of Nations?
> >
> > Did the world learn nothing from the failure of the Vietnam War?
>
> It's called the Powell Doctrine.
>
> > >>- The whole business of "lets bomb them NOW!!" becomes clearer if you
> > >>consider that next year is a presidential election year.
> > >
> > > But much cleaer if you realize that the hottest season in Iraq is a lot
> > > closer than the next election.
> >
> >
> > Brilliant! Let's plan our little invasion-thingie around the weather,
> > shall we?
>
> Failure to do so would be criminally negligent.

Like the UK military, which has a whole load of equipment designed to work in
Northern Europe. Many of the soldiers went out and bought their own boots when
the ones issued melted during excercises in the desert! A recent satire on the
UK preparations had the line "Best option would be if we could get Saddam to
come and fight us in Scandinavia".


>
> > >>- Unemployment is the highest it's been in recent memory.
> > >
> > > Only for those whose recent memory is, well, recent.
> >
> > 10 years? I don't know how old you are, but that's almost my entire
> > adult working life.
>
> There's no reason being young has to mean being naive or uninformed, but if
> you're young and want to be informed, it is incumbent on you to understand
> things that happened before you were old enough to be aware of or affected
> by them. (That's true of anyone, but obviously more true the younger you
> are.) Political and economic history did not begin in 1993. (And it's most
> of my adult working life too.)
>
> > > And what does any of that have to do with the situation in Iraq? The
> > > problems of the economy are a bit more complex than that, and a number
> of
> > > people saw this coimng as far back as the mid-90's. of course a number
> of
> > > others didn't.
> >
> > I'd rather see our administration direct their furor toward reducing the
> > increasing number of jobless and homeless citizens AND trying to bring
> > to justice those people responsible for flying planes into our
> > buildings.
>
> None of those are mutually incompatible, although the first is only
> marginally a governmental function.

In the US, in most social democratic and even Christian democratic countries,
reducing unemployment is priority no 1 for the government.

<snip argument about US economics>


> >
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23564-2003Jan21.html
> > http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-01-18-iraq-poll_x.htm
> > http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/4920860.htm
> > http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030118/80/dknew.html
> >
> > I realize they're just polls, and "polls are polls"... but for you to
> > denounce the swell of dissent as a "very small minority" is simply
> > ignorant and incorrect.
>
> I don't dismiss the significant differences between public opinion and the
> administration's position as a very small minority. But those polls don't
> show what you're trying to say. They show that most Americans want more
> time, yes, but they also say that 81% of Americans support a war with UN
> backing, only 25-35% show general opposition to a war when no timing is
> specified, and around 50-55% give the President a favorable rating on
> foreign policy, with his disapproval (not even strong disapproval) rating
> still hovering around the 20% mark..

In other words, the majority opposes unilateralism, with around a higher
percentage of people opposing war outright than actually voted for the
government.

Girl.


Girl the Bourgeois Individualist

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 9:01:47 AM1/24/03
to

"Greylock" <Grey...@vurt.NOT.net.INVALID> wrote in message
news:3e423ee1...@news.wn.com.au...

> Last episode "Endymion" <disinte...@mindspring.com> said:
> >Protest crowds look larger than they are
>
> From my days as a police roundsperson, cops will "guess" about half as many
> people as are there, protest groups will double as many peopel as are
> there.
>
> It's the rule I stick by.
>
Good rule of thumb is to ask the anarchist groups (not the ones smashing
windows, the indymedia/Schnews types), it generally accepted by them that
inflating the numbers involved is counter-productive. Some even have people
trained in properly estimating crowd numbers. Never trust the Marxists,
though, it is their official policy to exaggerate, while it's official state
(read cops) policy to deliberately underestimate. There was a great TV report
last year by a journalist who just happens to be a Marxist and he reported
that "between 1,000 and 2,000" had turned up, so that's 1,500 then :-)

Girl.


Girl the Bourgeois Individualist

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 9:03:28 AM1/24/03
to

"Greylock" <Grey...@vurt.NOT.net.INVALID> wrote in message
news:3e433fed...@news.wn.com.au...
> Last episode jo...@gene13.demonspam.co.uk (Jodi) said:
> >On a related note, AFGHANISTAN! They still need massive amounts of help
> >to rebuild their society, including military aid to stop the warlords
> >getting out of control until they build up their own security force.
> >Yet it looks like the West is aiming to forget about that in favour of a
> >"more exciting" option.
>
> Blair promised not to forget Afganistan (Bush didn't).
> Is the Uk doing anything for that nation?

A certain amount, but not enough, the UK cabinet is split between Blair and
those who want development instead of war.
>
> >TBH, I'm not convinced that North Korea are any more of a threat now
> >than they have been at any time since the Korean War. That doesn't in
> >any way excuse the North Korean government, it's just an observation.
>
> North Korea now has nuke-capability.
> I think that makes them more of a threat.

That's the point, they're an absolute threat to South Korea and Japan, who do
not want warmongering.

Girl.


Endymion the Unfair!

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 11:09:33 AM1/24/03
to
"Girl the Bourgeois Individualist" <sor...@NOSPAMsortedmagazine.com> wrote

(other people, me, snipsnipsnip)

> > > Plus, of course, Iraq has oil. America's own reserves are looking
> > relatively meagre.
> >
> > No one has attempted to justify it on that ground either, except, again,
> > those who oppose it. You're only refuting your own side's flawed
rationale
> > for war.
>
> Not all those who oppose the war buy the simple explanation, it's about a
lot
> more.

You're right, and that's all I wanted to see. There are some cogent
arguments against going to war now or at all, and the discussion should be
about those instead of the mindless crowd slogans and improbable conspiracy
theories that are tossed around too easily on this issue. The right question
isn't whether Bush & company are international pirates who will invade
anybody to steal their oil, or whether Saddam has been trying to develop
WMDs, it's whether an invasion is justified even if everything Bush &
company say about
their motives and Saddam's is true. And THAT's a question I don't have a pat
answer for.

Endymion the Unfair!

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 11:13:42 AM1/24/03
to
"Panurge" <jbl...@mindspring.com> wrote ...

> "Endymion" <disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >All your alternatives are empty speculation, tossing money in the air and
> >hoping it will land somewhere where it might do some good.
>
> You wouldn't be saying that if it weren't government money, would you?

If it were private money (other than my own), it wouldn't be my business
what was done with it.

> Look, R&D money gets spent. Is it so irrational to say, "We should
> spend it on $PROJECT"?

No. It's irrational to assume that anything can be accomplished if you just
spend a few hundred billion on it. Isn't that just the sort of thinking the
left normally lampoons when it comes to missile defense?

Endymion the Unfair!

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 11:25:14 AM1/24/03
to
"Girl the Bourgeois Individualist" <sor...@NOSPAMsortedmagazine.com> wrote

> That's the point, they're an absolute threat to South Korea and Japan, who
do
> not want warmongering.

True, but then it's not like North Korea stops the warmongering no matter
how reasonable everyone else is being. What did the US or Japan do to
provoke the missile tests over Japan? And on that subject, can you imagine
the outcry if the US used France or China as an ICBM test range?

One thing I cannot understand or abide about the hardcore critics of Bush
and Blair is their willingness to extrapolate the most evil motives from the
formers' relatively measured and benign statements while ignoring the
astoundingly provocative rhetoric and actions of the governments B&B
condemn.

erithromycin

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 6:18:01 AM1/24/03
to
Matthew King:

>Simplistic leftist interpretations of the drive for war on Iraq claim
>it's about making oil cheap for American industry and consumers. Somewhat
>more thoughtful leftist interpretations claim it's about making oil
>expensive for the American oil barons, among whom Bush is of course one.
>The American oil barons (and the Canadian ones--maybe the British ones,
>too) would run the risk of bankruptcy if oil flowed freely from the Iraqs
>and Venezuelas of the world. Producing oil is much more expensive in the
>US than in other places (and more expensive still in Canada); it ceases to
>be profitable somewhere below $20/barrel. Many North American oil
>producers were destroyed by the "oil glut" of the mid-80s, when Saudi
>Arabia threw its taps wide open.

Norteamericano oil prices at the pump are lower than almost anywhere else in
the world. Venezuela supplies 10% of the US' daily requirements, despite the
role or otherwise of PDVSA in various attempted coups, past present and
allegedly supported by the US Navy. British Petroleum [Aramco Arco Amaco
Atlantic-Richfield BNOC Britoil...] currently accounts for 10% of the FTSE-
100 by volume. Pulling oil out of the ground is more expensive in the US
than in other places, not least because the Californians won't let you. The
Alyeska Pipeline, which crosses the Alk-Can border is really fucking long.
PDVSA [that's Venezuala's national Oilco, btw] are an OPEC member, according
to Chavez, anyway, but have deals with BP. Um, what else? The largest single
set of oil fields in the world outwith the Middle-east is off the coast of
South America. The next biggest is off the coast of Siberia. Modern drilling
technology makes them accessible, if a little difficult to get to still, but
only in ways that can be overcome by capital investment. As for the
destruction, it was in some ways more of a consolidation, within the
confines of the previous destruction of Standard Oil.
--
erith - info-facts


erithromycin

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 6:24:03 AM1/24/03
to
Endymion the Unfair!
>Mech
>>Endymion

>>>Because if there can possibly be any ulterior motive, even if you can't
>>>point to what it might be

>>*points at the world's second largest oilfield*

>That's not a motive, that's an oilfield. If you're claiming the motive is
>simple theft of the oil from Iraq, say so, but that's ridiculous. There are
>plenty of nations with less well defended oil reserves.

Venezuala - now with 'government', Siberia - desperate for hard currency,
California - keep gas cheap! kill a surfer!, Alaska - This SUV is powered by
Moose, Mexico - deep in the Gulf, hot water, submerged rigs, lots of
hurricanes, and, you know, Kuwait/Turkey/Iran - the ones on the edges of
that big oil field. That's off the top of my head. I'm sure I've forgotten
some.

Oh, and I'll take issue with 'the world's second largest oilfield'. I'd
argue, though I'd have to dig for the surveys, that the one being tapped by
PDVSA is larger, and is, in fact, second only to those that make Saudi rich.
In fact, to quote from memory - "it, by itself, is as big as predicted
reserves were before it was discovered".
--
erith - oil brat


Morph

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 1:01:52 PM1/24/03
to
The Evil Chemist wrote:
>"war is what happens when all peaceful means of negotiation have
>failed"-Churchill.
>
>'cept we haven't exhausted those peaceful means. We're not even
>considering them, even though the rest of the world save Israel & Britain,
>still are trying the peaceful options.

