OT : Making money from Java
James J. Gavan
triggered this one in my mind.
If Java is FREE can somebody explain how Sun Microsystems makes its
money from the language ?
Jimmy
Donald Tees
They sue people.
Donald
James J. Gavan
Well let's say that's a less informative answer than that you use
Clarion. And the price for Clarion, or have you discovered a freebie ?
Jimmy
Oliver Wong
>>
>> If Java is FREE can somebody explain how Sun Microsystems makes its
>> money from the language ?
There's a pretty good discussion about this on a blog:
http://discuss.fogcreek.com/joelonsoftware5/default.asp?cmd=show&ixPost=158765
The conclusion is basically that they don't.
- Oliver
Stephen Gennard
connected products such as:
Java Dynamic Management Kit
1 license = $6,000.00 -
http://store.sun.com/CMTemplate/CEServlet?process=SunStore&cmdViewProduct_CP&catid=115668
Java Verified Trademark
1 license = $2,000.00 -
http://store.sun.com/CMTemplate/CEServlet?process=SunStore&cmdViewProduct_CP&catid=98722
Sun Java Studio Enterprise 8
1 license = $1,895.00 each -
http://store.sun.com/CMTemplate/CEServlet?process=SunStore&cmdViewProduct_CP&catid=140590
Sun Java System Application Server Enterprise Edition
1 license per CPU = $10,000.00 each -
http://store.sun.com/CMTemplate/CEServlet?process=SunStore&cmdViewProduct_CP&catid=126714
Sun Java Studio Creator
1 license = $99.00
http://store.sun.com/CMTemplate/CEServlet?process=SunStore&cmdViewProduct_CP&catid=115541
etc...
Then you could also get Sun's own hardware etc... etc...
--
Stephen
"James J. Gavan" <jgavande...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:C0tef.512281$1i.209224@pd7tw2no...
defaultuser
Which then leads to reciprocal deals.
IBM sells Websphere products
Sun says "Hey, make Websphere for Solaris"
Now Sun has their own products and other products pushing their own other
products....
For a better understanding read what Sun's COO has to say.
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/jonathan/20040712
DU
"Oliver Wong" <ow...@castortech.com> wrote in message
news:jxtef.113259$S4.69557@edtnps84...
Donald Tees
I work over the net, using PC-Anywhere on a high speed line. It is a
straight contract job, hourly rated. The customer owns all the software,
and it runs only on his machines. I do not have copies of any of the
developmental software, so the problem does not arise. PC-Anywhere cost
me $79, US. Clarion is a fairly expensive program, but I do not know the
price.
On my own machines, I have been trying out all sorts of stuff, all of it
either what I consider reasonable prices, or that I own valid copies of
from over the years. I spend about $1500 per year on new software of
various sorts, and get 10 or 15 products for that. I still do most of my
own work on my version 5.0 Fujitsu Cobol. I went to Fujitsu when MF went
to user fees, and I although I kept them current from Version 3 through
5, I stopped updating when they also got prohibitively expensive. The
upgrades after that were mainly for the net, and since that did not
apply, it struck me as a waste of money.
I still make money on that software, but it is reaching the point that I
have to decide whether to re-write or abandon. I wrote the skelton of
that system in the late 70's, to run on an Altos(using MF Cobol), so I
cannot complain, it's had a good run, but it's also had one too many
conversions. I maintain it using Fujitsu 5.
Which brings us to your answer.
Most of the companies that write "free" software make their money
writing software for a price. They really sell hours of programming time
directly to the person that wants the software written. That begs the
question "AND THE CUSTOMER ALLOWS THEM TO PUBLISH IT?" The answer is
yes. It is the only sensible way.
You know the value of a software library. A source code software
library. Would you rather write software using a source code library
that includes everything written by several million programmers, or
would you rather start from scratch, yourself?
If you put what you write back into the library, you earn the right to
use everything in the library in your own code. What is the most
sensible development route?
Last question. You want something written. The best thing in the open
software market is product x, and you have a copy that "sorta does what
you want". It comes 75% of the way, but does not do the job. Product X
is written by Company Y, who give it away free over the net. They are
are a contract programming firm, run by five programmers, all of whom
contract out at an hourly rate. Who do you hire to get it to where you
can use it?
They make their money the same way we do, by hiring out at hourly rates.
Donald
P.S. "they sue people" was a joke, and should have had a smiley. If you
do a net search on "Sun Lawsuit" I expect you will see it.
Donald
James J. Gavan
> Sun may not make money out of the Java SDK but it does make money out of
> connected products such as:
>
> Java Dynamic Management Kit
> 1 license = $6,000.00 -
> http://store.sun.com/CMTemplate/CEServlet?process=SunStore&cmdViewProduct_CP&catid=115668
>
> Java Verified Trademark
> 1 license = $2,000.00 -
> http://store.sun.com/CMTemplate/CEServlet?process=SunStore&cmdViewProduct_CP&catid=98722
>
> Sun Java Studio Enterprise 8
> 1 license = $1,895.00 each -
> http://store.sun.com/CMTemplate/CEServlet?process=SunStore&cmdViewProduct_CP&catid=140590
>
> Sun Java System Application Server Enterprise Edition
> 1 license per CPU = $10,000.00 each -
> http://store.sun.com/CMTemplate/CEServlet?process=SunStore&cmdViewProduct_CP&catid=126714
>
> Sun Java Studio Creator
> 1 license = $99.00
> http://store.sun.com/CMTemplate/CEServlet?process=SunStore&cmdViewProduct_CP&catid=115541
>
> etc...
>
> Then you could also get Sun's own hardware etc... etc...
Thanks Stepehn. You are a brick. Nobody really gives anything away for
free. As for Oliver's suggestion, I ain't going looking at blogs. The
one and only I took a cursory look at was Daniel's, (X-Li) where the
Democrats are villains and George is Saint Dubya :-)
PS: Did you take a shufti at the U of Surrey site just out of interest.
I see I mistakenly called it the U of Guildford, 'cos I lived there back
in '61 when first with Unigate.
Jimmy
James J. Gavan
> Also - companies like IBM licence Java from Sun
Thanks defazultuser.
Jimmy
LX-i
Consulting, certifications, training, and web traffic. :)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LX-i
> Thanks Stepehn. You are a brick. Nobody really gives anything away for
> free. As for Oliver's suggestion, I ain't going looking at blogs. The
> one and only I took a cursory look at was Daniel's, (X-Li) where the
> Democrats are villains and George is Saint Dubya :-)
heh - you oughta see the next one I'm working on...
Why "Price Gouging" is *Good* for the Economy
I was planning on writing it when Katrina first came through -
subsequent other pundits (whose job it is to write stuff) and
Congressional hearings have given me lots of sources now. :)
I haven't had much time *at all* to write stuff for it, though - my last
one was written when Cindy Sheehan was still new news. With 3 kids now,
school, work, etc., it's been challenging to find the time to write a
coherent post. My posts usually take a good hour or two to pull
together, and I usually need that time all in one chunk.
I'm honored that my blog holds a unique place in your experience... ;)
James J. Gavan
> James J. Gavan wrote:
>
>> Thanks Stepehn. You are a brick. Nobody really gives anything away for
>> free. As for Oliver's suggestion, I ain't going looking at blogs. The
>> one and only I took a cursory look at was Daniel's, (X-Li) where the
>> Democrats are villains and George is Saint Dubya :-)
>
>
> heh - you oughta see the next one I'm working on...
>
> Why "Price Gouging" is *Good* for the Economy
>
> I was planning on writing it when Katrina first came through -
> subsequent other pundits (whose job it is to write stuff) and
> Congressional hearings have given me lots of sources now. :)
>
> I haven't had much time *at all* to write stuff for it, though - my last
> one was written when Cindy Sheehan was still new news. With 3 kids now,
> school, work, etc., it's been challenging to find the time to write a
> coherent post. My posts usually take a good hour or two to pull
> together, and I usually need that time all in one chunk.
>
> I'm honored that my blog holds a unique place in your experience... ;)
>
advertisements on to youse bloggers' messages. They've already coined a
new word to convey blog spammer, but can't recollect it.
Cindy Sheehan - very, very vaguely sort of recall the name - spell out
the connection/background - might wake my memory cells up.
Saw my favourite Prez two nights ago on PBS, Charlie Rose interview.
Jimmy Carter; aging more of course, but still as bright as a button.
He's been very, very diplomatic up until now. But now he is quite blunt
- he doesn't care for Dubya and his White House coterie - specifically,
Rumsfeld and pals wanted to take a crack at Iraq regardless.
He, (Jimmy C.), personally agreed with George Senior not following
through from Kuwait into Iraq. I disagree. My feelings are that if Dad
had done that, his son wouldn't be in the incredible Middle East mess
that we now have. Worth reflecting we can thank his former Canuck speech
writer, (David Frum), for the 'Axis of Evil' phrase. That's why our
Iranian friends are now so keen to cozy up to the US.
Ironic that a Jewish speech writer should provide the ammo to assist an
anti-Zionist to get elected Iranian president.
Jimmy
docd...@panix.com
LX-i <lxi...@netscape.net> wrote:
[snip]
>With 3 kids now,
>school, work, etc., it's been challenging to find the time to write a
>coherent post.
Must... resist... cheap... shot... no... pull... too... strong... oh,
really? I hadn't noticed all that much change in your coherency (or lack
thereof)!
(sorry... next... time... will... try... to... stick... to... talking...
like... William... Shatner...)
DD
Michael Mattias
message news:dldtmj$gdp$1...@hyperion.microfocus.com...
> Sun may not make money out of the Java SDK but it does make money out of
> connected products such as:
>
Not exactly a new concept.
Over the many years of its existence Gillette has sponsored thousands of
'free razor' promotions.
But you've never seen a 'free razor *blades*' promotion , have you?
MCM
Judson McClendon
>
> Over the many years of its existence Gillette has sponsored thousands of
> 'free razor' promotions.
>
> But you've never seen a 'free razor *blades*' promotion , have you?
Inkjet printer companies are using similar marketing techniques these days.
Inkjet printers are dirt cheap, they even give them away with new PCs. But
ink cartridges cost an arm and a leg.
--
Judson McClendon ju...@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
James J. Gavan
> "Michael Mattias" <michael...@gte.net> wrote:
>
>>Over the many years of its existence Gillette has sponsored thousands of
>>'free razor' promotions.
>>
>>But you've never seen a 'free razor *blades*' promotion , have you?
>
>
>
> Inkjet printer companies are using similar marketing techniques these days.
> Inkjet printers are dirt cheap, they even give them away with new PCs. But
> ink cartridges cost an arm and a leg.
No they don't cost an arm and a leg - they cost a bloody fortune.
Have one of those HP all-in-one laser printer, fax, scan, photo-copy
etc. Nice piece of equipment. Still "liquid" cartridges though.
The Win 98 machine failed me so had to upgrade to a Win XP. Went to load
the CD driver for the HP - "No can do", they chirruped. "We've made too
many enhancements. Either download or get a fresh CD from us to
upgrade". I don't think a cost came into it. "Oh hell. I don't want to
jigger around". Part of the XP deal was a Lexmark laser, el cheapo for
$100. I'll go with that.
Soon found out I was starting to buy lots of cartridges. Wife's friend
in a messy divorce, moves out and in temporary apartment gets a low cost
XP. But she's not yet connected for e-mailing, Webbing. So I gallantly
offer to receive her e-mail. She's got a low-paying job with Hallmark,
"card-stuffer". Temps who go around retailers and replenish the Hallmark
stands with fresh cards.
Boy ! Are the Hallmark Area Manager and female supervisor switched on to
the niceties of computing. After every conceivable thought, they are out
e-mailing their some 30 card-stuffers with needed info and a lot of
irrelevant crap. So I print, with Preferences, back-to-back, in black
only and Low quality (Quick Print). Where I receive a threesome from
Hallmark I've gotten cute and copy the relevant text for all three into
Notepad and then print.
Regardless of what I do consumption on the cartridge is like feeding
strawberries to a bloody donkey ! We have small kiosks in the shopping
malls, franchises, which I bet started in the States. "Ink Jet Island"
or some such title. They do a roaring trade just doing refills, max of
two per cartridge; however let the original "ink" run too low and you
are SOL for a re-fill - doesn't work. (One tip though - if it's a 'good'
cartridge not currently working, gently put the bottom in booze like
vodka to soften up the "ink" - just touching booze, not immersed in it.
Then gently wipe off residue and give it a try, having firstly tried to
manually tap an imprint onto a spare piece of paper).
It's the local kiosk that wised me up. They consistently get complaints
from consumers about the cheapy printers - how quickly the "ink" is
exhausted. I didn't realize - Xerox - back in my accounting days 61'-'63
before becoming a systems analyst, for an office of some 200 people
(Accounts Receivable) we had ONE Xerox machine where you lined up and
could photo ONE copy. So much progression in computing, I thought the
Xerox approach was old hat. No so - there is a breed of printers that
use those Xerox-style powder cartridges. They cost a bit more, but the
'kiosk' said wait for a promotional flyer, when they are marked down.