Save the British *government*, anyway (and Lithuania, it seems). In
terms of public opinion, only 10% of the British public are prepared
to back a war without UN backing (source: ICM poll, Jan 21)

There's a very real possibility that, if it comes to that, Blair will
face a leadership challenge. Papers and (unnamed) politicians here are
now routinely referring to it as the "nightmare scenario" for the
government - they can't survive backing Bush in that situation, but
they can't discreetly step away from him either.

If it does get another UN resolution, backing action, opinion is much
closer to a 50/50 split - but the prevailing view here is still that
Bush, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz really do want war, not the disarmament
they asked the UN to pursue, and that doesn't exactly build
confidence...

-Morph

--
"The inhabitants of ancient Atlantis did NOT worship Andrew Eldritch"
"Ah. Perhaps that's why it sank?"

Xandraius

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 2:12:42 PM1/24/03
to

The Evil Chemist wrote:

> The Next mass protest is in NYC Feb 15. For More Info:
>

> http://www.internationalanswer.org/campaigns/f15/index.html
>
> I went to the War Protest in DC last week. It was more or less just to be
> a body and to observe and to 'be counted'. I'm not one for impotent fist
> waving, (I prefer calculated action) but there's something different abou
> this, something that stirs me to go outside my little comfortable globe of
> apathy and feelngs of helpless, something that makes me think beyond my
> trivial concerns about weather, distance, money, something that puts into
> perspective how meaningless responsibilities such as coming into work to
> drink coffee push around paper that will still be there tomorrow (and the
> world will not crumble) whether or not I go to the protest.

Similar stuff here in Tampa. The crowd may not have been as big, but it was there and I couldn't just sit
there a bitch and moan any more. Felt sort of hypocritical, us living in a supposed democracy and all.

> In my observation, I noticed the crowd is not the 'usual characters', the
> pool is larger. They are not just leftist radicals, but families who
> don't want their children to die, laborers (unions) who feel dropping
> bombs is dropping money on Iraq unnecessarily, money that could be used
> positively to help our slumping economy, some are conservative Xtians, who
> see this as an aggressive war, one that goes against the fundamental
> relgious belief of goodness, some who believe Bush completely forgot about
> the 'war on terrorism', some who simply feel the US is being an
> international bully disregarding the UN and americas steadfast allies.

I also saw military vets of all stripes. I saw people you would never get together socially become
agitated together about something. Hippies, Yuppies, Goths, old people, young people, atheists, Christians,
Muslims (the latter two of which, amusingly enough, found some common ground).

> Like a magnet, it is drawing more people and as it grows in size, it's
> attraction grows. There were hundreds of thousands of people in DC
> protesting. It took us 5 hours to walk about 1 mile.

The sad part is Bush and his cabal are so far out of synch with reality that it does not seem to affect
them. Bush keeps spouting this PC line of "It's good to see people exercise their rights" but what he seems
to miss is that the PEOPLE he is ACCOUNTABLE to who ELECTED him do not want the fucking war, This part
escapes him. He is our employee... not the other fucking way around.

> I think this protest may do some good if the next one draws more than 1
> million people. It does seem to have a unstabilizing effect on political
> structures.

We can hope... and we can ponder, but we can't repeat some of the more stupid moments of the 60's.

> I'm not what one would call a pacificst (I have a very martial mentality),
> and all that I have studied and experienced in the ways of conflict all
> indicate to me war in Iraq is stupidity and sloppiness.

I'd love to through down and make a fight of this, as is my nature, but there is no one entity or aspect
to attack. In this instance, what is 'The Man" we shake our collective fists at? It's not just Bush... it's
the whole apathetic lot of rich old people holding the reins in DC who think that the country exists to
extend their own beliefs and such. We're getting closer and closer to a Theocratic Oligarchy day by day,
mainly due to apathy on the part of the citizens. With less than 40% voting last election, it has finally
come home to roost.

> It drains the public coffers, money the govt could use to making the US
> less vulnerable to attacks by 'weapons of mass destruction'. I firmly
> believe that the best way to win wars without fighting is to make onesself
> invulnerable.

No argument there. The battelefield of the next century will be mostly economic, and in THAT area, we're
so fucked up it's not even funny. Anyy fuckwit in a suit can order a missle launch or tanks to roll. Takes a
person with their shit wired to fix an ailing economy.

> If the UN inspectors can't find the weapons, what will the military

> targets be? If the U.S. has the information, why aren't we giving it to


> the Inspectors, so they can find it.

Read todays news. The UN team gave Iraq a 'B' grade for cooperation. The Germans and the French will most
likely push for a resolution to condenm military action against Iraq.

> If the US does invade Iraq, how will this make the U.S. invulnerable to

> chemical & Biological weapons. It won't, not in the least. It does nothing


> to increase our invulnerability to the things. $40-$200billion in R&D in
> combatting these things would be a far more effective strategy. [1]

It's not about terror and it's not about Iraq. It's about the oil. This has been and always will be
blood-for-oil, We never gave the Arab world a second thought until the 70's oil embargo against the US by
OPEC. Since that time, we've looked for every opportunity to get hip deep in that arena.

> $40-$200illion towards R&D into replacing inefficient technology that is
> over 100 years old (the internal combustion engine) so we wouldn't be so
> weak and dependent on the Middle east would be an equally effective
> strategy.

Again, common sense required. It's an uncommon virtue.
-=snip=-

I remember the end of the Vietnam era. Me, I'm going to be a royal pain about things. We ARE coming up on
an election year....

-=Xandraius=-

Xandraius

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 2:16:42 PM1/24/03
to

Mech wrote:

-=snip=-

> Seizing the oilfields may be a dead cert, but it won't win friends.

Especially since the Russians just closed a 4 billion dollar oil deal with Iraq.
Something tells me it is not in our best interests to piss them off again.

-=Xandraius=-

Xandraius

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 2:25:24 PM1/24/03
to
Nyx wrote:

> The Evil Chemist <theevil...@crushed.velvet.net> wrote in
> news:b0obgk$124$1...@crushed.velvet.net:
>
> > Anyway, if people are fence sitting about whether they should protest,
> > I recommend they go to the feb 15th protest. This is a war onto it's
> > own and in war every resource, no matter how large or small, counts.
>
> Yes, and all the looting and violence you want!
>
> Here's your "peace" protest for you,
>
> http://www.cellar.org/showthread.php?s=0ebaf26d03a36216045071668ee00108&thr
> eadid=2712

Sloppy Nyx. Very sloppy. I like you and all, but you went bonehead on this
one image. It's the same sort of freezeframe profiling of one persons actions
that made people so fucking freaked out after Columbine. No matter what the
cause, no matter how noble, you can't get a mob together without an asshole or
three surfacing to fuck things up. Been to a goth club steadily? Same deal.
Assholes will be drawn to crowds that they may exhibit their asshole
tendancies. This does not make the whole crowd the same. A does not equal B in
this case.

-=Xandraius=-


Xandraius

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 2:28:59 PM1/24/03
to
Nyx wrote:

> The Evil Chemist <theevil...@crushed.velvet.net> wrote in
> news:b0prsa$d8v$2...@crushed.velvet.net:
>
> >
> > That's rather lame don't you think?
> > Out of thousands and thousands of people at the protest one photo?
>
> No, I don't. Considering that every time the anti-global types get together
> they have a riot and take out a starbucks. It's not a case of it happening
> once, it's a case of it happening every fucking time.

Oh., I see. Because property is damaged by a select few in political protest
of something, everyone is called into doubt who protests. I don't remember
rightly if you are an American Nyx, but one of the most memorable cases of
political protest I know of involved a bunch of young guys in disguise breaking
onto a ship and trashing the caego. No qualms there... they destroyed other
peoples property... and we call it the Boston Tea Party, a defining moment of
the American revolution. Now, you were saying?

-=Xandraius=-

Xandraius

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 2:46:12 PM1/24/03
to

Nyx wrote:

> Anne Gwish <AnneGw...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:3E3039B5...@hotmail.com:


>
> >> Only for those whose recent memory is, well, recent.
> >
> >
> > 10 years? I don't know how old you are, but that's almost my entire
> > adult working life.
>

> Yeah, and it was higher in 1990. The war was in 91, so that must be pre-
> historic to you, right? Wow, what about the recession of the early 80's?
> That was when we were all wearing bearskins and hadn't invented fire.

Nyx ole son, I've been in the workforce since 1981. I was raised in the 70's
by a professor of Business Administration, who still teaches. We've had years
of discussion and it boils down to this: We're in a bad way in terms of the
economy and it will get worse before it gets better... and much of it is due to
both sides playing tug-of-war with the pursestrings of taxation. Both
conservative and liberal factions have pushed their agendas so hard for the
past 32 years that it's a tangled mess. We've had so many people run up and add
their own spices to the pot that the end result is a ruined meal, and whilst
the cooks bicker over styles of food preperation, the people who are supposed
to eat go "Yuck! What the fuck is this shit you are trying to feed us?!?"

> Besides, chemical weapons *were* found last week. Has everyone just decided
> to ignore that?

Nyx, you must subscribe to a newsbyte list. They found casings that could be
used to deliver said weapons. The casings were odl and in sad shape. That is
like arresting someone for firearms violation of parole if you found some old
rusty .22 casings somewhere on their property. A court would kick that out on
the spot.

-=Xandraius=-

Xandraius

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 2:51:21 PM1/24/03
to

Tiny Human Ferret wrote:

-=snip=-

> Please don't be ridiculous.
>
> We cannot practically attack North Korea because, first, it would forever
> lose us the friendship of South Korea. They don't like the US very much
> right now over in SK. Also, everyone is agreed that China, South Korea, and
> Japan -- and to a lesser degre, Russiya -- are the parties responsible for
> dealing with the North Korea situation. North Korea isn't a threat to the
> US, not much of one. We could swat them like a malnourished fly. But it's
> very important for us to retain the friendship of South Korea, Japan, and
> the PR Chinese. If we were to apply the fly-swatter to the DPRK (North
> Korea), it would be a difficult to ensure that there was no fallout to Japan
> and the PR China. And South Korea would become an enemy of the US of far
> greater danger than the North could ever have been.

Oh, I'm sorry. You're right. It's only slightly less ridiculous than pissing
off most of the middle eastern countries starting a contrived war over oil.
We'll only alienate all of the countries that were willing to start working with
us globally after 9/11, and piss of the Russians again as they just finished
investing 4 billion in Iraqi oil... the same people whose president called GWB
on the HotLine and made it clear that Russia was not cool with this. Yeah, this
is a MUCH more intelligent course of action: War by heresay and misinformation.

> > Wanna know what would make me happier? The use diplomacy and
> > international law instead of playground bully tactics -- across the

> > board. Like i tell my children... "Use your words, not your fists!"
>
> And if words don't work?

THEN we apply raw naked force with no half measures... but not until all
diplomatic solutions are exhausted. The 'cowboy' mentality will get us in deep
global shit.
-=Xandraius=-

The Evil Chemist

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 3:11:52 PM1/24/03
to
Endymion the Unfair! <disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> No. It's irrational to assume that anything can be accomplished if you just
> spend a few hundred billion on it. Isn't that just the sort of thinking the
> left normally lampoons when it comes to missile defense?

It's irrational to assume that the 'anything' you refer to is
automatically infeasible just b/c, someone likes spending money on bombs
or that I am talking about just anything. I'm talking about working
existing technology.

My graduate work focussed on solid state inorganic electrolytes. When I
graduated, I was intervied for a position involving the optimization metal
catalysts to convert hydrocarbon (like gasoline) into H2 and CO2 to run a
hydrogen fuel cell (a 3 fold increase in fuel efficincy). the technology
worked 5 years ago. the company realized it wasn't the technology but the
infrastructure that needed work. A gasoline powered fuel cell was an
interim solution. The technolgy has moved much faster than that and the
project was scrapped for non hydrocarbon technolgy.

One of my friends is working at Berkley on thermoelectric devices on
paltry grants. It is about money to propogate and popularize the
technology, not about the technology at all. The
technology works.

Btw, all of the big 3 have plans for hybrid electric SUVs that get 40mpg
and go 0-60mph in 6.6s, by 2005. Gm is realasing the Triaxx this year from
what I hear.

jv

Xandraius

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 3:03:04 PM1/24/03
to

"Endymion the Unfair!" wrote:

-=snip=-

> This is as specious as saying "Dude, like, killing people to say that
> killing people is wrong makes no sense." The point is not to deter Iraq from
> enforcing arms agreements, it's to deter Iraq from attempting to subjugate
> its neighbors for its own aggrandizement, which is not what the Bush
> administration is doing.

The irony in that statement is very profound. Re-read it carefully...

-=Xandraius=-


Nyx

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 4:05:26 PM1/24/03
to
The Evil Chemist <theevil...@crushed.velvet.net> wrote in
news:b0qgst$m5p$1...@crushed.velvet.net:

> It's kind of funny how you consider the anti-war folks to all be
> anti-global people when I stated in my 1st post this is not the case.

Your proof?

Endymion the Unfair!

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 4:05:55 PM1/24/03
to
"Xandraius" <xand...@netzero.net> wrote

There is no irony in the statement. You're assuming it in. Or you're
misreading it; I admit my syntax is complex - "which is not..." in the last
clause refers to "attempting to subjugate..." not to "to deter..." Re-read
it carefully yourself.

Nyx

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 4:07:07 PM1/24/03
to
The Evil Chemist <theevil...@crushed.velvet.net> wrote in
news:b0ql24$8m7$1...@crushed.velvet.net:

>> Wow, you've just proven life is unfair. You graduate kindergarten.
>
> Nah, you're just saying that it's ok to be a bully as long as you can
> beat people up.

So the only choice is to be a wimp or a bully?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I say that when you are attacked it
is acceptable to defend yourself in the same manner that you were attacked.

Nyx

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 4:08:31 PM1/24/03
to
The Evil Chemist <theevil...@crushed.velvet.net> wrote in
news:b0qlkv$8m7$2...@crushed.velvet.net:

> All this tells me is that you base conclusions on statements you make. :)
>

So do you. A quote: "It's kind of funny how you consider the anti-war folks

to all be
anti-global people when I stated in my 1st post this is not the case."

The only proof you have of this is your own previous post.

Endymion the Unfair!

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 4:07:44 PM1/24/03
to
"The Evil Chemist" <theevil...@crushed.velvet.net> wrote
> Endymion the Unfair! <disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > No. It's irrational to assume that anything can be accomplished if you
just
> > spend a few hundred billion on it. Isn't that just the sort of thinking
the
> > left normally lampoons when it comes to missile defense?
>
> It's irrational to assume that the 'anything' you refer to is
> automatically infeasible

I'm not assuming that, I'm challenging the unfounded assumption that simply
spending money on the energy problem will make it go away.

Nyx

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 4:12:39 PM1/24/03
to
Xandraius <xand...@netzero.net> wrote in
news:3E3194BD...@netzero.net:

>
> Sloppy Nyx. Very sloppy. I like you and all, but you went bonehead
> on this
> one image. It's the same sort of freezeframe profiling of one persons
> actions that made people so fucking freaked out after Columbine. No
> matter what the cause, no matter how noble, you can't get a mob
> together without an asshole or three surfacing to fuck things up. Been
> to a goth club steadily? Same deal. Assholes will be drawn to crowds
> that they may exhibit their asshole tendancies. This does not make the
> whole crowd the same. A does not equal B in this case.

Like I said before, it's the rule, not the exception.

Endymion the Unfair!

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 4:11:49 PM1/24/03
to
"Xandraius" <xand...@netzero.net> wrote

> The sad part is Bush and his cabal are so far out of synch with
reality that it does not seem to affect
> them. Bush keeps spouting this PC line of "It's good to see people
exercise their rights" but what he
> seems to miss is that the PEOPLE he is ACCOUNTABLE to who ELECTED him do
not want the
> fucking war,

What you seem to miss is that a few thousand slackers on the streets are not
Bush's boss and not THE PEOPLE. THE PEOPLE went to the polls and elected
him, now some people, mostly not the ones who voted for him or ever would
vote for him, want him to change his policy. Boo fucking hoo, grow up and
realize that you have every right to protest but the rest of the country,
including George W. Bush, likewise has every right to ignore you.

> It's not about terror and it's not about Iraq. It's about the oil. This
has been and always will be
> blood-for-oil,

All that bullshit does is end the discussion. If you think that you're too
fucking naive and idiotic to be worth convincing.

Nyx

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 4:15:45 PM1/24/03
to
Xandraius <xand...@netzero.net> wrote in
news:3E319594...@netzero.net:

>
> Oh., I see. Because property is damaged by a select few in political
> protest
> of something, everyone is called into doubt who protests. I don't
> remember rightly if you are an American Nyx, but one of the most
> memorable cases of political protest I know of involved a bunch of
> young guys in disguise breaking onto a ship and trashing the caego. No
> qualms there... they destroyed other peoples property... and we call
> it the Boston Tea Party, a defining moment of the American revolution.
> Now, you were saying?

That was about taxes. Was this protest against the newspaper box that was
thrown against the INS building or against the INS? Oh, wait, it was a
"peace" protest. So I guess that was a peaceful riot.

It's only the anti-global types that do this. When the Million Man March
happened there wasn't one case of violence. When the anti-gulf war protests
of the early 90's happened there wasn't any violence. In the majority of
protests there is no violence, and yet, lately, every "peace" or anti-
globalization protest has someone burning a car or breaking windows.

And you say it's just a single instance. It's not.

Nyx

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 4:17:14 PM1/24/03
to
Xandraius <xand...@netzero.net> wrote in
news:3E31999E...@netzero.net:

>
> Nyx, you must subscribe to a newsbyte list. They found casings that
> could be
> used to deliver said weapons. The casings were odl and in sad shape.
> That is like arresting someone for firearms violation of parole if you
> found some old rusty .22 casings somewhere on their property. A court
> would kick that out on the spot.
>

So, just because it's small it doesn't count?

Here's a quote from an Iraqi Colonel.

The inspectors have been working non-stop in Iraq with the aid of
sophisticated instrumentation ever since they arrived. They have been
visiting military sites, research laboratories, and palaces of the
government and even of the president himself. They have also attempted to
question a number of Iraqi scientists, but to little avail. In all of this
major work there is a basic flaw due to a lack of imagination or of
information: namely the presumption that chemical and biological weapons or
the substances used for making them are necessarily hidden in very well
protected bunkers. As is well known, on the contrary, these are materials
that are easy to transport and that are not even excessively cumbersome.
That is exactly where the military apparatuses' and intelligence services'
trick lies: namely, in making these devices invisible by constantly moving
them around on tanker trucks that travel either under escort or being
trailed at a distance. Saddam Hussein is very proud of this simple
expedient: In one of the most recent government meetings, simultaneous with
the umpteenth inspection of a site in Baghdad, he burst out laughing and
said: "While those guys (the inspectors -- Panorama editor's note) are
going about underground, our trucks are driving over their heads."

http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000031.htm

Nyx

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 4:18:59 PM1/24/03
to
mo...@cruelmail.com (Morph) wrote in news:3e317cc0...@news.clara.net:

> Save the British *government*, anyway (and Lithuania, it seems). In
> terms of public opinion, only 10% of the British public are prepared
> to back a war without UN backing (source: ICM poll, Jan 21)

Fuck 'em. We don't need an alliance. Misguided alliances is what let the
soviets seize East Germany and Eastern Europe after WW2l, and what caused
us to lose in Korea. The alliance shapes the goals.

Nyx

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 4:21:31 PM1/24/03
to
Xandraius <xand...@netzero.net> wrote in
news:3E3191C3...@netzero.net:

> The sad part is Bush and his cabal are so far out of synch with
> reality that it does not seem to affect
> them. Bush keeps spouting this PC line of "It's good to see people
> exercise their rights" but what he seems to miss is that the PEOPLE he
> is ACCOUNTABLE to who ELECTED him do not want the fucking war, This
> part escapes him. He is our employee... not the other fucking way
> around.

I'd just like to point out that Bush was *not* elected by a majority. In
case everyone forgot.

And just so you can keep score, I'm anti-bush but pro-war with Iraq (and
North Korea and Saudi Arabia) and I voted Libertarian in the last election.

Endymion the Unfair!

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 4:24:54 PM1/24/03
to
I just saw that the Dow is down 238 points largely due to "war jitters". Not
good news on any front, but what made me laugh is that this will probably
prompt another wave of commentators all over the media, and possibly here,
asking why Bush is wrecking the economy by starting a war.