Only snag, the initial cartridge for black powder comes at $200 a crack,
but last for .......... Well certainly longer than the damn things I'm
using. Haven't yet gone back and asked how they handle coloured powder
cartridges.
As for the "ink" cartridges, isn't it HP who do big sales in them ? Saw
an article couple of months back. Woman suing HP (?) for $zillions -
claiming they falsely advertise, (Print Progression Dialog), the
cartridge is low on "ink" when in fact it is still about 25% full.
When's that next sale in this part of the Great White North .....?
Jimmy, Calgary AB
LX-i
> Only read in the paper last night, there's now the ability to hang
> advertisements on to youse bloggers' messages. They've already coined a
> new word to convey blog spammer, but can't recollect it.
Heh - I'll put ads on my website when I lose my mind... As far as I
know, my personal blog will always be ad-free. They bug me - not *once*
have I seen one that made me think "oh - I was going to go _there_, but
now I think I'll go _here_!"
> Cindy Sheehan - very, very vaguely sort of recall the name - spell out
> the connection/background - might wake my memory cells up.
She was the mom whose son died in Iraq, and 1 1/2 years later, decided
to camp out just outside President Bush's Crawford, TX ranch, until he
would "meet with her". Seems as though she'd already met him, and was
quite amicable. Now, though, she's extremely anti-war. That's all well
and good, but I resented her painting her son as a victim. (It's all in
the currently "top" post at http://www.djs-consulting.com/personal -
don't want to veer too much more into political stuff in here.)
LX-i
> In article <60598$437a9c7b$45491c57$10...@KNOLOGY.NET>,
> LX-i <lxi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>With 3 kids now,
>>school, work, etc., it's been challenging to find the time to write a
>>coherent post.
>
>
> Must... resist... cheap... shot... no... pull... too... strong... oh,
> really? I hadn't noticed all that much change in your coherency (or lack
> thereof)!
Yeah - and that's just the stuff I actually posted. You ought to see
the stuff I *didn't* post... :)
> (sorry... next... time... will... try... to... stick... to... talking...
> like... William... Shatner...)
Durn it, doc, I'm a programmer, not a doctor!
LX-i
> "Michael Mattias" <michael...@gte.net> wrote:
>
>>Over the many years of its existence Gillette has sponsored thousands of
>>'free razor' promotions.
>>
>>But you've never seen a 'free razor *blades*' promotion , have you?
>
> Inkjet printer companies are using similar marketing techniques these days.
> Inkjet printers are dirt cheap, they even give them away with new PCs. But
> ink cartridges cost an arm and a leg.
Along those lines, we shopped cartridges, *then* got a printer. The HP
cartridges were almost $10 cheaper than Epson and Lexmark. And it's
printed great - my wife has even started making custom stationery with
it. :)
James J. Gavan
> James J. Gavan wrote:
>
>> the connection/background - might wake my memory cells up.
>
> She was the mom whose son died in Iraq, and 1 1/2 years later, decided
> to camp out just outside President Bush's Crawford, TX ranch, until he
> would "meet with her". Seems as though she'd already met him, and was
> quite amicable. Now, though, she's extremely anti-war. That's all well
> and good, but I resented her painting her son as a victim. (It's all in
> the currently "top" post at http://www.djs-consulting.com/personal -
> don't want to veer too much more into political stuff in here.)
>
Jimmy
defaultuser
news:osHef.215$i7....@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> "Michael Mattias" <michael...@gte.net> wrote:
>>
>> Over the many years of its existence Gillette has sponsored thousands of
>> 'free razor' promotions.
>>
>> But you've never seen a 'free razor *blades*' promotion , have you?
So technically it's not a promotion and Gillette is not happy, but still,
there they are :
http://www.freerazor.com/
> Inkjet printer companies are using similar marketing techniques these
> days. Inkjet printers are dirt cheap, they even give them away with new
> PCs. But ink cartridges cost an arm and a leg.
Funny thing is that most people don't realize that it actually ends up
cheaper to take your photos on cd to a photo processing lab to make decent
copies. The irony of people thinking they're saving money makes me feel
warm and fuzzy inside.
docd...@panix.com
LX-i <lxi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>docd...@panix.com wrote:
>> In article <60598$437a9c7b$45491c57$10...@KNOLOGY.NET>,
>> LX-i <lxi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>
>>>With 3 kids now,
>>>school, work, etc., it's been challenging to find the time to write a
>>>coherent post.
>>
>>
>> Must... resist... cheap... shot... no... pull... too... strong... oh,
>> really? I hadn't noticed all that much change in your coherency (or lack
>> thereof)!
>
>Yeah - and that's just the stuff I actually posted. You ought to see
>the stuff I *didn't* post... :)
Best left in the diapers/nappies, eh?
>
>> (sorry... next... time... will... try... to... stick... to... talking...
>> like... William... Shatner...)
>
>Durn it, doc, I'm a programmer, not a doctor!
I always heard those lines as 'I'm a doctor, not a physician!'
DD
docd...@panix.com
LX-i <lxi...@netscape.net> wrote:
[snip]
>Along those lines, we shopped cartridges, *then* got a printer.
I use http://www.printpal.com/ ... but I don't do so much printing that
I've discovered any inferior qualities to the product.
DD
Judson McClendon
>
> Funny thing is that most people don't realize that it actually ends up
> cheaper to take your photos on cd to a photo processing lab to make decent
> copies. The irony of people thinking they're saving money makes me feel
> warm and fuzzy inside.
Even cheaper is to upload the photos to a photo service. Here in the US, the
Wal-Mart price for 4"x6" prints is $.12 online and $.15 on CD.
--
HeyBub
"Give away the razor, sell the blades" marketing model has been replaced
with "Give away the phone, sell the minutes" mantra.
Gillette DID give away blades, though. When the company went to all
stainless blades, they had a warehouse in New Jersey full (millions upon
millions) of now-obsolete "Blue Blades." They hired a salvage company to
load hundreds of tons of razor blades on ocean-going barges for dumping at
sea.
In due course, the barge company reported "mission accomplished" and
collected their fee.
The barge company was mafia-controlled.
For several years Gillette wondered how drug stores and grocers up and down
the northeast could sell BlueBlades so cheaply.
LX-i
> "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
> news:osHef.215$i7....@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>
>>days. Inkjet printers are dirt cheap, they even give them away with new
>>PCs. But ink cartridges cost an arm and a leg.
>
> Funny thing is that most people don't realize that it actually ends up
> cheaper to take your photos on cd to a photo processing lab to make decent
> copies. The irony of people thinking they're saving money makes me feel
> warm and fuzzy inside.
See, if you went to work for one of those companies, you could feel all
warm and fuzzy inside *and* profit from it at the same time!
LX-i
He might have said that once or twice - I don't know, it's been so long
since I've seen them. I'd be surprised if some of the Original Series
isn't on DVD. Maybe when finally subscribe to Netflix, I can rent them
and watch again. :)
Waldek Hebisch
> It's Judson's thread about Micro Focus compiler fees/runtime which
> triggered this one in my mind.
>
> If Java is FREE can somebody explain how Sun Microsystems makes its
> money from the language ?
>
You should note that the word "free" has two meaning here:
1) can you get Java implementation free of charge?
2) can you do what you want with the implementation?
Sun Java is distributed free of charge, but is not free in the second
sense. In fact, the main motivation for Sun to distribute Java free of
charge is to have a platform which they (at least partially) control.
Namely, there is Java the language and Java Virtual Machine (JVM). JVM
is quite similar to an operationg system: it offers numer of services
to the running program. The program can not run if JVM services are
not present. Sun designed JVM to be "portable": JVM can run on multiple
processors and on top of various operationg systems. In effect, JVM
can serve as a portability layer, making underlying operationg system
irrelevant.
Why this matters for Sun: ATM about 90% desktop machines run operating
systems form Microsoft. Historically, Microsoft used its position as
operating system vendor to promote its own application (see for example
Netscape accusations). So a vendor either has to be independent of
Microsoft OS or risk unfair competition. Like all major software vendors
Sun can not just ignore 90% of desktop market. But JVM allows to be
independent of Microsoft and still deliver on Microsoft platforms. The
same problem affects other companes, so they teamed with Sun to promote
Java.
Now, for this tactic to be effective JVM has to be popular, so Sun is
willing to distribute copies free of charge. They (and other companies
too) distribute may development tools for Java free of charge, again
this is part of their tactic to make JVM popular.
Note that Sun retains much control over Java (they had exclusive control,
but gave up part of to to other companies). One example may be "native"
Java compilers: it makes perfect sense to compile Java program into
native executables. One can gain some speed in this way, but more important,
the program is then independent of JVM. In particular, native compiler
would allow small "standalone" Java executables (important if you want
to minimize dowload size and suspect that the recipient has no (or incorrect)
JVM). But you will not get such a beast from Sun: this goes against their
tactic.
To put thing in more general perspective: compilers are relatively small
programs, which require moderate amount of work to create. Namely, a toy
compiler can be built in a few days, small usable one in few months.
Mature compiler accumulates features (and code) over longer period so
it is more likely to represent few man years and industrial leader
may represent hundreds of man years. But the the law of diminishing
returns works strongly here: extra features take most of the effort.
OTOH compilers play pretty crucial way in software developement, so
there is motivation to create new ones.
Coming back to question of "free" software: the one who controls
software controls the society. Namely, quite a lot of things in
our life is controlled by software. For example, if a mailing program
does not allow a user to send e-mail to some address, it means that
the user can not send e-mail to this address. Of course, the user
may seek workarounds (for example use another program), but is
software in controlled by a single entity which deliberatly put some
limitation, then it may happen that there is no workaround and even
if there is one the control still may be quite effective. Also,
if software restricts information presented to the user, the
user may even not notice that the control is present.
Some people belive that ability to modify software is very important
for our freedom. One of the persons who quite early formulated
such view was Richard Stallman:
You may find ideas above controversial: some people strongly object the
very idea, other accept the idea but disagree with Stallman on many
details. But there is a number of people who volunteered their time to
write software motivated by the idea.
Note, that making _all_ software free would work against current
software houses. But part of Stallman's idea was peacefull coexistence
with closed-source software. So, free software can be used by
commercial companies as long as they do not try to turn it into non-free
software. In particular GNU C compiler was originally written by Stallman,
but now it contains many contribution from firms like IBM and Apple.
--
Waldek Hebisch
heb...@math.uni.wroc.pl
Alistair
with you whole-heartedly. We have people in the UK behaving much as CS
is in the US and their message appears to be "bring the boys home now".
Is it just me or do others feel that by withdrawing now then we will
disrespect the sacrifices made by servicemen already?
Alistair
Judson McClendon
I would prefer to deal with the terrorists with our military on their soil
than with our civilians on our soil. The U.S. came through two world wars
with our homeland virtually unscathed because the wars were (fortuitously
for us) fought mostly on the other guy's turf. Look at what happened to
Europe, Russia, China and Japan. It doesn't take a genius to see which way
is preferable. In fact, you have to be pretty stupid not to see it.
James J. Gavan
You comment is so enticing, that's why I *try* and stay away from
c.l.c., it becomes so time consuming. Yes I recently jumped back in,
particularly feeling for Judson on the 'Runtimes'. I read this thinking,
he's not been here for sometime, what pearls of wisdom is Alistair going
to drop into my lughole about Java - bugger all :-)
So very, very briefly on your question. INCREDIBLE IMPLICATIONS for the
US AND the Western World, no matter how this one turns out. You will
recall the Vietnam pullout - much loss of face for the US. But this time
around, the Islamists, particularly, will see that the WEST has lost
both credibility and will.
Wanna bet - it will NOT occur in the last two years of Dubya's tenure.
Perhaps not the next four years after, but some slight possibility it
*might* occur in the next four. While Judson likes the idea of playing
war games away from home, very sensible - it is no longer that simple.
Remembering nobody is officially at war - but having stirred the Islamic
hornets' nest we are in for a very long rough ride.
Guys, better get Dick Cheyney up here real quick to look at our oil
reserves. Funding is there, but there needs to be some positive shoving
on creating new pipelines. There's one route already goes south-east
from Calgary, across Canada, landing up in Bill Klein's backyard. No pun
intended, there's a pipedream - Alberta all the way to Texas.
What held us back was the sheer cost of extracting the oil from the
sand. Now at $50 plus per barrel it's viable - with a 400 years supply
for you folks.
(Alistair just told me a month ago, by an ex-Brit - want a new career -
the Tarsands oil companies are advertising in N. England for welders 50K
pounds sterling = $120,000 CDN. Not bad pickings for holding a lighted
torch. Dammit, even a dishwasher up there makes $60K - but probably
shells out $30K for rent to get at the extremely limited accommodation
). Distance-wise good 8-10 hours north of Calgary by car.
Remember, you don't just nip around to the nearest hardware store for a
bit of piping. Planning, land acquisition for the route, and
construction. At best a pipedream today is only going to turn into a
reality some ten years from now. That date might just dovetail into the
pullout date from Iraq - just when the US needs a new source for oil.