The reason it's funny is the sheer hypocrisy of the antiwar movement. If
Bush starts a war over oil or to improve the economy, that's greed and it's
bad. But you people apparently think that if a war is bad for the economy,
it shouldn't be fought regardless of any other reasons for fighting or not
fighting. In other words, it's the ANTIwar crowd who want to emphasize the
question "Will this be good or bad for Jane Q. Taxpayer's wallet?" over
petty little concerns like the lives or deaths of hundreds of thousands, the
long-term political stability of a region, the moral message of preventive
war vs. that of tolerating Saddam's behavior, etc. Isn't that exactly what
you're falsely accusing Bush of?

Mech

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 3:23:45 PM1/24/03
to
In message <b0q2k9$96a$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com>,

"Endymion the Unfair!" <disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> "Mech" <me...@toth.org.uk> wrote

> > *points at the world's second largest oilfield*

> That's not a motive, that's an oilfield. If you're claiming the motive is
> simple theft of the oil from Iraq, say so, but that's ridiculous. There are
> plenty of nations with less well defended oil reserves.

It's a matter of ensuring future supplies, not about stealing the oil
outright. You can be sure, once the infrastructure is in place, whatever
body is given control of the Iraqi oil will enjoy a "special relationship"
with US oil companies.

Obviously, there are other motives too. They're just not as
straightforward.

[snip]

> > > They're damned because they already did.

> > That doesn't work. The weapons they found last time were destroyed.

> "Last time" being 1991? What about the meltdown of the inspection
> process in 1998?

What about it? As I understood it, the inspectors left in a hurry
after being given short notice that the building they were in was
about to be the target of a US airstrike. The Iraqis then decided
not to let them back in, suspecting the US of using them as cover
for spies.

> Were the weapons Saddam was presumably hiding then destroyed?

The argument I have here is over the presumption, not over the weapons.

> > So the US would be guilty of attacking another country without
> > international approval. I thought you said war on Iraq was to
> > prevent Saddam doing this very thing?

> This is as specious as saying "Dude, like, killing people to say
> that killing people is wrong makes no sense."

I'm not sure it *does* though.

> The point is not to deter Iraq from enforcing arms agreements, it's
> to deter Iraq from attempting to subjugate its neighbors for its own
> aggrandizement,

When they did that to Kuwait, they were rightly given a good hiding.
Point here is that this time they *haven't* done that, and I doubt
they would risk it again even if they had the capability. They know
what would happen.

> which is not what the Bush administration is doing.

Not outright, no. The West has had a habit of installing regimes
in the past. They haven't usually turned out all that nice either.

> > What would be wrong with next January?

> It could be too late by then.

How?

> > War is seen as a way of stimulating the economy.

> Only by those who oppose the war and don't believe that will work
> anyway. No one has tried to justify it on that ground.

> > Plus, of course, Iraq has oil. America's own reserves are looking
> > relatively meagre.

> No one has attempted to justify it on that ground either, except,
> again, those who oppose it.

Well they wouldn't would they? It's no secret that the house of Saud
is a puppet of the US. Why not install something similar in Iraq,
seeing as Saddam isn't exactly popular anyway?

> You're only refuting your own side's flawed rationale for war.

I don't have a 'side'. I have a point of view. I could switch sides
if Saddam Hussein actually did anything new that I felt made attacking
him justifiable. I'm certainly not going to respond well to anyone
that just chooses what to believe depending on who they want to be on
the same side of.

> > > But you are in the minority - a rather small minority at that. Don't be
> > > fooled by the amount of noise you can make.

> > Globally I suspect you are in the minority.

> Probably true. But we weren't discussing protests in Paris or Beijing.

We were discussing protests in the world, right? This newsgroup
is a global forum.

Cheers,
Dan.
--
__ _______ ______ __
/ |/ / __/ ___/ /_/ / # Dan Maloney.
/ /|_/ / _// /__/ __ / # Disclaimer: Not my fault.
/_/ /_/___/\___/_/ /_/ # mailto:me...@toth.org.uk

Xandraius

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 3:14:10 PM1/24/03
to

"Endymion the Unfair!" wrote:

-=snip to the chase=-

> You're right, and that's all I wanted to see. There are some cogent
> arguments against going to war now or at all, and the discussion should be
> about those instead of the mindless crowd slogans and improbable conspiracy
> theories that are tossed around too easily on this issue. The right question
> isn't whether Bush & company are international pirates who will invade
> anybody to steal their oil, or whether Saddam has been trying to develop
> WMDs, it's whether an invasion is justified even if everything Bush &
> company say about
> their motives and Saddam's is true. And THAT's a question I don't have a pat
> answer for.

Now we hit the crux of the issue: Is a war against Iraq justified? My own
opinion (worth only that) is no. Very simple. No. We need to clean up our own
backyard and sort out our own issues internally. We'll bankrupt ourselves
running all over playing global cop. Let the UN spearhead that and lets focus on
ourselves for a while.

-=xandraius=-

Endymion the Unfair!

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 4:29:24 PM1/24/03
to
"Nyx" <nyx...@yahoo.com> wrote

> I'd just like to point out that Bush was *not* elected by a majority. In
> case everyone forgot.

True, but neither was anyone else. He was elected by the electorate, defined
as the voting public as it is organized in the electoral process (which has
never been by simple majority). And it is the electorate, not a few thousand
protesters, to whom he is responsible.

Endymion the Unfair!

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 4:59:11 PM1/24/03
to
"Mech" <me...@toth.org.uk> wrote

> In message <b0q2k9$96a$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com>,
> "Endymion the Unfair!" <disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> It's a matter of ensuring future supplies, not about stealing the oil
> outright. You can be sure, once the infrastructure is in place, whatever
> body is given control of the Iraqi oil will enjoy a "special relationship"
> with US oil companies.

I do not share your confidence on this point, nor do I consider it anything
but groundless speculation.

> > > That doesn't work. The weapons they found last time were destroyed.
>
> > "Last time" being 1991? What about the meltdown of the inspection
> > process in 1998?
>
> What about it? As I understood it, the inspectors left in a hurry
> after being given short notice that the building they were in was
> about to be the target of a US airstrike.

That has nothing to do with their being expelled from the country.

> The Iraqis then decided
> not to let them back in, suspecting the US of using them as cover
> for spies.

That was the cover story, yes, but everyone associated with the UN team
denied it. Why believe Saddam's self-serving allegations over them?

The real dispute, as I understand it, was that Saddam claimed to have the
right to veto the inclusion of Americans on the team, and the UN insisted
that no one, not the US government and not the Iraqi government, had the
right to dictate anything about the team's composition.

> > Were the weapons Saddam was presumably hiding then destroyed?
>
> The argument I have here is over the presumption, not over the weapons.

If he had no weapons and no program to develop more, why would he risk
disaster by expelling the inspectors, given that he was already on about two
and a half strikes as far as both the UN and the US were concerned?

> > > So the US would be guilty of attacking another country without
> > > international approval. I thought you said war on Iraq was to
> > > prevent Saddam doing this very thing?
>
> > This is as specious as saying "Dude, like, killing people to say
> > that killing people is wrong makes no sense."
>
> I'm not sure it *does* though.

Whether you agree that it's an effective deterrent or not, it's a specious
argument, because capital punishment is not meant to demonstrate that
"killing" is wrong. Likewise, the point is not to demonstrate that war is
wrong, but that Iraq's course of behavior, which involves more than just
waging war, is wrong.

> > > What would be wrong with next January?
>
> > It could be too late by then.
>
> How?

They could, like North Korea now, have their weapons programs far enough
along by then to make invasion a considerably dicey prospect, and no longer
justifiable given the nuclear risk.

> > > Plus, of course, Iraq has oil. America's own reserves are looking
> > > relatively meagre.
>
> > No one has attempted to justify it on that ground either, except,
> > again, those who oppose it.
>
> Well they wouldn't would they?

This is an absurd non-argument. Address the stated justification; if that's
adequate, the side issue about the oil is irrelevant; if it's not adequate,
the real motivation is irrelevant.

> It's no secret that the house of Saud is a puppet of the US.

Nonsense. If the house of Saud were even remotely a US puppet, it would
lower the price of crude, arrest Idi Amin, stop funding fundamentalists, and
be more neutral in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

The house of Saud is a US *client*. There is a world of difference there.

> Why not install something similar in Iraq,
> seeing as Saddam isn't exactly popular anyway?

Why not indeed? It would be better for everyone. If that's your worst-case,
most cynical outcome, you'll have to do better. The Saudis are no angels,
but they're no Saddams either.

But of course that's not what the administration has been preparing to do,
is it? Why not install a broad-based democracy instead?

> > > Globally I suspect you are in the minority.
>
> > Probably true. But we weren't discussing protests in Paris or Beijing.
>
> We were discussing protests in the world, right? This newsgroup
> is a global forum.

It is, but the discussion was of US protests. People elsewhere in the world
don't have to approve of our policies, and while a wise President will not
completely ignore world opinion, he won't let it dictate his policy either.

Tiny Human Ferret

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 5:12:44 PM1/24/03
to
Anne Gwish wrote:
> Tiny Human Ferret wrote:
>> Anne Gwish wrote:
>>> Endymion wrote:
>> <snips>
>>
>>
>>>> Probably because war against North Korea is not a practical option.
>>>> Also
>>>> because North Korea has, at least for the past couple of decades,
>>>> shown more
>>>> of a propensity to stir up trouble by making wild threats and selling
>>>> weapons than to actually attack its neighbors, unlike Saddam. Would
>>>> it make you happier to invade both?
>>>
>>> Right. It isn't a practical option because they have no fucking oil!
>>
>> Please don't be ridiculous.
>>
>> We cannot practically attack North Korea because, first, it would
>> forever lose us the friendship of South Korea. They don't like the US
>> very much right now over in SK. Also, everyone is agreed that China,
>> South Korea, and Japan -- and to a lesser degre, Russiya -- are the
>> parties responsible for dealing with the North Korea situation. North
>> Korea isn't a threat to the US, not much of one. We could swat them
>> like a malnourished fly.
>
>
>
> Right, like that big old fly swatter we swung around there in 1950's?

I was thinking more of the 2001 version of the big old fly swatter we used
on Hiroshima and Nagasaki back in the mid-1940s.


> That war cost us 30,000 lives, not to mention the savage fighting and
> torture that those soldiers who didn't die had to endure. My grandfather
> was a Korean War vet. I was weaned on those stories.
>
> Furthermore, exactly who agreed that China, SK, Japan and Russia are
> "responsible" for dealing with NK? We gave them the fucking plutonium,
> for Christ's sake!

I thought were were going to assist them to build light-water reactors,
which aren't very useful for breeding weapons-grade fissiles.

> From a global security stance, it smacks of hypocrisy
> to allow one country to violate key components of an international
> treaty by enriching plutonium

You cannot enrich plutonium. You can enrich uranium. Plutonium can be a
byproduct of uranium enrichment.

> with the express intent of building a
> nuke, and at the very same time attempt to completely destroy another
> country for possessing empty warheads!

I quite agree. However, in the case of Iraq, one strongly suspects that they
would not have actually obtained or fabricated the delivery system until
they expected to have something to deliver.


>
>> But it's very important for us to retain the
>> friendship of South Korea, Japan, and the PR Chinese. If we were to
>> apply the fly-swatter to the DPRK (North Korea), it would be a
>> difficult to ensure that there was no fallout to Japan and the PR
>> China. And South Korea would become an enemy of the US of far greater
>> danger than the North could ever have been.
>
>
>

> I agree it is very important to maintain these friendships. (And i use
> that word very loosely, especially with regard to our relationship with
> China.) But is it not equally important to maintain the "friendship" of
> Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran etc.? Yet we are barely hesitant to upset the
> extremely delicate balance there, without concern for offending our
> "friends" in the Middle East.

Actually, our friends in the Middle East would love nothing more than to see
the last of Saddam Hussein. Iran loathes him, Turkey is not favorably
impressed, Kuwait remembers Iraq's heavy boot, and the House of Saud
definitely remembers the threat posed. They all just had a meeting more or
less acknowledging that Saddam Hussein's time is over. I do not claim to be
an expert on the Middle East and my opinions on the continued US support of
Israel are extremely unpopular outside of Islamic nations. But I think I
understand them all well enough to know that when all of those countries can
come together for any purpose outside of condemning Israel, their tentative
public agreement probably amounts to a seething rage when they are out of
public view.


>>> Wanna know what would make me happier? The use diplomacy and
>>> international law instead of playground bully tactics -- across the
>>> board. Like i tell my children... "Use your words, not your fists!"
>>
>> And if words don't work?
>
>

> If words don't work with my kids, a swift spank in the ass! Seriously,
> my point is that i don't think it's spanking time yet. And i can tell
> you that as a parent, reward is a much better teacher than punishment.
>
> How about consideration for lifting the brutal sanctions we've put on
> Iraq for the past decade?


The reasons for which the sanctions were imposed have not changed for the
better, rather they have changed, if any, for the worse.


--
Be kind to your neighbors, even | "Global domination, of course!"
though they be transgenic chimerae. | -- The Brain
"People that are really very weird can get into sensitive
positions and have a tremendous impact on history." -- Dan Quayle

Tiny Human Ferret

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 5:22:32 PM1/24/03
to
Endymion the Unfair! wrote:
> "Tiny Human Ferret" <ixnaxamsp...@earthops.net> wrote

>
>
>>North Korea isn't a threat to the US, not much of one.
>
>
> True. And only a limited threat to regional stability: they can bluster, but
> they know they can't possibly win a confrontation with China or the US and
> don't want to provoke Japan into rearming, and given the above they seem to
> have long since given up on military adventurism.

I don't think that the South Koreans are entirely convinced of this, or that
if they are convinced of this, that they should be convinced of this.


>>We could swat them like a malnourished fly.
>
>

> Not true, or rather, not true without causing massive civilian casualties
> which would make Iraq look like a tea party. Possibly even risking nuclear
> strikes on Seoul or even Tokyo. It's hard to imagine a more colossal mess,

I do believe I said something about this being the reason that we didn't
swat them like a malnourished fly? We do have friends in the region, who
quite surround the DPRK.

> unless you speculate how such a war might even drag us into a war with
> China, which has not exactly been on the best terms with the current
> administration anyway.

Oh, we get along fine with China. Remember, "fear the chinese when they
smile, not when they scowl". In either situation it's important to remember
that they are very pragmatic and generally dislike courses of action which
are unprofitable. Mostly we just have to be polite and respectful on both
sides, but firm, and we and the PR of China will get along just fine. We
can't say the same of the DPRK, which has developed a tradition of carrying
on like a wild man whenever they think they can't out-think you and can't
beat you. I'm not sure what they're expecting, maybe it's traditional to
throw money at crazy people and then run away. It seems to be what they want.


>
> I think this is one where we have to grit our teeth, give in, and admit that
> we really have no power to compel them to comply with our wishes, and
> realize that apeeasement which involves giving a country economic aid is not
> in the the same ballpark as appeasement which involves looking the other way
> while it beats and rapes its neighbors.

That's true enough. And when the DPRK manages to get South Korean to drop
its defenses and let the DPRK massively infiltrate to the point where no
defense is possible other than house-to-house fighting, while the DPRK
reserves up north declare that they'll nuke the whole peninsula before
surrendering a hectare of the "re-unified south"?

Tiny Human Ferret

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 5:27:52 PM1/24/03
to
The Evil Chemist wrote:

> Tiny Human Ferret <ixnaxamsp...@earthops.net> wrote:
>
>
>>And if words don't work?
>
>
> "war is what happens when all peaceful means of negotiation have
> failed"-Churchill.
>
> 'cept we haven't exhausted those peaceful means. We're not even
> considering them, even though the rest of the world save Israel & Britain,
> still are trying the peaceful options.
>
> But you do have to consider this place and time for war and why exactly do
> we believe a preemptive strike on a country we fear *may* have weapons
> which the *may* use one someone is a legitimate reason for war, when it
> has been demonstrated in the past that just b/c a country has them does
> not mean they will use them. I will say that perhaps generals of the past
> were much more skillful, but should we let an unskilled commander bumble,
> when it will cost so much?
>
> Is there even anything to negotiate? We bought up the threat of war and
> the negotiation process is to appease us. What other country on the planet
> has the gaul to push another into the river and then negotiate their
> survival as if we are doing them a favor by our benevolence?
>
> I look at the dispositon of our commander and see the impatience.
> The timing is too short and the escalation too fast given the timeline of
> other events. The singular focus on bringing war and dismissing other
> legitimate concerns of country and state baffle me.
>
> As a startegic manouevre, why would the war on terrorism not be prevalent
> in his speeches anymore, except when he alludes rather unsuccessfully that
> the IRAQ is somehow involved, yet is unwilling to bring force any
> evidence.
>
> Either he is one of the greatest military figures of the ages, or he's a
> bumbling fool. I'll leave the option open for the former, but I suspect
> he's the latter.


Personally, I think that the second that anyone here thought they had
credible proof of WMD or research to that end happening in Iraq, they should
have just nuked it from orbit, that being the only way to be sure, and
_then_ done a troop buildup, and done it _upwind_ of prevailing weather, not
right in the main Drift pattern. This slow build-up option has a variety of
ways to go bad, first and foremost of the likely options, the one we now see
happening, where the US is maneuvered into looking like a big-bad burglar
casing the joint while his gang waits outside the door. That the big-bad
burglar would find what he was looking for if he kicked the crap out of the
occupant _first_, before the wily occupant pushed the "dump to safe places"
switch on his treasure chest, that won't matter to the court of world
opinion. All they'll know is that even with the gang waiting outside the
door, the big-bad burglar couldn't find any swag in the house.

As soon as we leave, Saddam presses the button labelled "un-hide" and goes
right back to work. Repeat as necessary.

Tiny Human Ferret

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 5:31:37 PM1/24/03
to
Greylock wrote:
> Last episode jo...@gene13.demonspam.co.uk (Jodi) said:
>
>>On a related note, AFGHANISTAN! They still need massive amounts of help
>>to rebuild their society, including military aid to stop the warlords
>>getting out of control until they build up their own security force.
>>Yet it looks like the West is aiming to forget about that in favour of a
>>"more exciting" option.
>
>
> Blair promised not to forget Afganistan (Bush didn't).
> Is the Uk doing anything for that nation?
>
>
>>TBH, I'm not convinced that North Korea are any more of a threat now
>>than they have been at any time since the Korean War. That doesn't in
>>any way excuse the North Korean government, it's just an observation.
>
>
> North Korea now has nuke-capability.
> I think that makes them more of a threat.


That's right, and Oz is right near traditional NK shipping lanes to the
Middle East. Perhaps Australia might wish to try to get a place at the
negotiation table along with the PRC, Japan and South Korea.

Endymion the Unfair!

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 5:31:38 PM1/24/03
to
"Tiny Human Ferret" <ixnaxamsp...@earthops.net> wrote

> I thought were were going to assist them to build light-water reactors,


> which aren't very useful for breeding weapons-grade fissiles.

Dude, you're letting facts get in the way of a good roll!

> You cannot enrich plutonium. You can enrich uranium. Plutonium can be a
> byproduct of uranium enrichment.

AFAIK they are entirely separate processes, and NK is pursuing both.
Plutonium is a byproduct of the irradiation of the uranium in certain
reactor cores. It is created by this nuclear process and then extracted from
the used core by a dangerous and delicate chemical process requiring massive
equipment. Uranium enrichment, OTOH, involves using centrifuges on refined
uranium ore (not spent fuel rods) to separate the useless isotope U-238 from
the useful U-235 by an essentially mechanical process. It uses lots and lots
of fairly small centrifuges which can be easily hidden. You don't need a
reactor for uranium enrichment, except perhaps as a cover to explain why
you're mining or importing so much uranium ore.

Tiny Human Ferret

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 5:34:27 PM1/24/03
to
--nightshade-- wrote:
> In article <3E3004DD...@hotmail.com>,
> Anne Gwish <AnneGw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>-If there is compelling evidence that Iraq is hiding something, why
>>isn't the information being shared? If it was because of security
>>issues, surely the inspectors would need to know that information to
>>keep themselves safe! I think this whole bit about "secret information
>>too dangerous to share" was made up to keep the dumb masses clamoring
>>behind the president and his men. If this wasn't the case, then the
>>information would have been shared with the inspectors and the "smoking
>>gun" would have been found a long time ago.
>
>
> more on that, then. now, i'm no fan of Hussein, but have you also noticed
> that the war is inevitable, because there is literally _no_ _way_, even
> through absolutely truthful and 100% complete reporting, that they can get out
> from under accusations of wrongdoing.
>
> to wit: if we don't find an undefined large amount of munitions, it is not
> possible that they do not have them, they've simply hidden them well and are
> lying. if they turn up <n>, we'll insist they have <n+1>. the harder we look
> for weapons, and the less the searches turn up, the more damning the evidence
> that those shrewd evil bastards are going to any length to confound us, and
> all the more reason to attack!