There was an incredibly interesting six-part series in the Calgary
Herald on the Athabasca Tarsands - full of statistics I can't remember,
$BILLIONS involved, treated like Monopoly money. Firstly they've
clarified now, second largest reserve behind Saudi Arabia, and the size
of Florida. Huge economic pay-offs, not just to Alberta but Eastern
Canada as well as the US. Down in the States Caterpillar maufactures the
HUGE Tonka toys they now use for scraping off just the top 25%; they
still have to devise the technology to get at the remainder. Note the
word 'scraping' - so we are scarring the area - so as well as pluses
there is the downside like environmental concerns.
Jimmy
LX-i
I guess that's directed at me. :) Finishing the job is the only way to
go. Which is worse - thinking your son died for a war you disagree
with, or that he died for nothing (which would be the net effect if we
left and the Iraqi democracy failed - I'm not sure that the former would
cause the latter, but it would be a lot better if we just stayed the
course until it's done).
Howard Brazee
>I guess that's directed at me. :) Finishing the job is the only way to
>go. Which is worse - thinking your son died for a war you disagree
>with, or that he died for nothing (which would be the net effect if we
>left and the Iraqi democracy failed - I'm not sure that the former would
>cause the latter, but it would be a lot better if we just stayed the
>course until it's done).
Most people who disagree with the war believe that the war will not
accomplish those goals. In this case, there is no "worse", as both
options are the same.
Judson McClendon
Neville Chamberlain was such a chap. Apparently there are a lot of people
who simply cannot understand that, as horrible as war is, it is sometimes
necessary to avoid something much worse. Thank God not everybody feels that
way, or the Sadams & Hitlers & Stalins of this world would have a perpetual
heyday. One of the reasons the world is as bad as it is, is that we don't
confront and deal with such people soon enough. Remember Rwanda, Kosovo and
scores of other atrocities? Too often the world stands by and watches while
innocent citizens are slaughtered. Now, when someone is finally trying to
deal with terrorists on a global scale, we hear this constant whining about
this or that problem. It makes me sick. Of course there are problems! We
live in an imperfect world; there are *always* problems. Since the dawn of
history, Mankind has made no significant effort, has accomplished no
significant thing, without mistakes and errors and frequent loss of life.
Even large civil engineering projects often cost lives, for Heaven's sake!
No matter what approach the US and our allies took toward dealing with
terrorists, there would be mistakes, problems and loss of life, because
major efforts made by human beings are always that way. Yet some people
stand critically aloof, acting and speaking as if *they* could fix the
terrorist problem with no mistakes, no failures, no loss of life. What
unbelievable, shortsighted, blind-to-self arrogance and lack of
understanding and honesty!
Any time people do bad things, other people suffer. And when those bad
people are brought to account, other people suffer then, too. When you
apprehend a criminal, he or she probably has loved ones out there who
suffer, and law enforcement people often suffer and die in the process. But
we must realize that it is not enforcement that is at fault, it is simply
another unavoidable consequence of the bad actions of the perpetrator.
Failure to prosecute criminals, either in law enforcement, or on a global
scale, is far worse in the long run than taking them out, whatever the cost.
The sooner you do it, the better. And no one since the beginning of time has
ever done it without error or without pain. Unfortunately, many people do
not understand these facts. But they are facts nonetheless, whatever people
choose to believe.
Peter Lacey
> Neville Chamberlain was such a chap. Apparently there are a lot of people
> who simply cannot understand that, as horrible as war is, it is sometimes
> necessary to avoid something much worse.
My father was there at the time. When Chamberlain came back from Munich
with his "Peace in our time" document, father said that all they felt
about it was cynicism. Anybody that thought about it knew they'd have
to take Hitler on sooner or later.
(Assuming that "Sun Valley" is the one in the US, then the following is
directed to you, Judson. If not, then my apologies).
And I'd remind you that it was promised in the States at the time that
they wouldn't get involved in war again; that a vast amount of public
opinion was prepared to let Europe go under and to deal with Hitler in a
business relationship; and it wasn't until Pearl Harbour that the US
went to war. There was precious little will in the US at the time to
get after Stalin or Hitler: only after the US's direct interests were
involved did the country wake up.
>Now, when someone is finally trying to
> deal with terrorists on a global scale, we hear this constant whining about
> this or that problem.
On a global scale? Iraq and Afghanistan? Neither of which had a hope
in hell of resisting a conventional armed attack .. global? Don't make
me barf.
Why not attack Saudi Arabia, where al-Qaida (sp) originates and is
supported? Why not North Korea, which does represent a definite threat
to world peace? Or even China, which over the long term will very
likely replace the US as THE global power?
> No matter what approach the US and our allies took toward dealing with
> terrorists, there would be mistakes, problems and loss of life, because
> major efforts made by human beings are always that way. Yet some people
> stand critically aloof, acting and speaking as if *they* could fix the
> terrorist problem with no mistakes, no failures, no loss of life. What
> unbelievable, shortsighted, blind-to-self arrogance and lack of
> understanding and honesty!
>
"If you want to make an omelette, you have to break eggs". All fine,
but suppose you had no business making an omelette in the first place?
Your president lied and quoted myths to justify his invasion of Iraq;
now he's making your country more and more fascist in order to keep
criticism under control. I certainly wouldn't want to live in a country
ruled by a Saddam, for sure, but I'd have to have run out of
alternatives before I'd want to live in a George Bush country.
pl
Richard
> with his "Peace in our time" document, father said that all they felt
> about it was cynicism. Anybody that thought about it knew they'd have
> to take Hitler on sooner or later.
Yes, but Chamberlain bought a year of time in which England brought
into production enough Spitfires and Hurricanes and trained enough
pilots to win the BofB when it came (while France had crippling strikes
in its plane and tank factories).
Judson McClendon
> Judson McClendon wrote:
>
>> Neville Chamberlain was such a chap. Apparently there are a lot of people
>> who simply cannot understand that, as horrible as war is, it is sometimes
>> necessary to avoid something much worse.
>
> My father was there at the time. When Chamberlain came back from Munich
> with his "Peace in our time" document, father said that all they felt
> about it was cynicism. Anybody that thought about it knew they'd have
> to take Hitler on sooner or later.
>
> (Assuming that "Sun Valley" is the one in the US, then the following is
> directed to you, Judson. If not, then my apologies).
>
> And I'd remind you that it was promised in the States at the time that
> they wouldn't get involved in war again; that a vast amount of public
> opinion was prepared to let Europe go under and to deal with Hitler in a
> business relationship; and it wasn't until Pearl Harbour that the US
> went to war. There was precious little will in the US at the time to
> get after Stalin or Hitler: only after the US's direct interests were
> involved did the country wake up.
You are quite correct. I was not trying to imply that the US has always been
on the right side of these issues. However, France and England could, and
should, have delt with Hitler much earlier, and much easier. After all he
was in their back yard. Their delays in dealing with Hitler cost millions of
lives.
>>Now, when someone is finally trying to
>> deal with terrorists on a global scale, we hear this constant whining
>> about
>> this or that problem.
>
> On a global scale? Iraq and Afghanistan? Neither of which had a hope
> in hell of resisting a conventional armed attack .. global? Don't make
> me barf.
Give me a break! You've got to start somewhere.
> Why not attack Saudi Arabia, where al-Qaida (sp) originates and is
> supported? Why not North Korea, which does represent a definite threat
> to world peace? Or even China, which over the long term will very
> likely replace the US as THE global power?
Good questions. As I said, these things never proceed perfectly. All we can
expect of any leader is that they do their best, and we must realize they
will never will be perfect. In my personal opinion, Bush is doing his best
to do exactly what he said he would.
>> No matter what approach the US and our allies took toward dealing with
>> terrorists, there would be mistakes, problems and loss of life, because
>> major efforts made by human beings are always that way. Yet some people
>> stand critically aloof, acting and speaking as if *they* could fix the
>> terrorist problem with no mistakes, no failures, no loss of life. What
>> unbelievable, shortsighted, blind-to-self arrogance and lack of
>> understanding and honesty!
>
> "If you want to make an omelette, you have to break eggs". All fine,
> but suppose you had no business making an omelette in the first place?
Not sure exactly what you mean by "had no business." But we have 3,000 dead
citizens that gives us the right make sure it does not happen again, to the
best of our ability.
> Your president lied and quoted myths to justify his invasion of Iraq;
Bush was going on the same intelligence that England and a number of other
countries had, and they agreed with him at the time. Now you nit pickers
want to make him out a liar because the intelligence was flawed. Hear this:
Intelligence like that is *always* flawed. The US was in posession of
intelligence before Pearl Harbor that showed Japan was going to attack. The
problem is, there were literally thousands of other intelligence items, and
the entire picture wasn't that clear, to Roosevelt at the time. Like I
said - the world is imperfect. Get used to it.
> now he's making your country more and more fascist in order to keep
> criticism under control. I certainly wouldn't want to live in a country
> ruled by a Saddam, for sure, but I'd have to have run out of
> alternatives before I'd want to live in a George Bush country.
Great, stay where you are. We have plenty of nay-sayers and nit pickers here
already. :-)
Judson McClendon
And had England and/or France confronted Hitler when he first started
breaking the Armistice agreements from WWI, it would have nipped the whole
thing in the bud and saved millions of lives. Better late than never, but
better sooner than later.
James J. Gavan
> Judson McClendon wrote:
>
> "If you want to make an omelette, you have to break eggs". All fine,
> but suppose you had no business making an omelette in the first place?
> Your president lied and quoted myths to justify his invasion of Iraq;
> now he's making your country more and more fascist in order to keep
> criticism under control. I certainly wouldn't want to live in a country
> ruled by a Saddam, for sure, but I'd have to have run out of
> alternatives before I'd want to live in a George Bush country.
>
there's me buddy above, a Canuck located in Winterpeg, Manitoba I think.
And he's the one who quipped to me in a private e-mail, "You're too
close to 'em to be making those comments :-)". Well Peter, better start
looking, see if there's a plot going for sale on a reservation further
up North.
And with due deference to our friends south of the 49th, I pointedly
make an attempt to spell it 'Pearl Harbor'.
I know both Judson and Daniel have their hearts in the right place
- I'll type a quote, from what I thought was a very unlikely source.
Stay tuned.
Jimmy
James J. Gavan
deliberately. He was an honest man, probably already suffering initial
stages of cancer, but he was no match for the thugs he met at
Berchesgarten. Difficult to gage his cabinet but Winston didn't just
walk into the premiership. Seems initial choice was Lord Halifax the
Foreign Minister who would have done a 'quisling' like Petain in France
or Quisling himself in Norway.
Watch me make this thread really go off at a tangent. I dislike
intensely the word GAGE above. Amongst other things the Mozilla American
English spellchecker is always changing my words, creating absolute
confusion in my mind. I really must download the English English
spellchecker. I checked the OED small edition and 'GAGE' and 'GUAGE'
have entirely different meanings - and 'gage' is not what I'm on about.
So you linguistic afficianados - Chuck and Bill both being prime
candidates - go for it !
Jimmy
James J. Gavan
> You are quite correct. I was not trying to imply that the US has always been
> on the right side of these issues. However, France and England could, and
> should, have delt with Hitler much earlier, and much easier. After all he
> was in their back yard. Their delays in dealing with Hitler cost millions of
> lives.
You are quite correct too. But you must remember that in the Britain of
the Thirties there was only one lonely voice in the wilderness who truly
comprehended, and his 'lectures' in the House of Commons went unheeded,
or were scoffed at - Winston Churchill.
>>On a global scale? Iraq and Afghanistan? Neither of which had a hope
>>in hell of resisting a conventional armed attack .. global? Don't make
>>me barf.
>
>
> Give me a break! You've got to start somewhere.
Who was it took over from my favourtie guy Jimmy C - Ronald Reagan. If
you really wanted to start somewhere, howz about Persia/Iran. I think
life might perhaps have been a little simpler now.
Jimmy
Judson McClendon
You may be right. I try to remember that we common folk just aren't privy to
all the intelligence, by a long shot. Those decisions are probably a lot
more difficult to make from where the President of the US sits. I can only
imagine the thousands of pieces of information on a truly vast panorama of
issues that must be presented to Bush and other leaders for assimilation.
It's pretty obvious to me that, unless something unexpected happens, we're
going to have to take on Iran, and maybe North Korea, eventually. Hopefully
the new democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq will flourish, and the citizens
of other Middle Eastern countries will fix their own governments as well.
Much better than having to take governments down militarily. I fear that
China and Russia will not put enough pressure on North Korea to get them to
abandon their nuclear program, because they like NK being a thorn in the
sides of the US, Taiwan and Japan. The Iranian government is fanatical and
oppressive buy any standard, but KIM Jong Il is well and truly nuts. God
help us if any of these maniacs start throwing nukes.
Don't know if you knew, or maybe forgot, but your buddy Jimmy C made it
Official US Government Policy that the US *would* resort to nukes, if
necessary to protect our access to the oil fields in the Middle East. At the
time, there was great concern that the USSR would make a grab for them, and
Carter was trying to head that off.