All the more reason to just directly state that we're just goddamned tired
of Saddam Hussein and are going to kick his nasty ass all over the place,
and do it before we're tempted to try to rationalize a good old fashioned
case of "they needed killin'".

Endymion the Unfair!

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 5:44:18 PM1/24/03
to
"Tiny Human Ferret" <ixnaxamsp...@earthops.net> wrote
> Endymion the Unfair! wrote:
> > "Tiny Human Ferret" <ixnaxamsp...@earthops.net> wrote
> >
> >>We could swat them like a malnourished fly.
> >
> >
> > Not true, or rather, not true without causing massive civilian
casualties
> > which would make Iraq look like a tea party. Possibly even risking
nuclear
> > strikes on Seoul or even Tokyo. It's hard to imagine a more colossal
mess,
>
> I do believe I said something about this being the reason that we didn't
> swat them like a malnourished fly? We do have friends in the region, who
> quite surround the DPRK.

The salient point is, I think, that the concern of the allies is different
than in the Iraq situation - it's not just that we might offend the
sensibilities of the South Koreans or Japanese governments, it's that they
could get dragged into the war at the cost of millions of lives. That's
highly unlikely for any of Iraq's neighbors other than perhaps (indirectly,
through the Kurds) Turkey.

> > unless you speculate how such a war might even drag us into a war with
> > China, which has not exactly been on the best terms with the current
> > administration anyway.
>
> Oh, we get along fine with China. Remember, "fear the chinese when they
> smile, not when they scowl". In either situation it's important to
remember
> that they are very pragmatic and generally dislike courses of action which
> are unprofitable.

True, but there were several incidents early in Bush's term (remember the
seized surveillance plane?), and if there's one thing that does set
Beijing's teeth on edge it's the perception of US military adventurism in
their backyard. They get very defensive and touchy about US pledges to
defend Taiwan as it is, and if it came down to a shooting war on their
border, I think some of that pragmatism might go out the window. The other
thing the Chinese generally loathe is instability, and the current situation
is, however unpleasant, more stable than a war.

> I'm not sure what they're expecting, maybe it's traditional to
> throw money at crazy people and then run away. It seems to be what they
want.

I'm not sure Kim Jong-Il is entirely rational or even entirely sane. Think
of the environment in which he's been raised, and what the world must seem
like to him since 1990 or so.

> > I think this is one where we have to grit our teeth, give in, and admit
that
> > we really have no power to compel them to comply with our wishes, and
> > realize that apeeasement which involves giving a country economic aid is
not
> > in the the same ballpark as appeasement which involves looking the other
way
> > while it beats and rapes its neighbors.
>
> That's true enough. And when the DPRK manages to get South Korean to drop
> its defenses and let the DPRK massively infiltrate to the point where no
> defense is possible other than house-to-house fighting, while the DPRK
> reserves up north declare that they'll nuke the whole peninsula before
> surrendering a hectare of the "re-unified south"?

I do worry about that, but ultimately it's South Korea's problem, and if
they want to risk that we can't stop them. All we can do is promise to help
them IF they choose to defend themselves. Lord knows it would be a mess for
the rest of the Pacific rim.

I assume, though, that responsible people are aware of the danger, don't
intend to let it go that far, and are only hoping that if they act
accommodating they'll remove any rationale for Kim's paranoid propaganda and
permanent war footing, and eventually undermine his rule. Whether the border
is so tightly sealed that they are in no better position to judge that than
we are, I can't say.

Girl the Bourgeois Individualist

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 6:16:26 PM1/24/03
to

"Endymion the Unfair!" <disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b0sb9p$5h9$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com...

> "Nyx" <nyx...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > I'd just like to point out that Bush was *not* elected by a majority. In
> > case everyone forgot.
>
> True, but neither was anyone else. He was elected by the electorate, defined
> as the voting public as it is organized in the electoral process (which has
> never been by simple majority).

Which is what's so fucked up about representative democracy.

> And it is the electorate, not a few thousand
> protesters, to whom he is responsible.
>

A few hundred thousand. As I said before, anarchist groups have a policy of
accurate reporting of the figures at marches (often because they're not in
favour of simply marching and prefer direct action - sensible direct action =
blockading military and attacking military equipment, stupid direct action =
attacking Starbucks).

Girl.


Girl the Bourgeois Individualist

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 6:18:42 PM1/24/03
to

"Nyx" <nyx...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns930D9B7E...@216.166.71.239...

>
> So, just because it's small it doesn't count?
>
Chemical weapons are the chemicals, not the missiles. The missiles are capable
of carrying more than chemicals and are being tested for chemical traces. If
they've never been used with chemcial weapons, then they're not in breach.

Girl.


Nyx

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 6:26:45 PM1/24/03
to
"Endymion the Unfair!" <disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote in
news:b0sd1h$jvi$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com:

> Nonsense. If the house of Saud were even remotely a US puppet, it would
> lower the price of crude, arrest Idi Amin,

I thought he was dead?

Girl the Bourgeois Individualist

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 6:23:51 PM1/24/03
to

"Morph" <mo...@cruelmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e317cc0...@news.clara.net...

> The Evil Chemist wrote:
> >"war is what happens when all peaceful means of negotiation have
> >failed"-Churchill.
> >
> >'cept we haven't exhausted those peaceful means. We're not even
> >considering them, even though the rest of the world save Israel & Britain,
> >still are trying the peaceful options.
>
> Save the British *government*, anyway

Actually, only two of the cabinet, Blair and Straw have voiced the opinion
that they'd go in with a unilateral US strike, the rest of the cabinet has
said, some of them openly, that they oppose the idea and a large percentage of
the government oppose this as well. Unilateral action by the US with the UK in
tow would destroy the Labour government as is and would possibly split the
party permanently.

Girl.


Endymion the Unfair!

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 6:28:00 PM1/24/03
to
"Girl the Bourgeois Individualist" <sor...@NOSPAMsortedmagazine.com> wrote

> Which is what's so fucked up about representative democracy.

Or what allows it to function.

> > And it is the electorate, not a few thousand
> > protesters, to whom he is responsible.
> >
> A few hundred thousand. As I said before, anarchist groups have a policy
of
> accurate reporting of the figures at marches

Sez you. So do the park police.

Endymion the Unfair!

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 6:33:24 PM1/24/03
to
"Nyx" <nyx...@yahoo.com> wrote

> > Nonsense. If the house of Saud were even remotely a US puppet, it would
> > lower the price of crude, arrest Idi Amin,
>
> I thought he was dead?

AFAIK he's still living happily in Saudi Arabia, where he's been since 1979.
He was still alive as of last year, anyway, and I don't remember hearing he
had died. He reportedly lived very well in a palatial compound complete with
imported concubines until he pissed the Saudis off a few years back and got
moved to less luxurious quarters in Jeddah.

Girl the Bourgeois Individualist

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 6:36:35 PM1/24/03
to

"Endymion the Unfair!" <disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b0roht$83h$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com...

> "Girl the Bourgeois Individualist" <sor...@NOSPAMsortedmagazine.com> wrote
>
> (other people, me, snipsnipsnip)

>
> > > > Plus, of course, Iraq has oil. America's own reserves are looking
> > > relatively meagre.
> > >
> > > No one has attempted to justify it on that ground either, except, again,
> > > those who oppose it. You're only refuting your own side's flawed
> rationale
> > > for war.
> >
> > Not all those who oppose the war buy the simple explanation, it's about a
> lot
> > more.

>
> You're right, and that's all I wanted to see. There are some cogent
> arguments against going to war now or at all, and the discussion should be
> about those instead of the mindless crowd slogans and improbable conspiracy
> theories that are tossed around too easily on this issue. The right question
> isn't whether Bush & company are international pirates who will invade
> anybody to steal their oil, or whether Saddam has been trying to develop
> WMDs, it's whether an invasion is justified even if everything Bush &
> company say about
> their motives and Saddam's is true. And THAT's a question I don't have a pat
> answer for.
>
My answer is no, not simply as a gut reaction against war, but also because it
amounts to the most hypocritical action possible. The US lifted sanctions on
Pakistan after 11th September, despite the fact that they were imposed because
Pakistan had developed nuclear weapons and is continuing to do so. Ditto
India. There isn't even much of a diplomatic effort to get them to sign up to
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, even though the two of them are still at
each others throats and the sale of nuclear equipment by Russia to India
didn't even raise much of a fucking eyebrow. Israel still isn't a nuclear
declared country, despite it being the world's worst secret that Israel's had
nukes for years. The US holds more chemical and biological weapons than is
permitted under international law under defensive measures (the law they hold
them under). The US is deliberately breaching Irish law transporting armaments
through Shannon airport, and just because the Irish government is turning a
blind eye to it is no reason for it to be acceptable. If there was equal
treatment across the board, no tolerance for the production of nuclear weapons
or weapons of mass destruction anywhere, respect for international law by the
countries trying to take the moral high ground, then action might be
justified, but the war on Iraq smacks too much of a vendetta - unfinished
business. The main issue about oil, not the main reason, but a reason all the
same, is that its increasingly clear that US support for the Saud regime is
counter-productive, it is probably the main country knowingly harbouring and
funding al-Qaeda terrorists, and Iraqi oil would lessen US dependence on Saudi
oil, thus freeing the US to impose sanctions or take action.

Girl.


Girl the Bourgeois Individualist

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 7:10:06 PM1/24/03
to

"Endymion the Unfair!" <disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b0sd1h$jvi$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com...

> "Mech" <me...@toth.org.uk> wrote
> > In message <b0q2k9$96a$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com>,
> > "Endymion the Unfair!" <disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > It's a matter of ensuring future supplies, not about stealing the oil
> > outright. You can be sure, once the infrastructure is in place, whatever
> > body is given control of the Iraqi oil will enjoy a "special relationship"
> > with US oil companies.
>
> I do not share your confidence on this point, nor do I consider it anything
> but groundless speculation.

The circumstantial evidence is damning:
1. The Bush cabal was discussing war in the Middle East and Afghanistan before
Sept. 11th over oil and, specifically, a pipeline from the former Soviet
States to Saudi.
2. The Bush family themselves have considerable oil interests in the region
personally via their links to the bin Laden family (or whatever they changed
their name to).
3. The relationship between the US and Saudi is turning sour over al-Qaeda and
the US needs an alternative source of oil.


>
> > > > That doesn't work. The weapons they found last time were destroyed.
> >
> > > "Last time" being 1991? What about the meltdown of the inspection
> > > process in 1998?
> >
> > What about it? As I understood it, the inspectors left in a hurry
> > after being given short notice that the building they were in was
> > about to be the target of a US airstrike.
>
> That has nothing to do with their being expelled from the country.
>
> > The Iraqis then decided
> > not to let them back in, suspecting the US of using them as cover
> > for spies.
>
> That was the cover story, yes, but everyone associated with the UN team
> denied it.

Not Scott Ritter, one of the most prominent critics of the war.

> Why believe Saddam's self-serving allegations over them?
>
> The real dispute, as I understand it, was that Saddam claimed to have the
> right to veto the inclusion of Americans on the team, and the UN insisted
> that no one, not the US government and not the Iraqi government, had the
> right to dictate anything about the team's composition.

Let's look at it this way, the US said they had secret information about
weapons production in Iraq. They then refused to give it to Blix until there
was a serious complaint by the UN and then they supposedly handed it over. How
exactly did they get this information without having spies in there, just as
Saddam claimed?


>
> > > Were the weapons Saddam was presumably hiding then destroyed?
> >
> > The argument I have here is over the presumption, not over the weapons.
>
> If he had no weapons and no program to develop more, why would he risk
> disaster by expelling the inspectors, given that he was already on about two
> and a half strikes as far as both the UN and the US were concerned?

Because he's a megalomaniac who had been told by the US to bend over and then
found he had the US' dick up his ass - continued airstrikes, serious sanctions
and probably US spies.


>
> > > > So the US would be guilty of attacking another country without
> > > > international approval. I thought you said war on Iraq was to
> > > > prevent Saddam doing this very thing?
> >
> > > This is as specious as saying "Dude, like, killing people to say
> > > that killing people is wrong makes no sense."
> >
> > I'm not sure it *does* though.
>
> Whether you agree that it's an effective deterrent or not, it's a specious
> argument, because capital punishment is not meant to demonstrate that
> "killing" is wrong. Likewise, the point is not to demonstrate that war is
> wrong, but that Iraq's course of behavior, which involves more than just
> waging war, is wrong.
>
> > > > What would be wrong with next January?
> >
> > > It could be too late by then.
> >
> > How?
>
> They could, like North Korea now, have their weapons programs far enough
> along by then to make invasion a considerably dicey prospect, and no longer
> justifiable given the nuclear risk.

Leave the inspectors in there for the long term, if it's possible under the
NPT, then it's possible here.


>
> > > > Plus, of course, Iraq has oil. America's own reserves are looking
> > > > relatively meagre.
> >
> > > No one has attempted to justify it on that ground either, except,
> > > again, those who oppose it.
> >
> > Well they wouldn't would they?
>
> This is an absurd non-argument. Address the stated justification; if that's
> adequate, the side issue about the oil is irrelevant; if it's not adequate,
> the real motivation is irrelevant.

US claims links between Iraq and al-Qaeda and fails to produce even the
tiniest bit of proof linking a secular nationalist regime to Islamist
internationalists. US claims Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction,
yet claims that no smoking gun is necessary to prove this, claiming that
knowledge of past actions by Saddam is enough, even though they were accepted
by the US and didn't stop them sending components to Iraq. US opposes the
completion of the weapons inspectors' tasks despite the fact that the former
head of the weapons inspectors, Scott Ritter, says that the Bush cabal is
either wrong or deliberately lying. Further to this, the current inspections
have disproved a number of the main claims about Iraq's capability as outlined
in the dossier released a few months ago. The stated justification is
ridiculously flimsy, the oil theory is credible, but I go for the even more
scary reason - Iraq is unfinished business and an embarassment to the hawks in
the Bush cabal's aim of military domination of land, sea and air.


>
> > It's no secret that the house of Saud is a puppet of the US.
>
> Nonsense. If the house of Saud were even remotely a US puppet, it would
> lower the price of crude, arrest Idi Amin, stop funding fundamentalists, and
> be more neutral in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

The House of Saud has turned out to be a bad puppet, the official term is
"slipped the leash", the US thought it was under its sphere of influence and
turned a blind eye to its support for terrorism when that terrorism didn't
have any impact on US interests. That's changed. The US had a policy of using
Islamist groups, under the Islamic Brotherhood, in the Middle East during the
latter part of the Cold War and it's experienced severe bite back.


>
> The house of Saud is a US *client*. There is a world of difference there.
>
> > Why not install something similar in Iraq,
> > seeing as Saddam isn't exactly popular anyway?
>
> Why not indeed? It would be better for everyone. If that's your worst-case,
> most cynical outcome, you'll have to do better. The Saudis are no angels,
> but they're no Saddams either.

Actually, I suspect the US would be delighted to get rid of the Sauds if there
was any kind of alternative, but they're stuck in the same position as when
the Taliban were in charge of Afghanistan pre-11th September. The US policy of
supporting Islamists during the Cold War as they eradicated the left wing has
left the countries totally in the grip of Islamists. What doesn't make sense
is that the US is unwilling to work with the British to bring the secular
regimes of Libya and Syria and the progressive elements in Iran in from the
cold and actually gain some non-militant diplomatic standing in the Middle
East.


>
> But of course that's not what the administration has been preparing to do,
> is it? Why not install a broad-based democracy instead?

Yugoslavia. The ethnic divisions in Iraq are far too strong and a central
democracy is unlikely to last. Iraq's not a real country anyway, it's a
product of the ridiculous borders drawn by the British colonial powers.


>
> > > > Globally I suspect you are in the minority.
> >
> > > Probably true. But we weren't discussing protests in Paris or Beijing.
> >
> > We were discussing protests in the world, right? This newsgroup
> > is a global forum.
>
> It is, but the discussion was of US protests. People elsewhere in the world
> don't have to approve of our policies, and while a wise President will not
> completely ignore world opinion, he won't let it dictate his policy either.
>

And that's the scariest thing.

Girl.


Girl the Bourgeois Individualist

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 7:22:16 PM1/24/03
to

"Endymion the Unfair!" <disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b0rpfa$gr1$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com...

> "Girl the Bourgeois Individualist" <sor...@NOSPAMsortedmagazine.com> wrote
>
> > That's the point, they're an absolute threat to South Korea and Japan, who
> do
> > not want warmongering.
>
> True, but then it's not like North Korea stops the warmongering no matter
> how reasonable everyone else is being. What did the US or Japan do to
> provoke the missile tests over Japan?

Relations had seriously improved under Clinton and deteriorated with the
ridiculously bad US diplomacy under Bush has been like poking a narky old lion
with a stick. Kim's another megalomaniac and the not very veiled US threats in
the Axis of Evil speech provoked him into proving that he's not an easy
target. The US, here at least, seems to have got this and has cooled down the
rhetoric.

> And on that subject, can you imagine
> the outcry if the US used France or China as an ICBM test range?

Of course there would be, but there's no arguing that Kim is dangerous and
it's stupid to provoke him as the US did.
>
> One thing I cannot understand or abide about the hardcore critics of Bush
> and Blair is their willingness to extrapolate the most evil motives from the
> formers' relatively measured and benign statements while ignoring the
> astoundingly provocative rhetoric and actions of the governments B&B
> condemn.
>
Simply because sabre-rattling nonsense is expected from the world's worst
megalomaniacs, better is expected from those who claim to be fighting for
freedom. There's not much point in being hardcore critics of Hussein or Kim,
they're not listening and, really, my only advice to them would be to die and
take their entire power structure with them. However, Bush and Blair are
supposed to be democrats, they need to listen, they're supposed to be
up-holders of international law, they need to follow it, they're supposed to
be building peace and development, not warmongering.

Girl.


Girl the Bourgeois Individualist

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 7:27:32 PM1/24/03
to

"Endymion the Unfair!" <disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b0si82$t43$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com...

> "Girl the Bourgeois Individualist" <sor...@NOSPAMsortedmagazine.com> wrote
>
> > Which is what's so fucked up about representative democracy.
>
> Or what allows it to function.

Badly and unrepresentatively. Modern representative democracy "works" by
disenfrancising the majority, rather than being a problem, public apathy is
seen as a gift. As I pointed out elsewhere, more US people oppose the war
outright, according to the polls, than actually voted for the Bush cabal.
That's fucked up.


>
> > > And it is the electorate, not a few thousand
> > > protesters, to whom he is responsible.
> > >
> > A few hundred thousand. As I said before, anarchist groups have a policy
> of
> > accurate reporting of the figures at marches
>
> Sez you. So do the park police.

Nope, it's general policy for authorities to underestimate numbers at protests
(I've seen this happen when I personally reported numbers at a protest and
they were reduced before broadcast in line with the police figures), while
Marxist groups deliberately exagerate them. Don't believe me if you don't
want, but anarchists report the figures as accurately as they can, many do so
because they don't think mass protests where people just walk around in
circles and listen to speeches as being particularly useful.

Girl.


DJ Daimon

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 7:49:36 PM1/24/03
to
On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:49:57 -0500, "Endymion"
<disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>"The Evil Chemist" <theevil...@crushed.velvet.net> wrote
>
>> Like a magnet, it is drawing more people and as it grows in size, it's
>> attraction grows. There were hundreds of thousands of people in DC
>> protesting. It took us 5 hours to walk about 1 mile.
>
>Protest crowds look larger than they are - I've seen estimates as low as
>30,000 for this one. There were more people than that at the Pro-Life rally
>for Roe v. Wade's 30th. All this really tells us is that the fringe of
>dedicated activists and a few hangers on oppose this war as firmly as any
>other - in other words, at least as many people as voted for Nader.

For such things, media tends to estimate on the extreme
conservative side, especially for political events that the government
does not officially endorse. Chances are, they were using either
government or organiser numbers for the Roe v. Wade rally, and
government/low guess numbers for the anti-war rally. I've seen half of
the people disappear in the numbers game when it comes to anti-war
rallies, while internal conflicts and clashes with police get
multiplied 100-fold...

And actually, it doesn't tell us what you're implying - I saw
completely mainstream conservatives, and people who had never been to
a rally in their life appearing at the one in Toronto - I can only
imagine it was the same all over the world as people turned out to
voice their opposition to this war. The number of new organisations
and people represented at these events was truly astounding - hell, we
had a Toronto Tory proudly proclaiming himself against the war.