Richard
> breaking the Armistice agreements from WWI, it would have nipped the whole
> thing in the bud and saved millions of lives. Better late than never, but
> better sooner than later.
That is unlikely to be true. WWII did not start in 1939 or 1941 but
much earlier for example in Spain in 1936 and China in the early 30s.
Intervening more forcefully against Germany would merely have escalated
the war earlier before England was ready (France was never ready). As
it happens America blockading Japan's oil shipments in 1940 simply
brought forward the date when Japan and USA clashed to December 1941
and did not 'nip in the bud' Japanese expansion plans.
Chuck Stevens
"James J. Gavan" <jgavande...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Yk4jf.649505$oW2.279421@pd7tw1no...
> Watch me make this thread really go off at a tangent. I dislike intensely
> the word GAGE above. Amongst other things the Mozilla American English
> spellchecker is always changing my words, creating absolute confusion in
> my mind. I really must download the English English spellchecker. I
> checked the OED small edition and 'GAGE' and 'GUAGE' have entirely
> different meanings - and 'gage' is not what I'm on about. So you
> linguistic afficianados - Chuck and Bill both being prime candidates - go
> for it !
Well, hey. Far be it from me to turn down a linguistics question.
Webster's Ninth Collegiate lists "gage" in this context simply as "var of
gauge". I agree, and prefer "gauge" as I do most primary spellings over
alternatives and variants. I never use "gage" in any of the other senses
that that dictionary lists.
Now, as to "guage", I'll have to rely on your citation of the OED (small or
great) for that one. The same Webster's Ninth has nothing between
"guacharo" and "guaiac". ;-)
-Chuck Stevens
Judson McClendon
I just remembered once driving by the Peanut Farmer's house in the
neighboring state of Georgia. My Mom an Dad really liked Carter, and I took
them by. This was either while, or shortly after, he was in office, and
there were obvious security emplacements around. Difficult place to secure,
because the house was not far back from the road.
James J. Gavan
> Alistair wrote:
>
>> Just read your blog about Cindy Sheehan (that's two of us now). I agree
>> with you whole-heartedly. We have people in the UK behaving much as CS
>> is in the US and their message appears to be "bring the boys home now".
>> Is it just me or do others feel that by withdrawing now then we will
>> disrespect the sacrifices made by servicemen already?
>>
>
> I guess that's directed at me. :) Finishing the job is the only way to
> go. Which is worse - thinking your son died for a war you disagree
> with, or that he died for nothing (which would be the net effect if we
> left and the Iraqi democracy failed - I'm not sure that the former would
> cause the latter, but it would be a lot better if we just stayed the
> course until it's done).
>
There was a time when Britain could boastfully claim, "The sun never
sets on the British Empire"; pick up a globe of the world and so much of
it was painted in pink. What is related below occurred during the last
death throes of colonialism and although still living in the UK at the
time, I've totally forgotten the sequence of events. Whether the author
is correct in his comparisons, I just don't know.
Food for thought :-
..............................
"It has become fashionable to remark that Iraq is turning into another
Vietnam. No so. It is fundamentally different from that jungle-clothed
country with its communist-led and united resistance. But is it looking
remarkably like colonial Aden and what happened there. Consider the
similarities.
- British occupying Aden against wishes of 90% of Arab people whose
hellhole it properly was (ditto Iraq)
- The resistance were divided into two movements FLOSY and FLN, who
loathed each other but could unite against us (ditto Iraq)
- Whole areas of city of Aden and hinterland off-limits and visitable
only in armoured columns (ditto)
- Insurrectionists made plain once we were gone they would takeover and
have a civil war (ditto and happened in case of Aden)
- Collaborators with us occupiers existed only in boltholes protected by
us (ditto)
- Collaborators realizing they were dead if/when we left, began
vaporising either changing sides or getting out (ditto)
- We claimed we would hand it all over when they had a
democratically-elected government (ditto)
- British-trained native police completely infiltrated and wholly
unreliable (ditto)
- The steady loss of our servicemen to no apparent purpose , except to
save politicians' faces, sapped morale and empowered rising criticism at
home (ditto)
- Finally British Establishment, never the sharpest knives in the
cutlery drawer, asked the same question everyone else had been asking
for the past two years: "What exactly are we dong there?" (Not yet, but
soon)....
....When we finally left Aden in '67 our rearguard practically had to
fight its way off the dock as the wolves emerged from their alleys....
We simply have to face three questions over Iraq and stop ducking :-
1 - Is the situation getting steadily better, or steadily worse ? Only
Iraqi/Anglo/Yankee politicians say the former. Every detached observer
says the reverse.
2 - Iraq is a Muslim country. Occupation by Christians, even to keep the
peace, is offensive. Would a multi-ethnic peacekeeping force. drawn from
Islam, under the sign of the crescent and with considerable economic
help, (cheap at the price), not do better ?
3 - Do we really need Iraqi crude oil ? Our only future is to be free of
hydrocarbons fuels.... ( then he makes a play for nuclear power - which
gives me a touch of the shudders).... The 100th British soldier will
come home in a coffin soon. Time to start thinking of alternatives and a
real timed exit strategy.
............
I think you have already hit your 2,000th mark in the States ?
Above, are those the meanderings of a 'bleeding heart' left-wing leaning
Liberal or perhaps from the pen of a strident Socialist screaming "Love
not War !". Not so. Page Down.
Published in the very right-wing tabloid 'International Express' by a
conservative columnist - in fact a right-wing conservative. He spews
blood each time he puts the following letters to paper : Tony Blair. And
the author is not unknown, he wrote the novel 'Day of the Jackal' -
Frederick Forsyth.
Jimmy
Judson McClendon
When Hitler first began to expand Germany's military, shortly after grabbing
power in 1933, it would have been fairly easy for England or France to have
stopped him, even with military intervention, if necessary. Better military
intervention in 1933-34 than full scale war in 1939-45. Japan was a
different - the US was simply not in position to impose its will entirely on
Japan in 1940, or the early 30's. Japan was too far away and the US did not
have the military resources in the Pacific to back it up. But England and
France sure could have done so to Germany in 1933-34, because Germany was
not in position to defend itself, until after Hitler's military buildup had
progressed.
Surely you aren't trying to suggest it was better to wait until after
Germany invaded Poland? Even then, England and France didn't really do much
except get ready, until Germany invaded France.
Chuck Stevens
"James J. Gavan" <jgavande...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:EF5jf.652377$1i.549767@pd7tw2no...
> 3 - Do we really need Iraqi crude oil ?
Well, it's not just Iraqi crude oil. I remember a few little fires in
Kuwait, and thus, I'd be inclined to think it's Kuwaiti, Iranian, Arabian
and Syrian crude oil that need to be counted in the Iraq equation.
> Our only future is to be free of hydrocarbons fuels....
Ultimately I think that's true, and I think that future is virtually if not
completely unattainable in any effective timeframe.
Whether that means, or forms a component of, the End of the World As We Know
It remains to be seen; I know many who seem to think so, and are girding
themselves for the Great Destruction. But that gets us off into
theology-land, and I'd rather not spend a whole lot of energy there in this
forum. My personal view is that if it is, it is, and nothing we do
individually or collectively will do anything effective to prevent it.
-Chuck Stevens
Richard
> stopped him, even with military intervention,
Both had been demilitarising since 1918 and had no forces or equipment
usable for such an endeavour even if the public would have supported it
which was unlikely.
> Surely you aren't trying to suggest it was better to wait until after
> Germany invaded Poland? Even then, England and France didn't really do much
> except get ready, until Germany invaded France.
It was not just 'better' it was essential. France never did manage to
'get ready' which is why they were overrun. France had an 'empty
generation' from WWI which meant that in the early 30s they had a
shortage of people of an age that would form an army or work the
factories. Even in 39 or 40 they couldn't get enough men for either.
Judson McClendon
> Daniel and Judson,
>
> There was a time when Britain could boastfully claim, "The sun never sets
> on the British Empire"; pick up a globe of the world and so much of it was
> painted in pink. What is related below occurred during the last death
> throes of colonialism and although still living in the UK at the time,
> I've totally forgotten the sequence of events. Whether the author is
> correct in his comparisons, I just don't know.
He is way off target, Jimmy. Most of the Iraqis are happy the US is there,
and most of the terrorists are from other countries. Remember, they are
bombing Iraqi hospitals and other innocent civilians too, and the Iraqis
don't like that any better than we would. Among my network of friends are a
number of serviceman serving in Iraq, and they tell an *entirely* different
story than the leftist news media. Did you know that in numerous surveys
over the years, something like 98% if the people in the US news media vote
Democrat (liberal)? Talk about biased! And foreign (non US) news media are
even worse, particularly in Europe. Europeans, unless they get Fox News,
never, ever get to hear the positive things going on in Iraq, like the
extensive progress we have made in rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure. And
because Fox News is virtually alone out there, Europeans think they are
brainwashed. And Fox News isn't even conservative, they're really pretty
neutral. Here in the US, Fox News trounces every other cable news service,
combined.
> Food for thought :-
>
> "It has become fashionable to remark that Iraq is turning into another
> Vietnam. No so. It is fundamentally different from that jungle-clothed
> country with its communist-led and united resistance. But is it looking
> remarkably like colonial Aden and what happened there. Consider the
> similarities.
>
> - British occupying Aden against wishes of 90% of Arab people whose
> hellhole it properly was (ditto Iraq)
This is a plain lie, as I said above. The majority of Iraqi citizens want us
there, until the job is done.
> - The resistance were divided into two movements FLOSY and FLN, who
> loathed each other but could unite against us (ditto Iraq)
It isn't mostly Iraqis who are attacking us there. The terrorists,
particularly the inciters, mostly come from other countries.
> - Whole areas of city of Aden and hinterland off-limits and visitable only
> in armoured columns (ditto)
Whole areas of Iraq aren't having these problems, too. You never hear about
them in the media.
> 1 - Is the situation getting steadily better, or steadily worse ? Only
> Iraqi/Anglo/Yankee politicians say the former. Every detached observer
> says the reverse.
This is another outright lie. I know lots of sources, there on the ground,
who insist we are making very good progress in lots of areas. Yes, we
continue to have attacks, but these kind of attacks were far, far worse
against occupation forces in Europe after WWII, and lasted for years. People
like to forget that little detail. And the terrorist attacks aren't
everything that's going on over there. Didn't these same people say there
wouldn't be an election in Afghanistan, then that there wouldn't be one in
Iraq. At some point it becomes obvious these people wouldn't see 'better' if
it came up and bit them.
> 2 - Iraq is a Muslim country. Occupation by Christians, even to keep the
> peace, is offensive. Would a multi-ethnic peacekeeping force. drawn from
> Islam, under the sign of the crescent and with considerable economic help,
> (cheap at the price), not do better ?
Iraq isn't Iran. There was never in recent times the religious fanatacism in
Iraq that we've seen in e.g. Iran. Most of the fanaticism we see in Iraq is
imported from Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. BTW - much of the population of Iran,
and for some reason, especially the younger people, really like the US. It
is the ruling Mulas, not the general population, who so hate the US. I
gurantee you won't hear that in the European media!
> 3 - Do we really need Iraqi crude oil ? Our only future is to be free of
> hydrocarbons fuels.... ( then he makes a play for nuclear power - which
> gives me a touch of the shudders).... The 100th British soldier will come
> home in a coffin soon. Time to start thinking of alternatives and a real
> timed exit strategy.
Duh! It's not about the oil, it's about making sure the US or anybody else
doesn't see another 9/11.
> Above, are those the meanderings of a 'bleeding heart' left-wing leaning
> Liberal or perhaps from the pen of a strident Socialist screaming "Love
> not War !". Not so. Page Down.
>
> Published in the very right-wing tabloid 'International Express' by a
> conservative columnist - in fact a right-wing conservative. He spews blood
> each time he puts the following letters to paper : Tony Blair. And the
> author is not unknown, he wrote the novel 'Day of the Jackal' - Frederick
> Forsyth.
Then he's been listening too much to the left wing liberal media, or he's a
pacifist. In this area, he is poorly informed. :-)
Peter Lacey
>
> Watch me make this thread really go off at a tangent. I dislike
> intensely the word GAGE above. Amongst other things the Mozilla American
> English spellchecker is always changing my words, creating absolute
> confusion in my mind. I really must download the English English
> spellchecker. I checked the OED small edition and 'GAGE' and 'GUAGE'
> have entirely different meanings - and 'gage' is not what I'm on about.
> So you linguistic afficianados - Chuck and Bill both being prime
> candidates - go for it !
>
> Jimmy
I have a 1958 US dictionary: it says that "gage" means a pledge to fight
or a challenge; or a pledge, period; also an alternative spelling for
gauge. Seems to me it's also a peach or a pear or something.
Can't you stop your spell checker changing things? I don't allow my
servants that much liberty!
PL
Richard
Did I mention that my grandfather was presented a lion skin cape by Ras
Tafari when the latter visited Aden in 1922.
Peter Lacey
>! And foreign (non US) news media are
> even worse, particularly in Europe. Europeans, unless they get Fox News,
> never, ever get to hear the positive things going on in Iraq, like the
> extensive progress we have made in rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure. And
> because Fox News is virtually alone out there, Europeans think they are
> brainwashed. And Fox News isn't even conservative, they're really pretty
> neutral. Here in the US, Fox News trounces every other cable news service,
> combined.
And unless US citizens watch or otherwise get their news from other
countries' news services, particularly the BBC, they won't get truthful
reporting. That long-necked blonde woman - Barbara someone? - who
appears on Fox - perfectly happy making things up and stating them as
news. Ask her the names of the 10,000 Canadians who (according to her)
served in Vietnam. If Fox is neutral - how is it that people
interviewed who don't agree with that bombastic idiot (can't remember
his name) who is the most famous Fox interviewer get told to shut up or
actually have their mike switched off? Judson, you yourself need to get
out and hear it from other sources.
>
> > 1 - Is the situation getting steadily better, or steadily worse ? Only
> > Iraqi/Anglo/Yankee politicians say the former. Every detached observer
> > says the reverse.
>
> This is another outright lie. I know lots of sources, there on the ground,
> who insist we are making very good progress in lots of areas.
Well, they would, wouldn't they? Are you saying that "every detached
observer" is lying, or that the statement "Every detached observer says
the reverse" is a lie? 'Cause it ain't.
>
> > 2 - Iraq is a Muslim country. Occupation by Christians, even to keep the
> > peace, is offensive. Would a multi-ethnic peacekeeping force. drawn from
> > Islam, under the sign of the crescent and with considerable economic help,
> > (cheap at the price), not do better ?
>
> Iraq isn't Iran. There was never in recent times the religious fanatacism in
> Iraq that we've seen in e.g. Iran. Most of the fanaticism we see in Iraq is
> imported from Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. BTW - much of the population of Iran,
> and for some reason, especially the younger people, really like the US. It
> is the ruling Mulas, not the general population, who so hate the US. I
> gurantee you won't hear that in the European media!
You haven't answered the question!
>
> Duh! It's not about the oil, it's about making sure the US or anybody else
> doesn't see another 9/11.
Duh! >>NO<< country can protect itself against another 9/11 unless it
keeps all its citizens under lock and key. >>NO<< security is proof
against sufficiently determined terrorists.
> > Published in the very right-wing tabloid 'International Express' by a
> > conservative columnist - in fact a right-wing conservative. He spews blood
> > each time he puts the following letters to paper : Tony Blair. And the
> > author is not unknown, he wrote the novel 'Day of the Jackal' - Frederick
> > Forsyth.
>
> Then he's been listening too much to the left wing liberal media, or he's a
> pacifist. In this area, he is poorly informed. :-)
Well, if you truly believe that, then there is no point in discussing
anything with you. The right-wing media have completely taken over your
thought processes.
PL
Judson McClendon
>
> Duh! >>NO<< country can protect itself against another 9/11 unless it
> keeps all its citizens under lock and key. >>NO<< security is proof
> against sufficiently determined terrorists.
So, just give up, eh? We can't *absolutely guarantee* we will not have
another terrorist attack, so any attempt to defend ourselves is futile.
Defeatism at its best.
You may not have noticed, but problems do get solved sometimes, even very
difficult ones. And sometimes they get solved by war. But never, ever, ever
are they solved by the kind of attitude you express above. Never. :-)
Donald Tees
What astonishes me, Judson, is that you seem to be espousing a complete
rejection of rule by law, and establishing instead a rule by armed
might. Somehow, that does not seem like you, nor United States public
opinion to me.
There is no doubt in my mind that the world needs a court of law, and a
set of laws that we can not only live under, but can actually result in
peace. Somehow, I do not think vigilantism, no matter how motivated, is
the answer.
By rejecting all calls for a world set of laws and a world set of courts
with troops to back them up, and insisting instead that an american
president be the sole adjudicator of all police action for the rest of
the world, the USA is begging to be told "no" by all, and to my mind,
rightly so.
Your patriotism act is downright scary. You are allowing your president
to do anything in the world to anybody in the world who is not a US
citizen, and to do things to citizens that would have been unheard of 10
years ago. You are espousing the complete break-down of law, and a
return to the rule of emperor.
There is a difference between saving the world from evil and conquering
for your own good.
Donald
James J. Gavan
Wont even attempt a comment on previous - you are a believer.
>>>Published in the very right-wing tabloid 'International Express' by a
>>conservative columnist - in fact a right-wing conservative. He spews blood
>>each time he puts the following letters to paper : Tony Blair. And the
>>author is not unknown, he wrote the novel 'Day of the Jackal' - Frederick
>>Forsyth.
>
>
> Then he's been listening too much to the left wing liberal media, or he's a
> pacifist. In this area, he is poorly informed. :-)
You couldn't be more wrong about him. Already vitriolic about Socialism,
(a novelist who hit it big time and plays the country gentleman on his
own estate), he has as much contempt for John Major, Maggie's successor,
as he does Tony Blair. Now Maggie, there's his gal - go give it to them
girl ! He ain't no pacifist.
Whether you accept or reject his individual statements, as a
Conservative, this is one I would have thought would support the
fellow-right ideas of Republicans. He thinks you are dead wrong.
Jimmy
James J. Gavan
James J. Gavan
>
> And unless US citizens watch or otherwise get their news from other
> countries' news services, particularly the BBC, they won't get truthful
> reporting. That long-necked blonde woman - Barbara someone? - who
> appears on Fox - perfectly happy making things up and stating them as
> news. Ask her the names of the 10,000 Canadians who (according to her)
> served in Vietnam. If Fox is neutral - how is it that people
> interviewed who don't agree with that bombastic idiot (can't remember
> his name) who is the most famous Fox interviewer get told to shut up or
> actually have their mike switched off? Judson, you yourself need to get
> out and hear it from other sources.
Oh Peter. Don't watch it often, but obviously you were tuned into the
same one as me on the 'Passionae Eye'. I'm with Peter on this one
Judson, said blonde bitch made such a statement about VN (not sure about
the numbers though). Interviewer was up on his history, said "No, I
don't think so...". She promised to get back to him - never did.
Similarly the asshole Peter is talking about, and an American-Irish
asshole at that, refused to be interviewed for the program, although
from clips from Fox his style is to tell 'guests' "SHUT UP !". Wouldn't
be interviewed on camera but took accusing shots on Fox at the
'Passionate Eye' that wanted to interview him.
You are severely duped about Fox. Peter mentioned BBC World News - you
really should tune in - even if you don't want to believe them. Roughly
a couple of weeks back, up came the American myth, "God, country and the
flag. Everybody can become a Rockefeller'. A survey was done by some
European-based economic think-tank. I know you aren't going to believe
it, and the statement has no political content. 'You stand more chance
in the rest of the world, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps from
the guttter and making something of yourself, than you could ever hope
to do in the U.S. of A.". Well I suppose Sudan and Darfur might not rank
as high as USA in the league table.
>>Then he's been listening too much to the left wing liberal media, or he's a
>>pacifist. In this area, he is poorly informed. :-)
>
>
> Well, if you truly believe that, then there is no point in discussing
> anything with you. The right-wing media have completely taken over your
> thought processes.
Amen to very last comment.
Get this real straight Judson. We Canucks don't hate you; in fact many
look kindly towards the States. But we do despair of your political
thinking as a nation. And we really aren't thrilled about NAFTA - which
is a set of initials for 'Play it the American way, or don't play at all'.
Jimmy
Pete Dashwood
"Richard" <rip...@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1133310602....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
remain nameless. Through her, I met the nobleman himself. The old boy,
having fought in France in World War I, shared my general low opinion of
things French (don't ask... and don't start me. It is fair enough I state my
bias up front...), and remarked to me once: "You know the trouble with the
bloody French? They'll fight to the last Englishman..."
I'm getting mellower in my old age and actually bought some French champagne
the other day. It isn't good to carry grudges :-).
Pete.
docd...@panix.com
Judson McClendon <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>"Richard" <rip...@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>>> When Chamberlain came back from Munich
>>> with his "Peace in our time" document, father said that all they felt
>>> about it was cynicism. Anybody that thought about it knew they'd have
>>> to take Hitler on sooner or later.
>>
>> Yes, but Chamberlain bought a year of time in which England brought
>> into production enough Spitfires and Hurricanes and trained enough
>> pilots to win the BofB when it came (while France had crippling strikes
>> in its plane and tank factories).
>
>
>And had England and/or France confronted Hitler when he first started
>breaking the Armistice agreements from WWI, it would have nipped the whole
>thing in the bud and saved millions of lives. Better late than never, but
>better sooner than later.
Mr McClendon, Mr Plinston presents what appears to be a fact (in the
radical sense of 'factum', a done thing) and your response employs a past
subjunctive ('were they to have').
Had my Sainted Paternal Grandmother - may she sleep with the angels -
wheels she would have been a trolley-car; in the cardgames of historical
analysis shoulda/woulda/coulda are frequently trumped by 'did'.
DD
Judson McClendon
I am not suggesting that, Donald. The WWI Armistice that Germany signed
permitted England and France (and the US) to restrict Germany from building
their military. And Germany was breaking that agreement building up their
military. So the Allies *would* have been acting under legal, international
agreement tohave stopped Hitler in 1933-34.
> There is no doubt in my mind that the world needs a court of law, and a
> set of laws that we can not only live under, but can actually result in
> peace. Somehow, I do not think vigilantism, no matter how motivated, is
> the answer.
Well, I have serious problems with international law, but for other reasons
that I won't discuss here. But beyond that, for any legal system to be
accepted it must work and do what it is supposed todo. International courts
have been moderatly successful for petty things like banking or fishing
rights. But when it comes to dealing with dangerous tyrants and terrorists,
the international bodies are worse than useless. No government could, or
should, stand by and permit its citizens to be killed by the thousands
without doing whatever is necessary to prevent it. A government's *first*
responsibility is to protect the lives, property and freedom of its
citizens.
> By rejecting all calls for a world set of laws and a world set of courts
> with troops to back them up, and insisting instead that an american
> president be the sole adjudicator of all police action for the rest of
> the world, the USA is begging to be told "no" by all, and to my mind,
> rightly so.
Donald, now you surprise me. For a person as intelligent as yourself, how
can it not be obvious to you that, for purposes of stemming terrorism and
dealing with mass murders, the United Nations has been entirely ineffective.
We're talking life and death here; what happened on 9/11 was no joke. Please
do not expect a nation who is in dire danger *right now* to wait for years,
or forever, for countries like France to decide we need protecting. Believe
me, that *is not* going to happen. It *should not* happen. When someone
starts killing US citizens by the thousands on US soil, there *will* be
something done about it. The UN sat for months with countries who should
have been our allies doing everything in their power to block any progress
toward dealing with this deadly and imminent threat. That situation should
have been unacceptable for any nation. It is unacceptable for the US people.
For someone like yourself to not understand that just blows my mind. If the
same thing happened to Canada, England, or even France, the US would be the
first to support their efforts to get something done. First in the UN, but
certainly by other means if necessary. And we would be there laying our
lives and resources on the line to help, not sitting on the wayside taking
potshots at them for doing something about it. This issue would *never* have
been solved by the UN as it is right now. As Bush clearly pointed out in his
address to Congress after 9/11, solving the terrorism problem may take
generations. And with the UN sitting on its hands, if no one else acted, it
would never be solved.
> Your patriotism act is downright scary. You are allowing your president
> to do anything in the world to anybody in the world who is not a US
> citizen, and to do things to citizens that would have been unheard of 10
> years ago. You are espousing the complete break-down of law, and a
> return to the rule of emperor.
Such comments are fine from someone sitting in their living room having a
quiet discussion, with no imminent threat. But in times of war, and this is
a war, countries all through history have done such things. In war, civil
liberties are always abridged to some degree. It is an unfortunate but
necessary thing in wartime. But you can believe that there are forces in the
US that will make sure these things are watched very carefully, and that the
laws will be changed again when the need is no longer imminent. The American
people are not about to start tolerating an oppressive government, you can
be sure of that, too. Again, I am surprised at you. and the rest of the
world, for being so alarmist on this.
> There is a difference between saving the world from evil and conquering
> for your own good.
We're conquering for our and others' defense in a war against terrorism.
Period.
You continue to surprise me, Donald. Do you really think the American people
have an interest in imperialist conquest? We could have *owned* the world
after WWII. No nation in history was in such a position. After being
attacked by Japan, the US proceeded to obliterate Japan's military and
infrastructure. Along with our allies, we did the same thing to Germany.
With much of the rest of the world in ruins, we had an intact economy and
infrastructure, an army of 15 million, the largest navy and air force the
world had ever seen, and alone possessed atomic weapons. But what the US did
was disarm and come home as quickly as we could. And what the US *did do*
was forgive our allies' wartime debts, and spend billions of dollars of *our
money* under the Marshall Plan to rebuild our allies and those very enemies,
who now enjoy some of the freest and wealthiest cultures in the world. We're
doing exactly the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan this very minute,
though you rarely hear about that in the leftist media. The people in US
territories and possessions have voted repeatedly to continue under the US.
Anyone who says the US is out for imperialist conquest either has an
incredible lack of understanding of the American people, or is outright
lying. The American people want international friends and partners, not
subjects. You can take that to the bank. :-)
docd...@panix.com
Pete Dashwood <dash...@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
[snip]
>I'm getting mellower in my old age and actually bought some French champagne
>the other day.
I believe, Mr Dashwood, that in the same manner that 'Scotch' is reserved
for beverages actually produced in Scotland so is 'champagne' reserved for
products of the Champagne province in France... international trademark
laws and all that. Other places can produce right tasty fizzy wines...
but they cannot, if I am correct, label them as 'champagne'.
>It isn't good to carry grudges :-).
Back in the 1980s a Jewish physician I knew purchased a BMW automobile...
two, actually, one for him and one for the Missus (also Jewish), four-door
500 series (I remember 523i but my memory is, admittedly, porous). The
Missus and her immediate family (parents and a sibling) emigrated to the
USA from Germany (via Cuba... but that's another story) in 1939; most
members of her extended family (about twenty-six people) did not get out
and disappeared to... to wherever Jews in Germany during those years went.
Several of his friends took him to task for purchasing a German product
after all that; his response was 'That was a few years ago... and it is
*such* a good car.'
One winter they hit a patch of glare ice and lost control of the car at
60mph (100Kmph); it bounced around the road for a goodly distance, hitting
guard-rails, telephone-poles, a postbox or two... and finally came to a
stop. Both passengers - the doctor and the Missus - were completely
unscathed and despite the slamming-into-things that had just gone on both
the driver's and passenger's doors opened as though nothing had happened.
As they watch a tow-truck hooking up the highly-damaged remains to take to
the repair shop the physician said to his wife, rather matter-of-factly,
'Well... I'd say that a fair amount has been paid back, wouldn't you?'
DD
Donald Tees
The entire world was 100% behind the United States after the New York
attack. If the United States had asked for, or even demanded, a set of
laws to deal with the issue at that time, they would have got it.
Instead, they demanded that everyone obey their president, and most of
the world said "No thank you".
I have yet to see evidence that the United States is lessening the
threat of terrorism in any way, shape or form. What I see, is the United
States executive office using it as an excuse to take over the worlds
largest oil field, and in such a way as to increase the terrorist base
on a daily basis.
They seem to have absolutely no compunction at all about breaking all
their own laws, limiting freedom in ways that no terrorist has ever been
able to do, and manufacturing "evidence" to justify actions against
groups that had absolutely nothing to do with the terrorism.
I really doubt that press control over things like showing the dead on
TV has much to do with terrorism. It has to with your governments
control over the people that it governs.
The main reason that the UN has been ineffective at controling terrorism
is that the United States has been adamantly opposed to it for years.
They are not interested in *any* laws that do not give them complete
control over the money. They *need* people like the "Shaw of
Iran"(remember him? put into place as a puppet by the US?) to allow them
to exploit the natives.
I agree, that is exactly what the American people want. What I doubt is
that your executive branch want the same. Your executive branch appear
to want the world oil fields, and will do anything to get them,
including lying, law breaking, secret police, and manufacturing evidence
to invade countries that had nothing to do with the attack.
The attack in New York was financed by Saudia Arabian citizens, the
executive branch's closest friends in the area to this day. It is also
the area's most oppressive government, and has been for years. Bush
socializes with these people and does bussiness with them on a regular
basis. At the same time, he is killing off civilians and bombing towns
as being "terrorist controled", but the definition of terrorist is
defined as "being anti-USA invasion".
That is not a "war on terrorism". It is a recipe *for* terrorism. As
long as it keeps going on, the USA will be in a war, and as long as you
are in the war, then your executive branch can do whatever they want as
being justified by war. They get rich, and your people die.
You are being suckered.
Donald
Howard Brazee
>That is unlikely to be true. WWII did not start in 1939 or 1941 but
>much earlier for example in Spain in 1936 and China in the early 30s.
>Intervening more forcefully against Germany would merely have escalated
>the war earlier before England was ready (France was never ready). As
>it happens America blockading Japan's oil shipments in 1940 simply
>brought forward the date when Japan and USA clashed to December 1941
>and did not 'nip in the bud' Japanese expansion plans.
"What If" is a fun game to play. But we really don't know what would
have happened if we had put more pressure on the Nazis. Maybe
without the German war expansion, Nazism would have been more
successful. That's not a pleasant thought.
Howard Brazee
>I believe, Mr Dashwood, that in the same manner that 'Scotch' is reserved
>for beverages actually produced in Scotland so is 'champagne' reserved for
>products of the Champagne province in France... international trademark
>laws and all that. Other places can produce right tasty fizzy wines...
>but they cannot, if I am correct, label them as 'champagne'.
How about we expand on this and only use sandwich for food from the
Earldom?
Or is this a matter of whom pays the lawyers and politicians the most?
Howard Brazee
<ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>Donald, now you surprise me. For a person as intelligent as yourself, how
>can it not be obvious to you that, for purposes of stemming terrorism and
>dealing with mass murders, the United Nations has been entirely ineffective.
The U.N. has fought a few wars in these causes - with about as much
effectiveness as the U.S. has.
And it has imposed sanctions with about the same effectiveness as the
U.S.'s sanctions.
It has worked on trade agreements.
What are examples of actions that have been effective at stemming
terrorism and dealing with mass murders in the era of the UN? The
Brits seem to have waited out the Irish.
Howard Brazee
<ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>You continue to surprise me, Donald. Do you really think the American people
>have an interest in imperialist conquest? We could have *owned* the world
>after WWII. No nation in history was in such a position.
Owned in what way? We certainly couldn't have imposed peace on the
world. Could we have conquered and kept all of Asia, Africa, and
South America?
Other nations have owned *their* world - as much as they could reach.
Howard Brazee
>I have a 1958 US dictionary: it says that "gage" means a pledge to fight
>or a challenge; or a pledge, period; also an alternative spelling for
>gauge. Seems to me it's also a peach or a pear or something.
>
>Can't you stop your spell checker changing things? I don't allow my
>servants that much liberty!
I use my spell checker to advise. I don't always agree with it, but
it does catch things I miss.
I prefer spell checkers that highlight unrecognized words as I type.
Howard Brazee
<jgavande...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>Watch me make this thread really go off at a tangent. I dislike
>intensely the word GAGE above. Amongst other things the Mozilla American
>English spellchecker is always changing my words, creating absolute
>confusion in my mind. I really must download the English English
>spellchecker. I checked the OED small edition and 'GAGE' and 'GUAGE'
>have entirely different meanings - and 'gage' is not what I'm on about.
>So you linguistic afficianados - Chuck and Bill both being prime
>candidates - go for it !
As an American, I was unfamiliar with "gage" being a variation of
"guage". I've only come across the latter. But you're right - I
have to add it to my Firefox dictionary.
Computer dictionaries are dumb and I have to add words in a bunch of
dictionaries on the same computer. Someday computers will be able to
determine by context that I am using a foreign phrase, or whether Jack
Nicklous that I wrote is Jack Nicklaus or Jack Nickolson.
Howard Brazee
<ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>Iraq isn't Iran. There was never in recent times the religious fanatacism in
>Iraq that we've seen in e.g. Iran. Most of the fanaticism we see in Iraq is
>imported from Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. BTW - much of the population of Iran,
>and for some reason, especially the younger people, really like the US. It
>is the ruling Mulas, not the general population, who so hate the US. I
>gurantee you won't hear that in the European media!
Things are changing. Religious fanatics certainly have more power
and success in Iraq than they did before we took over.
Judson McClendon
>>
>> And unless US citizens watch or otherwise get their news from other
>> countries' news services, particularly the BBC, they won't get truthful
>> reporting. That long-necked blonde woman - Barbara someone? - who
>> appears on Fox - perfectly happy making things up and stating them as
>> news. Ask her the names of the 10,000 Canadians who (according to her)
>> served in Vietnam. If Fox is neutral - how is it that people
>> interviewed who don't agree with that bombastic idiot (can't remember
>> his name) who is the most famous Fox interviewer get told to shut up or
>> actually have their mike switched off? Judson, you yourself need to get
>> out and hear it from other sources.
>
> Oh Peter. Don't watch it often, but obviously you were tuned into the same
> one as me on the 'Passionae Eye'. I'm with Peter on this one Judson, said
> blonde bitch made such a statement about VN (not sure about the numbers
> though). Interviewer was up on his history, said "No, I don't think
> so...". She promised to get back to him - never did. Similarly the asshole
> Peter is talking about, and an American-Irish asshole at that, refused to
> be interviewed for the program, although from clips from Fox his style is
> to tell 'guests' "SHUT UP !". Wouldn't be interviewed on camera but took
> accusing shots on Fox at the 'Passionate Eye' that wanted to interview
> him.
I didn't mean to imply that I thought Fox News was perfect, I only said they
had a balance of liberal and conservative opinion. What you both to fail to
understand is that you have been exposed to extreme liberal bias in the
media so consistently and for so long, that you don't even have a correct
mental picture of what conservatives are really about. All you ever see
portrayed is distorted caricatures. You receive no balancing conservative
viewpoints, because they were simply not out there until Fox News came
along, imperfect as it is. And by then, your mental images were so
influenced by liberal bias, that every conservative viewpoint you hear seems
biased to you.
I was exposed to this liberal bias all my life. My parents were "yellow dog"
Democrats. It was only when I got older and had a chance to see both sides
with a more balanced eye that I became a conservative. I have seen both
sides, I have been on both sides of this argument. I really doubt either of
you can claim this. :-)
I respectfully insist it is you two who need to see more clearly. You should
read "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg, if you don't believe there is profound
liberal media bias. Bernard Goldberg documents it very clearly, and he *is*
a liberal, who has never voted Republican in his life. Or read "Useful
Idiots" by Mona Charen. You should definitely read at least one of
"Slander", "How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)", "Treason", or "High
Crimes and Misdemeanors" all by Ann Coulter, a truly brilliant and clear
thinking conservative. :-)
> You are severely duped about Fox. Peter mentioned BBC World News - you
> really should tune in - even if you don't want to believe them. Roughly a
> couple of weeks back, up came the American myth, "God, country and the
> flag. Everybody can become a Rockefeller'. A survey was done by some
> European-based economic think-tank. I know you aren't going to believe it,
> and the statement has no political content. 'You stand more chance in the
> rest of the world, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps from the guttter
> and making something of yourself, than you could ever hope to do in the
> U.S. of A.". Well I suppose Sudan and Darfur might not rank as high as USA
> in the league table.
Pardon me, but the distortions in the paragraph above are really serious.
First off, no one that I ever heard has said anything like "everybody can
become a Rockefeller." I don't know how easy it is to become wealthy in
other places, but whoever made the statement "You stand more chance in the
rest of the world, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps from the guttter
and making something of yourself, than you could ever hope to do in the U.S.
of A" must have come from another planet, because they couldn't possibly
have actually looked at the situation here in the US. Just in the 90's
alone, there were tens of thousands of regular production line laborers here
who became millionaires from stock options. I write computer programs for a
living and live in a near-rural suburb of a moderate city, and I live in a
4600 sq ft house, valued at $300,000 here, but would go for very much more
in a large city. I am by no means out of the ordinary here, and I grew up on
a farm. My dad grew up in a family of 10 kids and only had shoes in the
winter, and on Christmas they got maybe an orange and an apple. But before
he died he owned several hundred acres of farmland and was very successful,
though not 'wealthy'. My mom's dad only went through the third grade, but he
hed several hundred acres of farmland before he died. Colin Powell grew up
dirt poor in a large family. Condelesa Rice had a very modest beginning,
right here in Birmingham. But all of us worked very hard for what we have,
it doesn't fall off threes. :-) The American Dream is not, and never was,
everyone becoming a Rockefeller, but everyone having a fair opportunity to
make a good life with hard work. And that dream is very much alive and well
here. The last time I checked, there were more millionaires in the US than
anywhere else. And very, very many of those millionaires started out
modestly. Sure, there are poor here. But there are many other reasons than
lack of opportunity for that, for example "poverty mentality". Liberal
programs for welfare and such have actually exacerbated the situation,
rather than helped, in part because they enable failure and encourage poor
women to stay single and pregnant. Welfare programs were made more
restrictive a number of years ago, and the poverty situation has improved
somewhat.
>>>Then he's been listening too much to the left wing liberal media, or he's
>>>a
>>>pacifist. In this area, he is poorly informed. :-)
>>
>> Well, if you truly believe that, then there is no point in discussing
>> anything with you. The right-wing media have completely taken over your
>> thought processes.
>
> Amen to very last comment.
>
> Get this real straight Judson. We Canucks don't hate you; in fact many
> look kindly towards the States. But we do despair of your political
> thinking as a nation. And we really aren't thrilled about NAFTA - which is
> a set of initials for 'Play it the American way, or don't play at all'.
I was opposed to and hate NAFTA myself. :-)
Jimmy, are you aware of the fact that during the 20th century over 90% of
the patents granted worldwide were for processes developed in the US, even
though the US is only about 5% of the world's population? Why do you think
that is? Are we US citizens that stupid when all the rest of the world is so
smart? Could it be possible that we here in the US are not quite as ignorant
and dumb as everybody seems to think we are? It was the US that put men on
the Moon, the US who mainly resisted and contained the USSR until it fell,
and the US that created the Internet and countless other things that have
been of great benefit to the whole world. Why are you and others so
convinced it is the US who is wrong here? Did you know that when a disaster
strikes somewhere, the US contributes more food and other relief then the
rest of the world combined? The US has done more good than any other country
in modern times, and rarely gets credit for it. And the US seems to be
constantly vilified around the world. I realize that this is often directed
against the US government rather than US citizens, but that is not always
obvious when the epithets fly. Whether it is realized or not, Americans like
other peoples and want to be friends with the rest of the world, and can be
resentful when they are constantly lambasted as bad guys.
The US has its faults, like every other country. And believe me, the
American people do not want the US to be the world's policeman. But one
thing makes Americans get deadly serious, and that is when our homeland is
physically attacked and our innocent families murdered. Nothing so inflames
the American people as an unprovoked attack. (As an aside, I personally
believe that the primary reason the American Indians were virtually wiped
out was the fact that they started attacking the white man's families
directly.) The worst thing the Japanese could have done in 1941 was to
attack the US directly without warning (yes, I know they intended to give a
token warning just before the attack). The US population went nuts, and the
immediate, virtually unanimous sentiment was to get Japan at all costs.
There was much sentiment at the time to let the Brits and Russians deal with
Hitler, but Germany declared war on the US a few days later. (I always
wondered why Hitler did that. In retrospect, it seems a particularly dumb
move, but Hitler made a lot of those.) Even the World Trade Center bombing
in 1993 and the embassy bombings didn't provoke the American people to such
a degree. But 9/11 was like another Pearl Harbor. I was born after WWII, and
in my lifetime I have never seen such widespread rage, and such unanimity of
resolve against a common enemy, as there was after 9/11. The US began to
gird itself for war, and if history is any guide, it won't be over until the
enemy's ability to threaten us is eliminated, no matter what it costs or how
long it takes. I can assure you that most Americans do not understand why so
many people in the international community do not understand our motive and
resolve on this issue. Americans would be highly sympathetic and supportive
of anyone else in our situation.
This is not the way I would express my personal feelings, but many Americans
I know would probably express it succinctly like this: "A lot of American
blood has been spilled defeating tyranny in Europe and many other places
around the world, but it looks like that didn't earn us much of a break when
our homeland came under attack." Though my sentiments come from a different
direction, I can't say I am entirely unsympathetic to that viewpoint. :-)
docd...@panix.com
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 13:50:20 +0000 (UTC), docd...@panix.com () wrote:
>
>>I believe, Mr Dashwood, that in the same manner that 'Scotch' is reserved
>>for beverages actually produced in Scotland so is 'champagne' reserved for
>>products of the Champagne province in France... international trademark
>>laws and all that. Other places can produce right tasty fizzy wines...
>>but they cannot, if I am correct, label them as 'champagne'.
>
>How about we expand on this and only use sandwich for food from the
>Earldom?
Feel free to attempt this expansion, Mr Brazee... I'll await to read about
the results on the newswires.
>
>Or is this a matter of whom pays the lawyers and politicians the most?
As much as any sort of legislation might be, perhaps.
DD
Judson McClendon
That may be, Jimmy, I don't know Mr. Forsyth. But he's still poorly
informed, or somehow ill motivated, on this issue. Conservatives aren't in
lock-step like cookies out of a cookie cutter, you know. :-)
I see conservatives here in the US as consisting of two very different
groups. One group I would label the same as liberals often label all
conservatives, "Fat Cat Conservatives." They have it, they intend to keep
it, and they don't want anyone else to get it. Though this group exists, it
is in reality a tiny fraction of all conservatives, many of whom (like me)
have as much contempt for them as do liberals. Unfortunately, in politics
they wield a disproportionate influence because of their wealth. The other
group, the vast majority of conservatives, I would label "Heart
Conservatives" who hold conservative views from personal conviction. We base
our convictions (whether consciously or not) on traditional Judeo-Christian
values, such as integrity, personal responsibility, reward for hard work,
personal ownership of property, minimal government, etc. There are only
narrow areas, such as personal responsibility, ownership rights and minimal
government, where we Heart Conservatives have common ground with the Fat
Cats, and even there it is for different reasons. My personal opinion of GWB
is that he is a combination. He grew up among the Fat Cats, and I believe
his dad GHWB is largely a Fat Cat. I was not happy when Reagan chose GHWB to
run as VP. But I have corroboration, through a number of non media channels
that I trust, that GWB's personal convictions are indeed as he claims. He is
constantly vilified by the liberal media, but I believe GWB is an honest man
who is who he says he is. I also believe your buddy Jimmy C is an honest
man, though he is unfortunately hopelessly inept. I supported Jimmy C before
he was elected, though his presidency was a comedy of ineptitude, and helped
to bring about the lowest US public morale I have ever witnessed. Jimmy C
wasn't entirely responsible, of course, but his ineptitude made it much
worse.
Let me relate an anecdote that I hope will amuse, and maybe inform you. A
friend who goes to my church told me about going to a meeting of a community
group that helps people with certain kinds of needs, IIRC abused wives and
children. He said that during the meeting, everyone was asked to stand and
identify themselves. As they did, my friend was surprised that every single
person seemed to be a conservative. After the meeting he asked the
chairwoman about it. She laughed and said "Why, you don't see liberals in
groups like this. They don't get personally involved with actually helping
people." Though this is not true of all liberals, over the years the
expression "Liberals are about form, not substance" has been born out in my
personal experience much more often than not. :-)
Donald Tees
What I find amusing is the idea that "the free world" stopped him.
Russia did far more to stop Hitler than any other country. Thirty
million russians died, if I remember correctly.
Donald
Michael Mattias
news:5ngro1dlnibj6ku8d...@4ax.com...
> On 29 Nov 2005 15:04:32 -0800, "Richard" <rip...@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>
> But we really don't know what would have happened if we had put more
pressure on the Nazis.
Oh, but we do.
The Werhmacht had orders to 'bug out' if the French (with or without
British assistance) so much as crossed the line into the Rhineland after the
re-occupation in 1936.
Not only would this action have focused the world on German activities and
the need for collective security, but (speculating) the political fallout
from such an unmitigated failure would have finished the National Socialists
within Germany itself.
(Ain't hindsight at historical documentation wonderful?)
MCM
Donald Tees
Judson, I actually laughed out loud at this. Some of us here, do not
live in the United States. We read *world* news, and get a variety that
you have absolutely no conception of.
Of course, in Canada we have the most conservative, richest banker that
that we could find as head of the liberal party, and a rather stupid
religious bigot in charge of the conservative party. The only other
possibility is an academic with his head up his ass, so who am I to talk?
Personally, I think everyone in politics a complete bullshit artist.
Donald
docd...@panix.com
Judson McClendon <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
[snip]
>Let me relate an anecdote that I hope will amuse, and maybe inform you. A
>friend who goes to my church told me about going to a meeting of a community
>group that helps people with certain kinds of needs, IIRC abused wives and
>children.
This reminds me of... another anecdote. Years 'n years back I met a woman
at a social gathering who said that for one of the classes she was taking
for her MA (I don't recall the discipline of the degree) she'd just
completed a study of child/spousal abuse. I deadpanned 'How
interesting... did you come out for or against it?'
In the utterly shocked silence that followed I added 'Well... I was taught
that one should not enter into a study with a preconceived notion of the
outcome as that might effect the perceived results. Has that changed?'
Fortunately she was not so full-of-self that she couldn't laugh.
DD
James J. Gavan
> What I find amusing is the idea that "the free world" stopped him.
> Russia did far more to stop Hitler than any other country. Thirty
> million russians died, if I remember correctly.
True, except Hitler made a boo-boo. He didn't attack the Russians first,
but the 'free world', Checkslovakia, Poland; the latter with Soviet
connivance.
Jimmy
Judson McClendon
As I've said before, what is happening in Iraq with the terrorists is called
in military parlance a "meeting engagement." IOW, both sides are
concentrating the fight there. I see this as a Positive Thing for several
reasons. Every terrorist we confront and kill with our military over there
is one less terrorist who will bomb our civilians over here, and money spent
to provoke terrorism there is money not spent to provoke terrorism here. You
would never hear this from liberal news, but there *is not* an infinite
number of people who would become suicidal terrorists. Many, yes, but a very
finite and not enormously large, number. And they *must* have a support base
to be successful. Right now they are killing Moslem civilians, and that is
turning the Moslem civilian population against them. Please *do not*
construe from that statement that I think killing Moslem civilians is any
better than killing Christian civilians. I only mean that they're killing
people in their support base, and that has got to be a Bad Thing for the
terrorists over time.
This war against terrorism is going to take time, maybe a very long time.
George Bush said early on that it might take generations. But it could also
be much sooner than we think. There were times during WWII that looked very
bleak indeed for the Allies. The early years 1939-1942 seemed an almost
continuous series of defeats and setbacks. Adapting our military to deal
effectively with this threat is not an overnight thing, but it is being
done. The troops dealing with the terrorists now are learning. As you said,
things are changing, and they will continue to change. We will soon see
flourishing democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq, bringing prosperity and
freedom, and this will be devastating to the dictatorial governments of the
Middle East, eventually removing the terrorist support base. The people of
the Middle East are well aware of these things. There have already been
large public demonstrations in Lebanon for freedom and democracy. There will
be many more in many places as democracy progresses in Iraq & Afghanistan.
Free and prosperous people do not support terrorism.
No one who allows themselves to be stopped by problems ever accomplishes
much. Almost every success story in history is fraught with problems,
setbacks and naysayers. How many successful efforts in history were
accompanied by shouts of "It's going badly, it's not going to work" or "You
have to stop, you're making it worse, not better!"? I suspect, most of them.
Judson McClendon
>> they
>> had a balance of liberal and conservative opinion. What you both to fail
>> to
>> understand is that you have been exposed to extreme liberal bias in the
>> media so consistently and for so long, that you don't even have a correct
>> mental picture of what conservatives are really about. All you ever see
>> portrayed is distorted caricatures. You receive no balancing conservative
>> viewpoints, because they were simply not out there until Fox News came
>> along, imperfect as it is. And by then, your mental images were so
>> influenced by liberal bias, that every conservative viewpoint you hear
>> seems
>> biased to you.
>
> Judson, I actually laughed out loud at this. Some of us here, do not
> live in the United States. We read *world* news, and get a variety that
> you have absolutely no conception of.
Well, at least I gave you a good laugh, that means it wasn't entirely
wasted. :-)
> Of course, in Canada we have the most conservative, richest banker that
> that we could find as head of the liberal party, and a rather stupid
> religious bigot in charge of the conservative party. The only other
> possibility is an academic with his head up his ass, so who am I to talk?
With such conservatives as you describe, Donald, it makes my point. You
don't get to see demonstrated what the majority of thinking conservatives
are all about. :-)
Richard
> but the 'free world', Checkslovakia, Poland; the latter with Soviet
> connivance.
Taking out France removed the threat of attacks from the rear (at least
for some years), had he managed to deal with England as easily as he
did Norway then he would not have had any problems in the west.
A glance at a map would show that 'attacking the Russians first' was a
geographic impossibility.
James J. Gavan
Now certain spellings suggested I do resist and stick with my English
spellings, labour, colour, centre etc. which are acceptable in Canadian
dictionaries, whereas the Canadian word is plow not the English plough.
Where the confusion really comes into play is, after some 30 years now
on this side of the pond, which is correct 'recognize' or 'recognise'.
I checked it out initially in my Concise OED, (that's what I meant by
'small' Chuck :-)). No luck, so I went googling and got references to
RECOGNISE and it didn't do the usual Google, 'Do you mean recogniZe ?'
Then went back to the OED and it has the 'dual' reference. I'm certain
'ise' was how I was taught at school. But somewhere in the back of my
mind there's something written which suggested that it is 'lazy' English
and it should be 'ize'.
Jimmy
James J. Gavan
huge bluff which paid off. Presumably something along the same lines of
thought when Saddam attacked Kuwait ? He had to have enough sanity to
realise he was on a hiding to nothing if the West took him seriously -
he too must have hoped to bluff.
Jimmy
James J. Gavan
> This issue would *never* have
> been solved by the UN as it is right now. As Bush clearly pointed out in his
> address to Congress after 9/11, solving the terrorism problem may take
> generations. And with the UN sitting on its hands, if no one else acted, it
> would never be solved.
Judson I really think the above could do with an actual quote - have you
got one on Dubya and what he said *exactly*. (Otherwise I think you are
doing an Anne Coulter - I think that's the name of the lady Peter was
referring to. Attractive, intelligent, smooth, and quick to produce a
fact without substantiation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but other than
local Asian allies, I don't think a single Western nation fought in Viet
Nam - unless you want to qualify the French at Dien bien Phu - but then
it was French-Indo China anyway). Along with everybody else Canadians
were in Korea, but then they took on a UN peace-keeping role. They again
only actively got involved in 'war' as such, as a result of 9/11 and
Saddam. Some naval vessels in the Gulf, several tours in Afghanistan,
and currently - but small in numbers compared to US involvement.
As cynical humourist Jon Stewart pointed out with film clips, there's
Dubya saying "It's over", followed by Congressional hearing snips where
generals are saying something like, "Well we know historically that
terrorism takes decades to cure". One can well imagine Donald Rumsfeld
was not a happy camper when his subordinates made those remarks.
Jimmy
Judson McClendon
That's an interesting hypothetical question. Certainly a cold killer tyrant
like Stalin, in the position of the US at the time, could have held the
entire world in terror under threat of nuclear attack. Submit or be nuked.
You wouldn't have to nuke very many to get the point across. How much the US
could have effectively controlled, considering the resources available, is
probably undeterminable. Certainly a military of 15 million, backed by
threat of swift nuclear reprisal, could control quite a lot. The size of
potential enemies' military wouldn't be much of an issue: disarm immediately
or be nuked. I think the biggest practical problem would be to ensure that
no one else developed nukes. Geeze, just pondering on these things makes me
shudder.
Judson McClendon
> Howard Brazee wrote:
>>
>> "What If" is a fun game to play. But we really don't know what would
>> have happened if we had put more pressure on the Nazis. Maybe
>> without the German war expansion, Nazism would have been more
>> successful. That's not a pleasant thought.
>
> What I find amusing is the idea that "the free world" stopped him.
> Russia did far more to stop Hitler than any other country. Thirty
> million russians died, if I remember correctly.
My memory is 20 million Russians, but that's a quibble.
The question is, would Russia have succeeded without material assistance
from the US and pressure being brought against Germany by the other Allies?
And what would the world look like now if they had? Another grim thought.
Michael Mattias
news:H1mjf.100$t26.20@pd7tw3no...
>.... huge bluff which paid off. Presumably something along the same lines
of
> thought when Saddam attacked Kuwait ? He had to have enough sanity to
> realise he was on a hiding to nothing if the West took him seriously -
> he too must have hoped to bluff.
Maybe not.
Sure, the Iraqi Army could have taken Saudi Arabia (and as long they were
mobilized anyway, all the rest of the Gulf States, too), but surely Saddam
had to know that WOULD provoke the West. Hell, even the French would have
signed up 100% on Day One, not waiting for their president to get stiffed
when he presented a subsequent 'peace plan.'
Best guess here (he said, firmly ensconced upon his pontificating chair) is
Saddam felt that by taking Kuwait, the Saudis and the rest of the Gulf
States would "get the message" that should Saddam call in the future, the
phone damn well better be answered promptly and the answer better be "Yes,
sir! Right away, sir!"
MCM
Judson McClendon
>
> Taking out France removed the threat of attacks from the rear (at least
> for some years), had he managed to deal with England as easily as he
> did Norway then he would not have had any problems in the west.
That war turned on so many slim threads. What if Hitler had continued to
attack Defense Command airfields, instead of switching to bombing cities
when he did, which happened mostly by accident anyway? What if Hitler had
surrounded Stalingrad and continued on, instead of wasting an army there?
What if the Japanese fleet with their six carriers had located and destroyed
Halsey's tiny fleet with three carriers at Midway? What if the US carriers
had docked one day earlier at Pearl Harbor and been destroyed in the attack?
What if Hitler had listened to Rommel and located his Panzers close enough
to repel the Normandy invasion? What if Hitler had not declared war on the
US soon after Pearl Harbor?
Chuck Stevens
"James J. Gavan" <jgavande...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:CYljf.59$t26.19@pd7tw3no...
> I checked it out initially in my Concise OED, (that's what I meant by
> 'small' Chuck :-)).
Yeah, I think I got the drift. I'm pretty sure the one I've got at home is
the "Compact", which is the two-volume set with the magnifying glass, and is
a micrographic reduction of the full Second Edition (four pages of the
original per page of the Compact). It sits alongside my Webster's Third
Unabridged.
What I have readily available at the office are Eighth and Ninth Collegiates
(though I think there's a Third Unabridged around here somewere ...).
They're usually a close match for (and are clearly based on) the Unabridged.
-Chuck Stevens
Richard
> instead of switching to bombing cities
> when he did, which happened mostly by accident anyway?
I refer you to Williamson Murray's "Strategy for Defeat":
"Attacks on Britains air defence system through September 6 had given
no indication that Fighter Command was weakening. As a result Goring -
at Kesselring's urging and with Hitler's support - turned to a massive
assault on on the British capital."
Britain had sufficient production and repair facilities to sustain
attacks and, as long as the fighting was over England, it could recover
most of the pilots that were shot down. Attacks on the airfields had to
be done in daylight and this led to large losses of German aircraft
and, more importantly, the aircrews. Swittching to night bombing to cut
down on losses meant having to attack larger and more visible targets.
It wasn't 'accidental'.
> What if ... What if ... What if ...
It seems to me that knowing what actually happened and why is more
useful than your uninformed speculation.
Howard Brazee
<ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
>That's an interesting hypothetical question. Certainly a cold killer tyrant
>like Stalin, in the position of the US at the time, could have held the
>entire world in terror under threat of nuclear attack. Submit or be nuked.
>You wouldn't have to nuke very many to get the point across. How much the US
>could have effectively controlled, considering the resources available, is
>probably undeterminable. Certainly a military of 15 million, backed by
>threat of swift nuclear reprisal, could control quite a lot. The size of
>potential enemies' military wouldn't be much of an issue: disarm immediately
>or be nuked. I think the biggest practical problem would be to ensure that
>no one else developed nukes. Geeze, just pondering on these things makes me
>shudder.
Could we have controlled a country the size of, say North Vietnam?
Howard Brazee
<charles...@unisys.com> wrote:
>> I checked it out initially in my Concise OED, (that's what I meant by
>> 'small' Chuck :-)).
>
>Yeah, I think I got the drift. I'm pretty sure the one I've got at home is
>the "Compact", which is the two-volume set with the magnifying glass, and is
>a micrographic reduction of the full Second Edition (four pages of the
>original per page of the Compact). It sits alongside my Webster's Third
>Unabridged.
Me too. The Websters or Britinaca get the most use because I can
*read* them!
Judson McClendon
> Judson McClendon wrote:
>>
>> This issue would *never* have been solved by the UN as it is right now.
>> As Bush clearly pointed out in his address to Congress after 9/11,
>> solving the terrorism problem may take generations. And with the UN
>> sitting on its hands, if no one else acted, it would never be solved.
>
> Judson I really think the above could do with an actual quote - have you
> got one on Dubya and what he said *exactly*. (Otherwise I think you are
> doing an Anne Coulter - I think that's the name of the lady Peter was
> referring to. Attractive, intelligent, smooth, and quick to produce a fact
> without substantiation.
If you read one of Coulter's books you would find that they are *very
heavily* footnoted with references. My daughter and I were discussing
exactly this a few days ago (my daughter has a degree in journalism), and
she was expressing surprise at how very extensive the references are.
I thought I had taped GWB's address to Congress after 9/11, but I can't seem
to find it. All I can tell you is that what I remember him saying was
something very close to "This war against terrorism will take a long time,
and we might not even live to see the end. Our children may have to complete
the job." He went to some length to stress this was no quick fix, but a long
haul deal. It's always annoyed me that the press kept harping on "quick war"
as if they didn't listen to what he said. Of course, it's always easier to
create a false strawman, then attack that.
> As cynical humourist Jon Stewart pointed out with film clips, there's
> Dubya saying "It's over", followed by Congressional hearing snips where
> generals are saying something like, "Well we know historically that
> terrorism takes decades to cure". One can well imagine Donald Rumsfeld was
> not a happy camper when his subordinates made those remarks.
I've paid careful attention to GWB's comments and have never heard him say
anything that sounded to me that he was implying the war on terrorism would
be anything but a long haul. But it's easy to see that he is a very casual
person, and likes to speak as if he were talking to friends. I believe his
remark "It's over" was simply referring to the immediate military action,
meaning that the organized Iraqi military resistance had collapsed. Perhaps
Bush should be more guarded, but I like his openness. People I highly
respect and who have keen discernment have met personally with GWB and say
that his openness and honesty are surprisingly real.
Judson McClendon
It was lack of political will, not lack of military power or ability, that
was the problem in Vietnam. As Donald Tees wrote in another post, that was
indeed a time when the US government duped the American people and took them
for suckers, so the military industrial complex could sell weapons. Namely
JFK and LBJ. Richard Nixon ran and won on a platform of getting the US out
of Vietnam. When Nixon did permit B52s to strike Hanoi, the North Vietnamese
came to the table quick enough.
Judson McClendon
>> What if Hitler had continued to attack Defense Command airfields,
>> instead of switching to bombing cities
>> when he did, which happened mostly by accident anyway?
>
> I refer you to Williamson Murray's "Strategy for Defeat":
>
> "Attacks on Britains air defence system through September 6 had given
> no indication that Fighter Command was weakening. As a result Goring -
> at Kesselring's urging and with Hitler's support - turned to a massive
> assault on on the British capital."
>
> Britain had sufficient production and repair facilities to sustain
> attacks and, as long as the fighting was over England, it could recover
> most of the pilots that were shot down. Attacks on the airfields had to
> be done in daylight and this led to large losses of German aircraft
> and, more importantly, the aircrews. Swittching to night bombing to cut
> down on losses meant having to attack larger and more visible targets.
>
> It wasn't 'accidental'.
In the 70's the British did a truly superb 26 hour documentary of WWII
called "The World at War." The people who speak in that documentary are not
only a few historians, but mostly people who were there, like Albert Speer,
Averill Harriman, General Curtis Lemay, Hitler's personal secretary, people
who were in the Japanese cabinet, and many other movers and shakers, as well
as scores of other people at all levels who were actively involved or
affected by the war. TWAW documents what happened very clearly, with
testimony from German and British military people. As you say, Germany did
not know that Fighter Command was on its knees. But they were, more from
replacing dead pilots than from planes, but FC *was* at the end of its rope,
and really getting desperate. Then one night a single German bomber got off
course by accident and bombed the London docks. This provoked British
reprisals against German cities, which provoked Hitler to press Goering to
bomb London (they even included part of Hitler's speech talking about this),
and so on. So it *was* started by the accident of that bomber being off
course and bombing the London docks. And personal notes from Churchill and
others indicate he was actually relieved when this happened, because Fighter
Command was hanging by a thread.
Howard Brazee
<ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>> Could we have controlled a country the size of, say North Vietnam?
>
>It was lack of political will, not lack of military power or ability, that
>was the problem in Vietnam.
So, while didn't have enough political will to control insurgents in
North Vietnam, we would have had enough political will to control
insurgents on the whole planet?
Howard Brazee
<ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>When Nixon did permit B52s to strike Hanoi, the North Vietnamese
>came to the table quick enough.
The North Vietnamese won the war.
Judson McClendon
> In article <PC3jf.27$Pc3...@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
> Judson McClendon <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>>"Richard" <rip...@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>>>> When Chamberlain came back from Munich
>>>> with his "Peace in our time" document, father said that all they felt
>>>> about it was cynicism. Anybody that thought about it knew they'd have
>>>> to take Hitler on sooner or later.
>>>
>>> Yes, but Chamberlain bought a year of time in which England brought
>>> into production enough Spitfires and Hurricanes and trained enough
>>> pilots to win the BofB when it came (while France had crippling strikes
>>> in its plane and tank factories).
>>
>>And had England and/or France confronted Hitler when he first started
>>breaking the Armistice agreements from WWI, it would have nipped the whole
>>thing in the bud and saved millions of lives. Better late than never, but
>>better sooner than later.
>
> Mr McClendon, Mr Plinston presents what appears to be a fact (in the
> radical sense of 'factum', a done thing) and your response employs a past
> subjunctive ('were they to have').
>
> Had my Sainted Paternal Grandmother - may she sleep with the angels -
> wheels she would have been a trolley-car; in the cardgames of historical
> analysis shoulda/woulda/coulda are frequently trumped by 'did'.
If you go back to what started this particular subthread, it was me saying
that Bad People are usually dealt with much later than would have been wise.
In that context, it makes perfect sense for me to respond to a 'did' with a
'shoulda/woulda/coulda', because the "shoulda/woulda/coulda" was the essence
of my point. :-)
Judson McClendon
Are having the same conversation, Howard? Of course the US would not have
had the will! My very point was that the US has no interest in imperialism.
:-)