>Now, if you want to get into a more sophisticated debate, such as how long
>weapons inspectors should be given, exactly what constitutes grounds for
>war, or what degree of support is necessary from which allies to make war a
>viable option, you'll find more grounds for dicussion and a more divided
>public, but those aren't the sort of questions one can address with 30,00
>people wearing goofy costumes and chanting "Hey, Bush, kiss my ass, no war
>for the price of gas."

Again, that's what the media focuses on, and people go to those
outlandish extremes because they've realised one thing - politicians
don't care what the people think. You'd be surprised at the
intelligence of the people in the anti-war movements - they've already
learned to see past the government media bullshit.

>> I think this protest may do some good if the next one draws more than 1
>> million people.
>
>I'd be shocked if 1/10 that many showed up - but in any case, how many of
>those people are going to vote for any Republican or moderate Democrat in
>any election anyway? No one cares what the fringe thinks - to the extent any
>attention is being paid to public opinion, it's in Europe, where the number
>of people opposed to war under any circumstances is actually politically
>significant, or in the U.S. to more complex issues where the elctorate is
>more likely to be split.

You would be surprised - more and more, the anti-war movement is
starting to draw from the ultra-conservative sectors of society.
But, you're right, as I noted above, politicians couldn't give a rat's
ass about what people actually think, in fact, they'd rather they
didn't even make the effort, and they know that they'll be able to
push their buttons on some other issue to get them to forget the fact
that neither one of the 2 major US parties is really worth voting for.

>> If the UN inspectors can't find the weapons, what will the military
>> targets be?
>
>The people who build and deploy the weapons, naturally.

People who worked in weapons factories in the US and USSR in the
1980's? I don't think that would go over too well... "Today, the
president bombed... Buffalo! WTF is he thinking?!"


Chris Wagner ICQ: 2436745 MSN: buyyou...@hotmail.com

Ontario Metal Pages - The Ultimate Authority on Metal in Ontario
http://www.ontariometal.xroad.net

Remove Fuck You to reply.

Endymion the Unfair!

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 8:01:25 PM1/24/03
to
"Girl the Bourgeois Individualist" <sor...@NOSPAMsortedmagazine.com> wrote

> Modern representative democracy "works" by disenfrancising the majority,

No it doesn't. They have the franchise, they just make a conscious choice
not to exercise it.

> rather than being a problem, public apathy is seen as a gift.

No one sees apathy as a gift. The difference is in the response to the
problem. You look at 120 million people who can't be bothered to express an
opinion and say "How can we divine what these people are really thinking and
incorporate that into the process?" I look at them and say "How can we
educate them so that they become capable of forming opinions they themselves
see as worth expressing?" I see no point in trying to divine the opinions of
people who are too apathetic to do the simplest thing to express them;
increasing their input into the process without increasing the effort they
put into it will only add more randomness and irrationality into the system.

> As I pointed out elsewhere, more US people oppose the war
> outright, according to the polls, than actually voted for the Bush cabal.

Apples and oranges. More people don't actually RESPOND to the polls that
way, the pollsters are of course extrapolating the opinions of everyone
based on percentages of people who actually answered. Fair enough, but you
can't compare those *extrapolated* numbers from polls to the *actual* ones
from elections. If you compare raw numbers to raw numbers, the number voting
for Bush is much higher than the number included in the surveys; if you
compare extrapolations, the percentage of the population represented by
those who voted for Bush (49% or so) is much higher than those who oppose
war outright (20%, very roughly).

> > > A few hundred thousand. As I said before, anarchist groups have a
policy
> > > of accurate reporting of the figures at marches
> >
> > Sez you. So do the park police.
>
> Nope, it's general policy for authorities to underestimate numbers at
protests

Again: apples and oranges. You're comparing your subjective and unfavorable
opinion of the police's methods to an uncritical reading of the anarchists'
stated policy. All you're doing is saying *you* think the anarchists are
more truthful than the Establishment. Well of course you do, you're one of
them!

The Evil Chemist

unread,
Jan 24, 2003, 11:16:23 PM1/24/03
to
Endymion the Unfair! <disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> The reason it's funny is the sheer hypocrisy of the antiwar movement. If
> Bush starts a war over oil or to improve the economy, that's greed and it's
> bad. But you people apparently think that if a war is bad for the economy,
> it shouldn't be fought regardless of any other reasons for fighting or not
> fighting.

Who are 'you' people?

This anti-war person does not believe killing of people and the
destruction of countries is a bad policy all around. I don't believe in
economy over ethics.

jv

The Evil Chemist

unread,
Jan 25, 2003, 1:10:14 AM1/25/03
to
Nyx <nyx...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The Evil Chemist <theevil...@crushed.velvet.net> wrote in
> news:b0qgst$m5p$1...@crushed.velvet.net:

>> It's kind of funny how you consider the anti-war folks to all be
>> anti-global people when I stated in my 1st post this is not the case.

> Your proof?

How lazy.

I suppose it's easier to sit sumggly at the keyboard than to read. You
don't have to believe me. I don't think you want to, nor do I think you
want to think about it, but in case you want to do a little light reading,
I've gone to the trouble of filtering article on pages you'd immediately
flag as radical hippy propoganda.


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/24/national/24PROT.html

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/4975380.htm

http://www.arizonarepublic.com/news/articles/0118iraq18.html

http://mennoweekly.org/2story.htm

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/search/sfl-aprotest19jan19.story

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/elsentinel/comunidad/orl-asecflaprotest19011903jan19,0,5578788.story?coll=elsent-comunidad-headlines

http://www.useu.be/Categories/GlobalAffairs/Iraq/Jan1803DemonstratorsUSIraqPolicy.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/19/national/main537108.shtml

http://www.counterpunch.org/kyer1001.html

http://www.globalissues.net/article/329

Here's a nice little commentary from a journalist who claims to be 'pro
war' (as a policy when all else fails)
yet is "anti-war on Iraq". I think his views mirror main in the more
centered cross section of america.

http://humanrights.tqn.com/library/weekly/aa011903a.htm

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0117/p01s01-woiq.html

jv

The Evil Chemist

unread,
Jan 25, 2003, 1:17:50 AM1/25/03
to
Nyx <nyx...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> It's only the anti-global types that do this. When the Million Man March
> happened there wasn't one case of violence. When the anti-gulf war protests
> of the early 90's happened there wasn't any violence.

proof?

See how boring such a lazy generic response is? No wonder a.g. is in the
toliet


> In the majority of
> protests there is no violence, and yet, lately, every "peace" or anti-
> globalization protest has someone burning a car or breaking windows.

> And you say it's just a single instance. It's not.

I forgot this link:

http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20030119-89161823.htm

Interestingly enough:

"Only two arrests here were reported, both of which were made by U.S.
Capitol Police. A man was charged with disorderly conduct for inciting a
crowd in the 200 block of Pennsylvania Avenue NW and a woman was charged
with defacing government property for writing on the Library of Congress
John Adams Building at 110 Second St. SE, said Officer Jessica Gissubel, a
Capitol Police spokeswoman.
"If that's the worst thing that's going to happen all day, we're in
good shape," D.C. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey said of the two arrests
and another minor incident involving counterprotesters across the street
from the Marine Corps barracks at Eighth and I streets in Southeast."


I also learned that the 30,000 estimate was the permit size, not the
actual number. The police didn't give out an estimate.
jv

The Evil Chemist

unread,
Jan 25, 2003, 1:19:44 AM1/25/03
to
Nyx <nyx...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Like I said before, it's the rule, not the exception.

Not a very strong argument.

I say "it's the exception not the rule." Let's repeat ad infinitum.

jv

The Evil Chemist

unread,
Jan 25, 2003, 1:54:47 AM1/25/03
to
Endymion the Unfair! <disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> Sez you. So do the park police.

The park police never gave an estimate. They only reported the number that
was printied on the permit application for the march. This was stated in
one of the articles I posted to Nyx.

jv

The Evil Chemist

unread,
Jan 25, 2003, 1:50:17 AM1/25/03
to
Endymion the Unfair! <disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> What you seem to miss is that a few thousand slackers on the streets are not
> Bush's boss and not THE PEOPLE. THE PEOPLE went to the polls and elected
> him, now some people, mostly not the ones who voted for him or ever would
> vote for him, want him to change his policy.

The PEOPLE may have or may not have elected him, b/c of the crap in
FL. Frankly, in terms of absolute fairness. There should've ben a revote.
I know, I know, that would be too much work and we americans are all about
being lazy, regardless of how important it is like electing our fucking
leader, or killing people overseas.

In Article I, section 8 It says explicitly Congress has the power to
Declare War, not the president.

The United States does not have a dictator. The above
was written *explicitly* to check the power of the president.

When the policy of the president endagers the people & the country we have
every right to want him to change his policy. And you're right, he doesn't
have to listen, but every action and inaction carries with it
responsibility. If anything, I think the large protests will help bolster
support of his political adversaries and Bush can be voted out in 2004.

> Boo fucking hoo, grow up and

run out of arguments I see.

> realize that you have every right to protest but the rest of the country,
> including George W. Bush, likewise has every right to ignore you

of course. No one is denyng that. I know its tough trying to defend the
stuff you've been spoonfed. You never really have to think about it among
the other drones. "Agreeing with the President is PATRIOTIC" *glows in
Red, White & Blue*

After all, our govt is kind and benevolent. We should never question it's
legitimacy, especially when ethics come into play otherwise we'd be rebels
like those damned colonialists 227 years ago.

> All that bullshit does is end the discussion. If you think that you're too
> fucking naive and idiotic to be worth convincing.

It seems you're the naive one since you can't seem to formulate any sort
of cohesive argument why the US needs to preemptively attack a soverign
country b/c of a *fear* of *possible* use of weapons of mass destuction
that Iraq is *speculated* to have, when there's _No_Evidence_ and there is
an INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY, involved in finding these weapons We accuse
them to have. We brought up this crisis and we are the ones who are
ignoring peaceful means.

jv

The Evil Chemist

unread,
Jan 25, 2003, 2:14:41 AM1/25/03
to
Endymion the Unfair! <disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> The reason it's funny is the sheer hypocrisy of the antiwar movement. If
> Bush starts a war over oil or to improve the economy, that's greed and it's
> bad. But you people apparently think that if a war is bad for the economy,
> it shouldn't be fought regardless of any other reasons for fighting or not
> fighting.

Who are 'you' people?

This anti-war person believes killing of people and the destruction of
countries preemptively is a bad policy. I don't believe in economy over
ethics.

jv

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages