The gap between American and European values is large and growing
Alan Gore
>Not only Europe, but the whole world rejects American supreme values -
>the gun, the SUV and the hamburger !
So at all those multiplicitous overseas McDonalds, they sell...carrot
sticks?
ag...@qwest.net | "Giving money and power to the government
Alan Gore | is like giving whiskey and car keys
Software For PC's, Inc. | to teenaged boys" - P. J. O'Rourke
http://www.alangore.com
Jeffrey C. Dege
>u1042...@spawnkill.ip-mobilphone.net (Armageddon Watch) wrote:
>
>>Not only Europe, but the whole world rejects American supreme values -
>>the gun, the SUV and the hamburger !
>
>So at all those multiplicitous overseas McDonalds, they sell...carrot
>sticks?
Personally, I prefer overseas McDonalds to ours.
Better bread, and real sugar in the soft drinks.
--
The correct way to punctuate a sentence that starts: "Of course it is
none of my business but --" is to place a period after the word
"but." Don't use excessive force in supplying such moron with a
period. Cutting his throat is only a momentary pleasure and is bound
to get you talked about.
-- R. A. Heinlein
Joe Creaney
I would much rather live here than in Europe. I must admit that Europe
has much better porn than here.
Dave O'Neill
"Jeffrey C. Dege" <jd...@jdege.visi.com> wrote in message
news:slrnb2hjin...@jdege.visi.com...
> On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 03:12:34 GMT, Alan Gore <ag...@qwest.net> wrote:
> >u1042...@spawnkill.ip-mobilphone.net (Armageddon Watch) wrote:
> >
> >>Not only Europe, but the whole world rejects American supreme values -
> >>the gun, the SUV and the hamburger !
> >
> >So at all those multiplicitous overseas McDonalds, they sell...carrot
> >sticks?
>
> Personally, I prefer overseas McDonalds to ours.
>
> Better bread, and real sugar in the soft drinks.
Funny, I think it the other way around. It's practically impossible to get
a decent burger in the UK compared to my experience in the US.
That's why a business trip usually works out at 1kg gained per week in the
US. Living there was fatal ;-)
Jeffrey C. Dege
>
>"Jeffrey C. Dege" <jd...@jdege.visi.com> wrote in message
>news:slrnb2hjin...@jdege.visi.com...
>> On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 03:12:34 GMT, Alan Gore <ag...@qwest.net> wrote:
>> >u1042...@spawnkill.ip-mobilphone.net (Armageddon Watch) wrote:
>> >
>> >>Not only Europe, but the whole world rejects American supreme values -
>> >>the gun, the SUV and the hamburger !
>> >
>> >So at all those multiplicitous overseas McDonalds, they sell...carrot
>> >sticks?
>>
>> Personally, I prefer overseas McDonalds to ours.
>>
>> Better bread, and real sugar in the soft drinks.
>
>Funny, I think it the other way around. It's practically impossible to get
>a decent burger in the UK compared to my experience in the US.
My experience with overseas McDonalds is primarily German.
--
What? Me .sig?
cedric
the US.
In France, this rate is 80%. (Personnally, I find that 20% is still
disgusting).
Talking about cultural differences and food, a good one :
A French man is calmly having his petit dejeuner when an American man,
eating chewing gum, sits beside him. The French man ignores the American
who, not happy with it, starts a conversation.
American: Do you eat the whole bread? French (in a bad mood): Of course.
American: We don't. We only eat what is inside and the outside we put
together in a container, recycle it, transform it into croissants and sell
it to France. The French man listens in silence. The American insists: Do
you eat the jam with the bread?
French: Of course. American: We don't. We eat fresh fruits for our
breakfast, put all peel, seed and rests in containers, recycle them,
transform them into jam and sell the jam to France. The French man then
asks: And what do you do with condoms once you have used them? American: !
We throw them away, of course. French: We don't. We put zem in a container,
recycle zem, transform zem into chewing gum and sell zem to America.
On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 13:03:12 GMT, Dave O'Neill <da...@NOSPAMatomicrazor.com>
wrote:
>
--
cedric
cedric
the US.
In France, this rate is 80%. (Personnally, I find that 20% is still
disgusting).
Talking about cultural differences and food, a good one :
A French man is calmly having his petit dejeuner when an American man,
eating chewing gum, sits beside him. The French man ignores the American
who, not happy with it, starts a conversation.
American: Do you eat the whole bread? French (in a bad mood): Of course.
American: We don't. We only eat what is inside and the outside we put
together in a container, recycle it, transform it into croissants and sell
it to France. The French man listens in silence. The American insists: Do
you eat the jam with the bread?
French: Of course. American: We don't. We eat fresh fruits for our
breakfast, put all peel, seed and rests in containers, recycle them,
transform them into jam and sell the jam to France. The French man then
asks: And what do you do with condoms once you have used them? American: !
We throw them away, of course. French: We don't. We put zem in a container,
recycle zem, transform zem into chewing gum and sell zem to America.
On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 13:03:12 GMT, Dave O'Neill <da...@NOSPAMatomicrazor.com>
wrote:
>
--
cedric
Brandon Ray
Armageddon Watch wrote:
> Not only Europe, but the whole world rejects American supreme values -
> the gun, the SUV and the hamburger !
>
> American values
>
> Living with a superpower
>
> Jan 2nd 2003
>
> From The Economist print edition
>
> Some values are held in common by America and its allies. As three
> studies show, many others are not
>
> “WE SHARE common values—the common values of freedom, human rights and
> democracy.” Thus George Bush in the Czech Republic on November 21st;
> but it could have been him, his national security adviser or his
> secretary of state at almost any time.
Interesting, isn't it, that values that originated in Europe are now no
longer defended or extolled in Europe. You have to come to America if you
want a culture that cares about such things.
--
In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics! -- Homer Simpson
Mazzolata
>
> Armageddon Watch wrote:
>>
>>“WE SHARE common values—the common values of freedom, human rights and
>>democracy.” Thus George Bush in the Czech Republic on November 21st;
>>but it could have been him, his national security adviser or his
>>secretary of state at almost any time.
>
>
> Interesting, isn't it, that values that originated in Europe are now no
> longer defended or extolled in Europe. You have to come to America if you
> want a culture that cares about such things.
You're missing the point. Europeans live by those values. Bush and his
cronies give them lip service while simultaneously undermining them
(stand up and take a bow, John "Crisco" Ashcroft).
Joseph Hertzlinger
<u1042...@spawnkill.ip-mobilphone.net> wrote:
> Not only Europe, but the whole world rejects American supreme values
> - the gun, the SUV and the hamburger !
They apparently think it much better that people be disarmed,
immobile, and obedient to self-styled experts.
Bill Snyder
<jher...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Well, of course. That's so you can force them to "reject" the
hamburger in favor of snails and sheep's guts and sauce made from
rotten fish and suchlike delicacies..
<ducking and running>
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
Cori
They haven't sold beef or other red meat (farm animal) hamburgers in
European countries for years, and dislike of things American is only
the excuse. The real reason is fear of mad cow disease! Although
this condition is virtually or entirely non-existent in America, if
Europe could find a way to blame America for it, they would!
Teacher: What's the name for something of or from Europe?
Joey: I don't know.
Teacher: European.
Joey: No, I'm not, my popsicle is melting!
Susan Cohen
Dave O'Neill wrote:
> "Jeffrey C. Dege" <jd...@jdege.visi.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnb2hjin...@jdege.visi.com...
>
>>On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 03:12:34 GMT, Alan Gore <ag...@qwest.net> wrote:
>>
>>>u1042...@spawnkill.ip-mobilphone.net (Armageddon Watch) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Not only Europe, but the whole world rejects American supreme values -
>>>>the gun, the SUV and the hamburger !
>>>
>>>So at all those multiplicitous overseas McDonalds, they sell...carrot
>>>sticks?
>>
>>Personally, I prefer overseas McDonalds to ours.
>>
>>Better bread, and real sugar in the soft drinks.
>
>
> Funny, I think it the other way around. It's practically impossible to get
> a decent burger in the UK compared to my experience in the US.
But I bet he's right about the sugar vs corn syrup.
Sigh.
Susan
Dave O'Neill
"Susan Cohen" <fla...@his.com> wrote in message
news:3E2A52B0...@his.com...
>
>
> Dave O'Neill wrote:
> > "Jeffrey C. Dege" <jd...@jdege.visi.com> wrote in message
> > news:slrnb2hjin...@jdege.visi.com...
> >
> >>On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 03:12:34 GMT, Alan Gore <ag...@qwest.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>u1042...@spawnkill.ip-mobilphone.net (Armageddon Watch) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Not only Europe, but the whole world rejects American supreme values -
> >>>>the gun, the SUV and the hamburger !
> >>>
> >>>So at all those multiplicitous overseas McDonalds, they sell...carrot
> >>>sticks?
> >>
> >>Personally, I prefer overseas McDonalds to ours.
> >>
> >>Better bread, and real sugar in the soft drinks.
> >
> >
> > Funny, I think it the other way around. It's practically impossible to
get
> > a decent burger in the UK compared to my experience in the US.
>
> But I bet he's right about the sugar vs corn syrup.
> Sigh.
That's why you should always buy burgers in a bar which sells beer :-)
The Dutch Goose in Palo Alto springs readily to mind.
Dave O'Neill
"Brandon Ray" <pub...@avalon.net> wrote in message
news:3E29D4AC...@avalon.net...
>
>
> Armageddon Watch wrote:
>
> > Not only Europe, but the whole world rejects American supreme values -
> > the gun, the SUV and the hamburger !
> >
> > American values
> >
> > Living with a superpower
> >
> > Jan 2nd 2003
> >
> > From The Economist print edition
> >
> > Some values are held in common by America and its allies. As three
> > studies show, many others are not
> >
> > democracy." Thus George Bush in the Czech Republic on November 21st;
> > but it could have been him, his national security adviser or his
> > secretary of state at almost any time.
>
> Interesting, isn't it, that values that originated in Europe are now no
> longer defended or extolled in Europe.
Which ones?
Brandon Ray
Mazzolata wrote:
Um .... no.
Brandon Ray
Dave O'Neill wrote:
The ones referenced in the original article: freedom, human rights and
democracy.
--
Dave O'Neill
Check, although we'd need to define freedom to see if we were actually
talking about the same thing :-)
> human rights
Check. ECHR covers those pretty well.
and
> democracy.
Aren't we constantly being told here and in other parts of Usenews that
America isn't a democracy. The UK hardly is either by any standard measure,
but most EU members are.
Sea Wasp
> In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics! -- Homer Simpson
Wasn't that "Liiiisa! You have to start obeying the laws of
thermodynamics!" (in respect to Lisa's perpetual motion machine, which
was creeping him out)
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.htm
Jeffrey C. Dege
>
>"Brandon Ray" <pub...@avalon.net> wrote in message
>>
>> human rights
>
>Check. ECHR covers those pretty well.
No, it doesn't. The ECHR is an attempt to subvert the idea of human
rights, not a defense of it.
Hence the exceptions for individual rights, the inclusion of collective
rights, and of purported "rights" that amount to theft of labor and
property.
--
First twenty-one new features that somehow we must add in.
Then thirty-seven changes show up much to our chagrin.
And this thing's just inadequate, and that one's just plain wrong.
And by the way your schedule is about three months too long.
Dave O'Neill
> On Sun, 19 Jan 2003 16:24:42 GMT, Dave O'Neill
<da...@NOSPAMatomicrazor.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Brandon Ray" <pub...@avalon.net> wrote in message
> >news:3E2ADAB...@avalon.net...
> >>
> >> human rights
> >
> >Check. ECHR covers those pretty well.
>
> No, it doesn't. The ECHR is an attempt to subvert the idea of human
> rights, not a defense of it.
>
> Hence the exceptions for individual rights, the inclusion of collective
> rights, and of purported "rights" that amount to theft of labor and
> property.
We'll need to look at your definitions of Human Rights too I guess.
Jeffrey C. Dege
Not _my_ definition. The only workable definition.
If rights are to be inate and inalienable, they must be individual,
and they must be solely negative - restrictions on what others may do
to an individual.
If you grant "rights" to collectives, or allow for rights to require
positive actions on the part of others, you have rights that conflict.
And that means you need to have some authority judging which right is
to prevail when rights conflict.
Which has the effect of having the government determinining who has
what rights.
Which means that rights are no longer inate and inalienable, but are
reduced to no more than privileges, granted by government, and revokable
by government.
In other words, they are not rights at all.
--
The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old
parchments or musty records. They are written as with a sunbeam in the
whole volume of human nature by the hand of Divinity itself, and can
never be erased or obscured by mortal power.
- Alexander Hamilton
Brandon Ray
Dave O'Neill wrote:
> and
> > democracy.
>
> Aren't we constantly being told here and in other parts of Usenews that
> America isn't a democracy.
Not by me, you aren't. That's just a hairsplitting word game played by some
people who are unhappy with the fact that they have trouble cobbling together a
majority for their preferred political views.
> The UK hardly is either by any standard measure,
> but most EU members are.
But the EU, itself, is profoundly antidemocratic, and that is what's going to
matter in the long run.
Dave O'Neill
>
>
> Dave O'Neill wrote:
>
> > and
> > > democracy.
> >
> > Aren't we constantly being told here and in other parts of Usenews that
> > America isn't a democracy.
>
> Not by me, you aren't. That's just a hairsplitting word game played by
some
> people who are unhappy with the fact that they have trouble cobbling
together a
> majority for their preferred political views.
>
> > The UK hardly is either by any standard measure,
> > but most EU members are.
>
> But the EU, itself, is profoundly antidemocratic, and that is what's going
to
> matter in the long run.
But when we discuss "Europeans" we can't ignore the member states which are,
at the end of the day, democratic.
The Commission is not democratic, but the body which agrees to their
recommendations, or not, is.
To argue anything else is hairsplitting too.
Brandon Ray
Dave O'Neill wrote:
> "Brandon Ray" <pub...@avalon.net> wrote in message
> news:3E2B3A12...@avalon.net...
>
> >
> > But the EU, itself, is profoundly antidemocratic, and that is what's going
> to
> > matter in the long run.
>
> But when we discuss "Europeans" we can't ignore the member states which are,
> at the end of the day, democratic.
>
For the moment. At the end of the day, the EU is going to control this issue,
and the habits and preferences of the member states are going to matter about
as much as an individual U.S. state's opinions matter when the Feds decide to
bear down on something.
> The Commission is not democratic, but the body which agrees to their
> recommendations, or not, is.
>
> To argue anything else is hairsplitting too.
I don't agree.
SlipperySlope
"Jeffrey C. Dege" wrote:
So the human being's individuality is precedent before the social environment from
which it springs forth?
And is thus obligated by N-O-T-H-I-N-G to the social environment from which brought it
forth and nurtured it?
SlipperySlope
Bill Snyder wrote:
And don't forget cheese (rotting milk) and hot dogs (made from ground up
pig hairs, hoofs, saved blood, bowels, fat scraped from the skull,
etc......).
David Friedman
wrote:
> So the human being's individuality is precedent before the social environment
> from
> which it springs forth?
>
> And is thus obligated by N-O-T-H-I-N-G to the social environment from which
> brought it
> forth and nurtured it?
How can you be obligated to a "social environment?" Aren't obligations
to persons?
"Mommy, what are we here on earth for?"
"To help other people, Johnny."
(long pause)
"Mommy, what are the other people here for?"
captain !
"Bill Snyder" <bsn...@iadfw.net> wrote in message
news:84FCE81BEC50B69B.8C1E861A...@lp.airnews.net...
Werner Arend
Ha! You don't know much about Europe, do you?
(1) Most European countries are democracies. All EU countries are.
(2) If I read about some actions of American police, I sometimes doubt
that human rights are valued that highly there. Transporting
alleged criminals to foreign countries so that they can be tortured
wouldn't be possible here.
(3) I would also probably feel less free in America, with the rampant
Puritanism in certain areas, anti-war protesters being watched
by the secret police, whatever their official name is.
Granted, Europeans don't speak as much about human rights, freedom
and democracy as Americans do. They just practice them.
Werner
Werner Arend
> "Dave O'Neill" <da...@NOSPAMatomicrazor.com> wrote in message news:<kgcW9.273$sp6.2...@news-text.cableinet.net>...
>
I'm not sure this is true. Where did you get this?
Werner
Dave
"Cori" <cmashiel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6047da4.03011...@posting.google.com...
> "Dave O'Neill" <da...@NOSPAMatomicrazor.com> wrote in message
news:<kgcW9.273$sp6.2...@news-text.cableinet.net>...
> > "Jeffrey C. Dege" <jd...@jdege.visi.com> wrote in message
> > news:slrnb2hjin...@jdege.visi.com...
> > > On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 03:12:34 GMT, Alan Gore <ag...@qwest.net> wrote:
> > > >u1042...@spawnkill.ip-mobilphone.net (Armageddon Watch) wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>Not only Europe, but the whole world rejects American supreme
values -
> > > >>the gun, the SUV and the hamburger !
> > > >
> > > >So at all those multiplicitous overseas McDonalds, they sell...carrot
> > > >sticks?
> > >
> > > Personally, I prefer overseas McDonalds to ours.
> > >
> > > Better bread, and real sugar in the soft drinks.
> >
> > Funny, I think it the other way around. It's practically impossible to
get
> > a decent burger in the UK compared to my experience in the US.
> >
> > That's why a business trip usually works out at 1kg gained per week in
the
> > US. Living there was fatal ;-)
>
> They haven't sold beef or other red meat (farm animal) hamburgers in
> European countries for years, and dislike of things American is only
> the excuse.
Ummm... no, hamburgers are widely available - they just aren't, generally,
cooked as well. It certainly has nothing to do with disliking America.
> The real reason is fear of mad cow disease!
That certainly led to a decrease in the consumption in the UK, although part
of that was the poor quality of meat used in the UK for burgers. Not an
issue anymore.
Although
> this condition is virtually or entirely non-existent in America, if
> Europe could find a way to blame America for it, they would!
The EU, as I recall, doesn't import US meat because of the use of hormones
and anti-biotics in the cattle herds.
I must admit, if I had a choice I'd probably only want to eat Organic
Aberdeen Angus beef and nothing else for Mad Cow and hormone related
reasons.
Werner Arend
>
> Dave O'Neill wrote:
>
>> and
>>
>>>democracy.
>>
>>Aren't we constantly being told here and in other parts of Usenews that
>>America isn't a democracy.
>
>
> Not by me, you aren't. That's just a hairsplitting word game played by some
> people who are unhappy with the fact that they have trouble cobbling together a
> majority for their preferred political views.
>
>
>>The UK hardly is either by any standard measure,
>>but most EU members are.
>
>
> But the EU, itself, is profoundly antidemocratic, and that is what's going to
> matter in the long run.
"Thoroughly" is perhaps a bit much, but you do have a point there.
They're working on a European Constitution, though. Hard going, as
you might expect. Since the EU wasn't originally conceived of as
anything but an economic alliance, there originally was no need
for EU democratic institutions, so you can hardly put any blame
there. Now the EU has a parliament, and we're trying to give it
more control all the time, and there are also some EU courts and
executive institutions. The rest will come, I'm sure of it.
Werner
Grantland
>On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 22:54:19 -0600, Joe Creaney <jo...@annuna.com>
>wrote:
>
>>I would much rather live here than in Europe. I must admit that Europe
>>has much better porn than here.
>
>Why the hell do you think we invented the Internet?
>
>Lee
Al Gore invented the Internet.
wally
Elysium
An entirely reasoned and well thought through argument there, I
congratulate you. Have you considered the support the US offers states
such as Saudi Arabia, which is just a repressive as Iraq? Don't try
and claim the US is a paragon of moral virtue.
Brandon Ray
Elysium wrote:
> > Um .... no.
>
> An entirely reasoned and well thought through argument there, I
> congratulate you.
I thought it was consonant with the post I was responding to. More
succinct, as well.
> Have you considered the support the US offers states
> such as Saudi Arabia, which is just a repressive as Iraq? Don't try
> and claim the US is a paragon of moral virtue.
Hmm. Scrolling back ... I don't seem to have done that. But thanks for
the concern.
OTOH, the U.S. has yet to pull off a Holocaust or a Gulag, nor have we
engaged in any serious ethnic cleansing since the late 19th Century.
Europe, on the other hand, has indulged in all three. The Europeans,
taken as a group, almost destroyed Western Civilization in the 20th
Century. That's quite an accomplishment.
Joseph Hertzlinger
> (2) If I read about some actions of American police, I sometimes doubt
> that human rights are valued that highly there. Transporting
> alleged criminals to foreign countries so that they can be tortured
> wouldn't be possible here.
Do you recognize the human right of self-defense?
> (3) I would also probably feel less free in America, with the rampant
> Puritanism in certain areas, anti-war protesters being watched
> by the secret police, whatever their official name is.
Information wants to be free. That includes information on what
anti-war protestors are up to.
-Özzama Bin Kenøbi-
>(1) Most European countries are democracies. All EU countries are.
There is not a genuine Democracy in the world, face reality already.
All "Democracies" are ruled by corporate interests these days. It's
the same as its always been, except the names change a bit. You went
from feudal lords to feudal CEOs.
At this rate, I wonder when we're going to get to the point where they
will force "consumers" to buy their products to support their
corporate wars? Can't you imagine the slogans already? "Support
Amerika, Drink Coca Cola!"
>(2) If I read about some actions of American police, I sometimes doubt
> that human rights are valued that highly there. Transporting
> alleged criminals to foreign countries so that they can be tortured
> wouldn't be possible here.
You think that's bad? You should see what they are doing to protesters
these days.
>(3) I would also probably feel less free in America, with the rampant
> Puritanism in certain areas, anti-war protesters being watched
> by the secret police, whatever their official name is.
European nations have their own problems with certain types of
puritanism and hypocrisy, but yes, you are correct, America began a
slow death when Reagan was elected. It is now in its last breaths.
Something big is going to happen very soon, don't think this is all
just your imagination...
Elysium
> engaged in any serious ethnic cleansing since the late 19th Century.
> Europe, on the other hand, has indulged in all three. The Europeans,
> taken as a group, almost destroyed Western Civilization in the 20th
> Century. That's quite an accomplishment.
If you're seriously trying to claim that the actions of a certain
group of people on a continent can be taken as representative of that
continent as a whole, then Americans are engaged in ethnic cleansing,
against the Chiapas in Mexico.
Europe has made mistakes in past. And we have learned from them. Which
is why we do not want to see our allies make the same ones.
Imperialism only leads to resentment, and now, when a small group of
fanatics have the capability to kill many more people at one time than
would have previously been possible, it is important that they do not
gain any support. Compassion wins friends. Conquering for selfish gain
does not.
smw
Joseph Hertzlinger wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:06:51 +0100, Werner Arend <ne...@arcor.de> wrote:
>
>
>>(2) If I read about some actions of American police, I sometimes doubt
>> that human rights are valued that highly there. Transporting
>> alleged criminals to foreign countries so that they can be tortured
>> wouldn't be possible here.
>>
>
> Do you recognize the human right of self-defense?
He certainly doesn't understand German deportation practices very well.
In a quite famous court case (admittedly not recent), a German judge
argued that, yes, the deportee was likely to be tortured, but, on the
other hand, people of his ethnicity were rather impervious to pain and
torture was part of their cultural heritage.
Werner Arend
Werner
David Friedman
ad...@fostas.freeserve.co.uk (Elysium) wrote:
> Europe has made mistakes in past. And we have learned from them. Which
> is why we do not want to see our allies make the same ones.
> Imperialism only leads to resentment, and now, when a small group of
> fanatics have the capability to kill many more people at one time than
> would have previously been possible, it is important that they do not
> gain any support. Compassion wins friends. Conquering for selfish gain
> does not.
1. On the particular case of Iraq, I am inclined to agree with your
conclusion (that attacking them is imprudent), but not your argument.,
You are simply assuming that the objective is "selfish gain." Last time
I looked, Saudi Arabia had more oil and a smaller army than Iraq, not to
mention objectionable internal policies, but nobody has seriously
suggested attacking them.
2. It doesn't look to me like imperialism, since it doesn't look as
though the U.S. plans to convert Iraq into a colony. It looks a lot more
like acting on "the lesson of Munich," whether or not prudently.
3. So far as Europe having abandoned imperialism, it was my impression
that France was the one imperial power that had succeeded in keeping
parts of its African empire--by using front men. At least there must be
some reason the paras keep showing up well south of Marseilles.
smw
Werner Arend wrote:
I have no interest in trying any such thing. If, however, you want to
argue that Germany only deports into countries where there is no torture
(as opposed to countries that aren't on the official torturer list), you
get the award for German post-war naivete.
smw
smw wrote:
To cut to the chase: in 2000, a court in Great Britain decided that
foreigners must not be deported to Germany or France anymore since both
were "unsafe" third countries, due to their practice of deporting
foreigners into the hands of torturers.
From the Pro Asyl website:
The Nation-wide Human Rights Organisation for Refugees PRO ASYL rejected
demands from CSU (Christian Social Democrats) and FDP (Liberals) circles
and considerations of the Home Office sharply, to negotiate "safety
guarantees" with Turkey for expelled Kurds in order to not expose them
there to danger of torture and death penalty.
In view of the extent of violations of human rights, torture,
extra-legal executions and arbitrary arrests in Turkey these
considerations would be "eyewash related to human rights" and
"irresponsible slogans of groups of regulars", said PRO
ASYL-spokesperson Heiko Kauffmann.
"The Federal Government and the parties know exactly, that also after
the application of the so-called consultation procedure of March 10th,
1995, based on a correspondence of the former Home Secretaries Kanther
and Mentese, it came to arrests and torture of asylum seeker expelled
from Germany". The Lower Saxonian Refugee Council and PRO ASYL have just
submitted a documentation with 11 cases alone from the year 1998, in
which after the deportation detention, torture, charges or condemnations
are proven...
Mike Schilling
"David Friedman" <dd...@daviddfriedman.com> wrote in message
news:ddfr-D8E821.1...@sea-read.news.verio.net...
> In article <d2335e4c.03012...@posting.google.com>,
> ad...@fostas.freeserve.co.uk (Elysium) wrote:
>
> > Europe has made mistakes in past. And we have learned from them. Which
> > is why we do not want to see our allies make the same ones.
> > Imperialism only leads to resentment, and now, when a small group of
> > fanatics have the capability to kill many more people at one time than
> > would have previously been possible, it is important that they do not
> > gain any support. Compassion wins friends. Conquering for selfish gain
> > does not.
>
> 1. On the particular case of Iraq, I am inclined to agree with your
> conclusion (that attacking them is imprudent), but not your argument.,
> You are simply assuming that the objective is "selfish gain." Last time
> I looked, Saudi Arabia had more oil and a smaller army than Iraq, not to
> mention objectionable internal policies, but nobody has seriously
> suggested attacking them.
You're assuming that selfishnes is never tempered by prudence. There are
many fig leafs available for attacking Iraq, but nothing plausible for Saudi
Arabia. Yes, they sponsor terrorists and oppress women, but not in a way
that makes them unique. Saddam is sui generis and even the bitterest
opponents of a U.S. attack on Iraq would gladly see him gone. I suppose I
should say "bitterest sane oppnents"; I did see some leftist nitwit
expressing "solidarity with our Asian brothers" by defending Kim Jong Il.
James A. Donald
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 22:48:12 GMT, "Mike Schilling"
<mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> You're assuming that selfishnes is never tempered by
> prudence. There are many fig leafs available for attacking
> Iraq, but nothing plausible for Saudi Arabia. Yes, they
> sponsor terrorists and oppress women, but not in a way that
> makes them unique. Saddam is sui generis and even the
> bitterest opponents of a U.S. attack on Iraq would gladly see
> him gone.
Your estimate of the proportion of sane people in the anti war
movement is strikingly different from my own.
There is a much better connection between Saudi Arabia and 9/11
than there is between Iraq and Saudi Arabia -- the terrorists
were almost all Saudis, the operation was funded with Saudi
money, and senior members of the Saudi government were involved
in the money trail.
If the US wanted to get the oil, it would just issue an
ultimatum that the Saudis could not comply with, for example an
ultimatum could only be complied with by reforming the state
religion, or a demand to inspect all Saudi finances, (which
would meet even greater resistance) then invade.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
puPBshzLlcfR/DZskX5fjzrR362NbcoaGPC2k5gb
4SxInLz/U201WWHERUZaYwvTvOoJ2Iozu0XrXhwTg
Mike Schilling
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:faau2v8a84jhkk2ls...@4ax.com...
> --
> On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 22:48:12 GMT, "Mike Schilling"
> <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > You're assuming that selfishnes is never tempered by
> > prudence. There are many fig leafs available for attacking
> > Iraq, but nothing plausible for Saudi Arabia. Yes, they
> > sponsor terrorists and oppress women, but not in a way that
> > makes them unique. Saddam is sui generis and even the
> > bitterest opponents of a U.S. attack on Iraq would gladly see
> > him gone.
>
> Your estimate of the proportion of sane people in the anti war
> movement is strikingly different from my own.
>
> There is a much better connection between Saudi Arabia and 9/11
> than there is between Iraq and Saudi Arabia -- the terrorists
> were almost all Saudis, the operation was funded with Saudi
> money, and senior members of the Saudi government were involved
> in the money trail.
There's better connection between 9/11 and Pakistan as well: the Taliban and
their allies are quite powerful in Pakistan, other than in the central
government. And Syria and Iran: both far deeper into state-sponsored
terrorism than Iraq. And the Palestinian Authority: they're a pseudo-state
run by terrorists. And any of the other countries where Sunni Islam is
politically powerful. Of all the Arab/Muslim states, one of the least
connectable with 9/11 is Iraq. This is precisely why Bush's motives are
suspect.
>
> If the US wanted to get the oil, it would just issue an
> ultimatum that the Saudis could not comply with, for example an
> ultimatum could only be complied with by reforming the state
> religion, or a demand to inspect all Saudi finances, (which
> would meet even greater resistance) then invade.
And make the current disagreements with our allies about whether to fight a
war look like an Iraqi presidential election.
Cori
> > European countries for years, and dislike of things American is only
> > the excuse.
>
> Ummm... no, hamburgers are widely available - they just aren't, generally,
> cooked as well. It certainly has nothing to do with disliking America.
>
> > The real reason is fear of mad cow disease!
>
> That certainly led to a decrease in the consumption in the UK, although part
> of that was the poor quality of meat used in the UK for burgers. Not an
> issue anymore.
>
> Although
> > this condition is virtually or entirely non-existent in America, if
> > Europe could find a way to blame America for it, they would!
>
> The EU, as I recall, doesn't import US meat because of the use of hormones
> and anti-biotics in the cattle herds.
>
> I must admit, if I had a choice I'd probably only want to eat Organic
> Aberdeen Angus beef and nothing else for Mad Cow and hormone related
> reasons.
That's interesting, Dave. I thought, from news reports and the like,
that mad cow had just about put the beef industry out of business in
Europe, especially Britain.
Cori
David Friedman
"Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > If the US wanted to get the oil, it would just issue an
> > ultimatum that the Saudis could not comply with, for example an
> > ultimatum could only be complied with by reforming the state
> > religion, or a demand to inspect all Saudi finances, (which
> > would meet even greater resistance) then invade.
>
> And make the current disagreements with our allies about whether to fight a
> war look like an Iraqi presidential election.
What do we need allies for--we can conquer the Saudis easily enough by
ourselves. And then we don't have to share the oil. If that were our
objective.
Brandon Ray
Mike Schilling wrote:
>
> There's better connection between 9/11 and Pakistan as well: the Taliban and
> their allies are quite powerful in Pakistan, other than in the central
> government. And Syria and Iran: both far deeper into state-sponsored
> terrorism than Iraq. And the Palestinian Authority: they're a pseudo-state
> run by terrorists. And any of the other countries where Sunni Islam is
> politically powerful. Of all the Arab/Muslim states, one of the least
> connectable with 9/11 is Iraq. This is precisely why Bush's motives are
> suspect.
First, comparing Iraq's culpability for terrorism to Syria's or Iran's or Saudi
Arabia's or Pakistan is like arguing about whether Charlie Manson is worse than
Jeffrey Dahmer.
But more importantly, Bush is not basing his actions against Iraq *solely* on
its record supporting terrorism, and most especially not on its ties to 9/11.
Iraq is being singled out because, of all the states you mention, it is the
*only* one that (1) has weapons of mass destruction (2) has demonstrated a
willingness to use them against enemies, both foreign and domestic AND (3) is
openly continuing to seek even more powerful weapons of mass destruction than
the ones they already have.
On top of which, unlike the other states you mention, Iraq is languishing under
a cult of personality, and the personality has demonstrated himself to be a
sociopathic monster such as has not been seen since Idi Amin.
>
> >
> > If the US wanted to get the oil, it would just issue an
> > ultimatum that the Saudis could not comply with, for example an
> > ultimatum could only be complied with by reforming the state
> > religion, or a demand to inspect all Saudi finances, (which
> > would meet even greater resistance) then invade.
>
> And make the current disagreements with our allies about whether to fight a
> war look like an Iraqi presidential election.
There's no actual reason for this to be true, since as you yourself point out,
an action against the Saudis would be completely justified as an act of
self-defense -- they *do* have dirty hands, particularly wrt 9/11. But since
many of our so-called allies seem to capable of remarkable feats of
ostrich-like behavior, regardless of the evidence placed before them, you are
probably correct.
David Friedman
Brandon Ray <pub...@avalon.net> wrote:
> But more importantly, Bush is not basing his actions against Iraq *solely* on
> its record supporting terrorism, and most especially not on its ties to 9/11.
> Iraq is being singled out because, of all the states you mention, it is the
> *only* one that (1) has weapons of mass destruction (2) has demonstrated a
> willingness to use them against enemies, both foreign and domestic AND (3) is
> openly continuing to seek even more powerful weapons of mass destruction than
> the ones they already have.
I would have thought that what was special about Iraq was that it
surrendered on terms last time around and, arguably, hasn't abided by
those terms. That gives the U.S. a colorable excuse for intervention.
Jeffrey C. Dege
That's part of it. And that it's a secular state with a fairly
well-educated population, by Arab standards, makes it more likely that
it'll be able to build some sort of stable democratic state.
It's centrally located, too. A modern secular democracy in Iraq would
be far more destabilizing to the rest of the Arab world than would,
for example, Bahrain or Yemen.
--
On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr.
Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers
come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of
ideas that could provoke such a question.
-- Babbage, Charles (1792-1871)
M J Carley
>But more importantly, Bush is not basing his actions against Iraq
>*solely* on its record supporting terrorism, and most especially not
>on its ties to 9/11. Iraq is being singled out because, of all the
>states you mention, it is the *only* one that (1) has weapons of mass
>destruction (2) has demonstrated a willingness to use them against
>enemies, both foreign and domestic AND (3) is openly continuing to
>seek even more powerful weapons of mass destruction than the ones
>they already have.
(1) North Korea almost certainly has genuine weapons of mass
destruction and Bush is a lot more polite to Kim than he is to
Saddam, so it is probably not true that Iraq has anything more
than empty shells. Certainly, Bush doesn't behave as if he
believes it does.
(2) When Iraq used such weapons against enemies foreign and domestic,
the US was supporting it.
(3) Pakistan, India, North Korea and Israel all have weapons of mass
destruction and regularly threaten to use them. The US is either
allied to, or polite to, all of those countries.
>On top of which, unlike the other states you mention, Iraq is
>languishing under a cult of personality, and the personality has
>demonstrated himself to be a sociopathic monster such as has not been
>seen since Idi Amin.
Compared to Kim Jong Il, he's reasonable. So Iraq is not going to be
attacked because Saddam is a sociopath.
--
`Al vero filosofo ogni terreno e' patria.'
BHaLC #6
No MS attachments: http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Home page: http://staff.bath.ac.uk/ensmjc/
M J Carley
>To cut to the chase: in 2000, a court in Great Britain decided that
>foreigners must not be deported to Germany or France anymore since
>both were "unsafe" third countries, due to their practice of
>deporting foreigners into the hands of torturers.
Yet Britain does not automatically give asylum to those fleeing Iraq.
Dave
Umm... no, not at all.
Jeffrey C. Dege
>
> (1) North Korea almost certainly has genuine weapons of mass
> destruction and Bush is a lot more polite to Kim than he is to
> Saddam, so it is probably not true that Iraq has anything more
> than empty shells. Certainly, Bush doesn't behave as if he
> believes it does.
>
> (2) When Iraq used such weapons against enemies foreign and domestic,
> the US was supporting it.
>
> (3) Pakistan, India, North Korea and Israel all have weapons of mass
> destruction and regularly threaten to use them. The US is either
> allied to, or polite to, all of those countries.
I have never understood why the left keeps throwing out these sorts of
claims as if they had any relevence.
We've handled different situations differently. So?
--
The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that
English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words;
on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat
them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.
--James D. Nicoll
smw
Jeffrey C. Dege wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:02:49 GMT, M J Carley <ens...@bath.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>(1) North Korea almost certainly has genuine weapons of mass
>> destruction and Bush is a lot more polite to Kim than he is to
>> Saddam, so it is probably not true that Iraq has anything more
>> than empty shells. Certainly, Bush doesn't behave as if he
>> believes it does.
>>
>>(2) When Iraq used such weapons against enemies foreign and domestic,
>> the US was supporting it.
>>
>>(3) Pakistan, India, North Korea and Israel all have weapons of mass
>> destruction and regularly threaten to use them. The US is either
>> allied to, or polite to, all of those countries.
>>
>>
>
>I have never understood why the left keeps throwing out these sorts of
>claims as if they had any relevence.
>
>We've handled different situations differently. So?
>
So, the difference is meaningful, admits of analysis, exposes Bush's
political hypocrisy, is of general interest to the US and the rest of
the world.
What's your take? Difference doesn't matter because it's all the
same anyway? Or is that too coherent a position to ascribe to you?
>
>
>
Jeffrey C. Dege
>
>Jeffrey C. Dege wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:02:49 GMT, M J Carley <ens...@bath.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>(1) North Korea almost certainly has genuine weapons of mass
>>> destruction and Bush is a lot more polite to Kim than he is to
>>> Saddam, so it is probably not true that Iraq has anything more
>>> than empty shells. Certainly, Bush doesn't behave as if he
>>> believes it does.
>>>
>>>(2) When Iraq used such weapons against enemies foreign and domestic,
>>> the US was supporting it.
>>>
>>>(3) Pakistan, India, North Korea and Israel all have weapons of mass
>>> destruction and regularly threaten to use them. The US is either
>>> allied to, or polite to, all of those countries.
>>
>>I have never understood why the left keeps throwing out these sorts of
>>claims as if they had any relevence.
>>
>>We've handled different situations differently. So?
>
>So, the difference is meaningful, admits of analysis, exposes Bush's
>political hypocrisy, is of general interest to the US and the rest of
>the world.
So in order to avoid charges of "hypocrisy" we should establish rigid
rules on how we should respond to every situation, and never deviate
from them?
We do what we perceive to be in our own best interest. Sometimes that
involves supporting someone we don't approve of against someone we believe
to be a greater threat. Sometimes that involves working against someone
we once supported.
It's called real-politic.
Grow up!
--
At the Boston Globe, as at liberal university campuses, "diversity" is
defined as a staff that includes a black Marxist, a lesbian Marxist, a
Latino Marxist, a transgender Marxist, a feminist Marxist, a Native
American Marxist, and so forth. The one kind of diversity not permitted
is diversity of political view or values.
- Lowell Ponte
M J Carley
>We do what we perceive to be in our own best interest. Sometimes that
>involves supporting someone we don't approve of against someone we believe
>to be a greater threat. Sometimes that involves working against someone
>we once supported.
>
>It's called real-politic.
So what you are saying is that the US can do what it likes and the
rest of us should learn to like it.
>Grow up!
Indeed.
smw
Jeffrey C. Dege wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:59:21 -0500, smw <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Jeffrey C. Dege wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:02:49 GMT, M J Carley <ens...@bath.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>(1) North Korea almost certainly has genuine weapons of mass
>>>> destruction and Bush is a lot more polite to Kim than he is to
>>>> Saddam, so it is probably not true that Iraq has anything more
>>>> than empty shells. Certainly, Bush doesn't behave as if he
>>>> believes it does.
>>>>
>>>>(2) When Iraq used such weapons against enemies foreign and domestic,
>>>> the US was supporting it.
>>>>
>>>>(3) Pakistan, India, North Korea and Israel all have weapons of mass
>>>> destruction and regularly threaten to use them. The US is either
>>>> allied to, or polite to, all of those countries.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I have never understood why the left keeps throwing out these sorts of
>>>claims as if they had any relevence.
>>>
>>>We've handled different situations differently. So?
>>>
>>>
>>So, the difference is meaningful, admits of analysis, exposes Bush's
>>political hypocrisy, is of general interest to the US and the rest of
>>the world.
>>
>>
>
>So in order to avoid charges of "hypocrisy" we should establish rigid
>rules on how we should respond to every situation, and never deviate
>from them?
>
I'm very enamored of your "we." Makes me feel so close to power.
No, "you" should avoid bullshitting the general public by
transparent crap like "we want to go to war in Iraq because Saddam
Hussein is a bad man who may have weapons of self-destruction."
>We do what we perceive to be in our own best interest. Sometimes that
>involves supporting someone we don't approve of against someone we believe
>to be a greater threat. Sometimes that involves working against someone
>we once supported.
>
>It's called real-politic.
>
>Grow up!
>
You mean, I, too, could post mindless drivel like "we just do what we
want to do because we're we and we like ourselves"?
Karl M Syring
> In the referenced article, jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege) writes:
>
>>We do what we perceive to be in our own best interest. Sometimes that
>>involves supporting someone we don't approve of against someone we believe
>>to be a greater threat. Sometimes that involves working against someone
>>we once supported.
>>
>>It's called real-politic.
>
> So what you are saying is that the US can do what it likes and the
> rest of us should learn to like it.
>
>>Grow up!
>
> Indeed.
Jeffrey C. Dege is one of the Replicants, kill-file him
as fast as you can.
Karl M. Syring
Mike Schilling
"M J Carley" <ens...@bath.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:H95vwp.As...@bath.ac.uk...
> (3) Pakistan, India, North Korea and Israel all have weapons of mass
> destruction and regularly threaten to use them. The US is either
> allied to, or polite to, all of those countries.
When has Israel threatened to use WMD?
Brandon Ray
smw wrote:
>
> No, "you" should avoid bullshitting the general public by
> transparent crap like "we want to go to war in Iraq because Saddam
> Hussein is a bad man who may have weapons of self-destruction."
>
Except, of course, that there's no evidence that it's transparent crap, other
than in the fevered imagination of a few people on the left.
Jeffrey C. Dege
>In the referenced article, jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege) writes:
>
>>We do what we perceive to be in our own best interest. Sometimes that
>>involves supporting someone we don't approve of against someone we believe
>>to be a greater threat. Sometimes that involves working against someone
>>we once supported.
>>
>>It's called real-politic.
>
>So what you are saying is that the US can do what it likes and the
>rest of us should learn to like it.
The US will do what serves it best.
--
Widespread possession of guns is justified by considerations of public
safety, individual dignity and healthy democracy. Public safety because
law enforcement personnel can never be numerous enough to guarantee
safety. (Remember this test: Call for a cop, an ambulance and a
pizza. Which will get there first?) Personal dignity implies, among much
else, readiness for self-defense. And the health of democratic culture
is implicated in the general public's involvement in public safety. This
is so because freedom is not a gift from government, and defending it
is not a duty that properly responsible citizens will entirely delegate
to government.
- George F. Will
Grantland
>On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 16:50:11 GMT, M J Carley <ens...@bath.ac.uk> wrote:
>>In the referenced article, jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege) writes:
>>
>>>We do what we perceive to be in our own best interest. Sometimes that
>>>involves supporting someone we don't approve of against someone we believe
>>>to be a greater threat. Sometimes that involves working against someone
>>>we once supported.
>>>
>>>It's called real-politic.
>>
>>So what you are saying is that the US can do what it likes and the
>>rest of us should learn to like it.
>
>The US will do what serves it best.
>
No, the best interest of the US is not a bloody, interminable war with
Islam. The best interest of the US is a just stability in the M.E. -
ie an end to Israeli land-grabbing. And peace with Islam.
The US will do what serves the Jews best. Jews control the US.
Grantland
Jeffrey C. Dege
>jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 16:50:11 GMT, M J Carley <ens...@bath.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>In the referenced article, jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege) writes:
>>>
>>>>We do what we perceive to be in our own best interest. Sometimes that
>>>>involves supporting someone we don't approve of against someone we believe
>>>>to be a greater threat. Sometimes that involves working against someone
>>>>we once supported.
>>>>
>>>>It's called real-politic.
>>>
>>>So what you are saying is that the US can do what it likes and the
>>>rest of us should learn to like it.
>>
>>The US will do what serves it best.
>>
>No, the best interest of the US is not a bloody, interminable war with
>Islam.
The best interest of the US is free societies, free trade, and open
borders.
>The best interest of the US is a just stability in the M.E. -
We've had far too much stability in the M.E. - tyrants and thugs who
should have been replaced decades ago.
>ie an end to Israeli land-grabbing.
A recognition that Israel hs every right to be there.
>And peace with Islam.
We'll have peace with Islam when they learn to function in the modern
world without blaming everyone else for their own failures.
>The US will do what serves the Jews best. Jews control the US.
Are there black helicopters overy your house?
--
If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation
should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime
rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century
and a half of trying that they must sweep under the rug the southern
attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts
in the 1920-1939 period, the attempts at both Federal and State levels
in 1965-1976 establishes the repeated, complete and inevitable failure
of gun laws to control serious crime.
- Orrin G. Hatch
Grantland
>On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:16:55 GMT, Grantland <mit...@iafrica.com> wrote:
>>jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege) wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 16:50:11 GMT, M J Carley <ens...@bath.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>In the referenced article, jd...@jdege.visi.com (Jeffrey C. Dege) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>We do what we perceive to be in our own best interest. Sometimes that
>>>>>involves supporting someone we don't approve of against someone we believe
>>>>>to be a greater threat. Sometimes that involves working against someone
>>>>>we once supported.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's called real-politic.
>>>>
>>>>So what you are saying is that the US can do what it likes and the
>>>>rest of us should learn to like it.
>>>
>>>The US will do what serves it best.
>>>
>>No, the best interest of the US is not a bloody, interminable war with
>>Islam.
>
>The best interest of the US is free societies, free trade, and open
>borders.
>
Oh? Not a bloody, interminable war? We agree.
>>The best interest of the US is a just stability in the M.E. -
>
>We've had far too much stability in the M.E. - tyrants and thugs who
>should have been replaced decades ago.
The festering Zionist ulcer belies your words.
>>ie an end to Israeli land-grabbing.
>
>A recognition that Israel hs every right to be there.
The Saudi Peace Plan.
>
>>And peace with Islam.
>
>We'll have peace with Islam when they learn to function in the modern
>world without blaming everyone else for their own failures.
Ah, a fool.
>
>>The US will do what serves the Jews best. Jews control the US.
>
>Are there black helicopters overy your house?
>
Aren't you politically naive.
Grantland
James A. Donald
"Mike Schilling"
> > > You're assuming that selfishnes is never tempered by
> > > prudence. There are many fig leafs available for
> > > attacking Iraq, but nothing plausible for Saudi Arabia.
> > > Yes, they sponsor terrorists and oppress women, but not
> > > in a way that makes them unique. Saddam is sui generis
> > > and even the bitterest opponents of a U.S. attack on Iraq
> > > would gladly see him gone.
James A. Donald:
> > Your estimate of the proportion of sane people in the anti
> > war movement is strikingly different from my own.
> >
> > There is a much better connection between Saudi Arabia and
> > 9/11 than there is between Iraq and [9/11] -- the
> > terrorists were almost all Saudis, the operation was funded
> > with Saudi money, and senior members of the Saudi
> > government were involved in the money trail.
Mike Schilling
> There's better connection between 9/11 and Pakistan as well:
> the Taliban and their allies are quite powerful in Pakistan,
Pakistan, however, decided to change sides, which is good
grounds for not invading. Saudi Arabia has always
hypocritically claimed to be on both sides, and has always
hypocritically supported both sides, which makes it hard for
them to believably change sides, thus there was and is a good
excuse for invading, an excuse that nothing the Saudis can do
could remedy. How could you respond to a military ultimatum
that says in effect "stop being hypocrites"?
> other than in the central government. And Syria and Iran:
> both far deeper into state-sponsored terrorism than Iraq.
Not terrorism "of global scope". The 9/14 war declaration
authorized the president to make war on those who sponsor
terrorists of global scope -- which seems to me to cover only
the Taliban, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. Pakistan, the west's
most powerful adversary, responded to this ultimatum by
believably switching sides. On hearing that if they were not
with us, they were against us, they decided to be with us.
Which leaves only the Taliban and Saudi Arabia. Taliban has
fled and gone into hiding, those of them that are still alive,
which leaves only Saudi Arabia.
If oil was the real issue, the Sauds would be goners by now.
(Which is not to say that terrorism is the real issue --
evidently it is not. If it was, the Saudis would also be
goners.)
> And the Palestinian Authority: they're a pseudo-state run by
> terrorists.
Less so than Israel. None of the mass murders of innocents
that Arafat presided over equaled Sharon's, and Sharon's are
small potatoes compared to that of various UN members in good
repute. Of course Israel's crimes do not count, but neither do
Arafat's because Arafat is not a terrorist "of global scope".
> > If the US wanted to get the oil, it would just issue an
> > ultimatum that the Saudis could not comply with, for
> > example an ultimatum could only be complied with by
> > reforming the state religion, or a demand to inspect all
> > Saudi finances, (which would meet even greater resistance)
> > then invade.
> And make the current disagreements with our allies about
> whether to fight a war look like an Iraqi presidential
> election.
Iraqi presidential elections are very quiet. Americas real
allies would be as much up for Saudi Arabia as they are for
Iraq, and such allies as France are not worth a pinch of kitty
litter. Who cares what they say. Let them eat frogs. Just
set of some loud firecrackers in Paris, and they will be
running around looking for someone to surrender to.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
rHx/UWB8p2kZ9z7ooBEXln6f2nE/CuJSER+RE0FZ
40V5/yymAieSecYmOapxpZA2v90PHExZ1zIahvwWR
smw
Brandon Ray wrote:
>
> smw wrote:
>
>
>> No, "you" should avoid bullshitting the general public by
>>transparent crap like "we want to go to war in Iraq because Saddam
>>Hussein is a bad man who may have weapons of self-destruction."
>>
>>
>
> Except, of course, that there's no evidence that it's transparent crap, other
> than in the fevered imagination of a few people on the left.
"There's no evidence that there's no evidence!" Sure.
Silly boy, the point is not whether he's a bad man who might have weapons
of mass destruction. The point is that that's not the reason your bad
guy who definitely does have weapons of mass destruction wants to go to
war against him.
But I'll stop confusing you now.
-Özzama Bin Kenøbi-
>>So, the difference is meaningful, admits of analysis, exposes Bush's
>>political hypocrisy, is of general interest to the US and the rest of
>>the world.
>
>So in order to avoid charges of "hypocrisy" we should establish rigid
>rules on how we should respond to every situation, and never deviate
>from them?
No, the U$ should stop labelling all things "foreign" as evil, or
inferior. Even France and Germany are mocked, referred to as "old
Europe". You're talking about countries that have the power to destroy
Amerika if they choose to.
Amerikans have completely lost their sense of reality, they now
believe their own bullshit. That's called denial, and that is
precisely why they appear to be such hypocrites. If they continue this
behaviour, they will receive an ass kicking of apocalyptic proportions
from the entire world, because their behaviour is uniting the entire
world against them.
Even cocksucking Toady Blair won't be able to help.
Elysium
> conclusion (that attacking them is imprudent), but not your argument.,
> You are simply assuming that the objective is "selfish gain." Last time
> I looked, Saudi Arabia had more oil and a smaller army than Iraq, not to
> mention objectionable internal policies, but nobody has seriously
> suggested attacking them.
That's because Saudi Arabia is technically at least an ally of the US,
and if the US starts attacking people considered its friends it will
no longer have credibility with ANY government in the world. Even a
superpower cannot survive with the whole world allied against it.
> 2. It doesn't look to me like imperialism, since it doesn't look as
> though the U.S. plans to convert Iraq into a colony. It looks a lot more
> like acting on "the lesson of Munich," whether or not prudently.
The British control of India was initiated by the East India company,
an organisation with the full support of the crown. Already the major
oil corporations are jockeying for position (see the Washington Post a
few days ago). Overt control is unnecessary when any independant
government knows that it could be crushed instantly if it goes against
the US's wishes.
> 3. So far as Europe having abandoned imperialism, it was my impression
> that France was the one imperial power that had succeeded in keeping
> parts of its African empire--by using front men. At least there must be
> some reason the paras keep showing up well south of Marseilles.
What do you think all the US sponsored African & Asian dictatorships
are?
M J Carley
It was on nuclear alert during the Yom Kippur war (twice) and the Gulf
war in 1991. In 1973, they targeted Damascus with nuclear-capable
artillery (which may or may not have been nuclear armed). In 1991,
they made a threat of retaliation which was interpreted to mean a
nuclear attack if Iraq used chemical or biological weapons.
http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/hew/Israel/Isrhist.html
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/farr.htm
Paul Austin
> In the referenced article, "Mike Schilling"
<mscotts...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >
> >"M J Carley" <ens...@bath.ac.uk> wrote in message
> >news:H95vwp.As...@bath.ac.uk...
> >
> >> (3) Pakistan, India, North Korea and Israel all have weapons of
mass
> >> destruction and regularly threaten to use them. The US is
either
> >> allied to, or polite to, all of those countries.
> >
> >When has Israel threatened to use WMD?
>
> It was on nuclear alert during the Yom Kippur war (twice) and the
Gulf
> war in 1991.
> In 1973, they targeted Damascus with nuclear-capable
> artillery (which may or may not have been nuclear armed).
This is a nonsequitur. _Any_ gun larger than 155mm is "nuclear
capable". To construe the shelling of the Damascus suburbs by 175mm
guns as a "nuclear threat" is absurd. If an artillery piece is
"nuclear armed", shortly after it fires, there's this very bright
flash at the other end.
During the '73 war, the _US_ raised its nuclear alert level. There's a
reason for that. In one issue (and one issue only) of Aviation Week
during the war, there was a news item that Soviet surface to surface
missile troops had deployed to Egypt.
> In 1991,
> they made a threat of retaliation which was interpreted to mean a
> nuclear attack if Iraq used chemical or biological weapons.
And your point is? It's US policy to respond to chemical and
biological weapons attacks with nuclear weapons.
--
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind
and won't change the subject"
-------------------------------------
Paul F Austin
pfau...@bellsouth.net
M J Carley
>
>"M J Carley" <ens...@bath.ac.uk> wrote in message
>> In 1973, they targeted Damascus with nuclear-capable
>> artillery (which may or may not have been nuclear armed).
>
>This is a nonsequitur. _Any_ gun larger than 155mm is "nuclear
>capable". To construe the shelling of the Damascus suburbs by 175mm
>guns as a "nuclear threat" is absurd. If an artillery piece is
>"nuclear armed", shortly after it fires, there's this very bright
>flash at the other end.
According to Israel Shahak, Israel was on the point of using nuclear
weapons in 1973.
>During the '73 war, the _US_ raised its nuclear alert level. There's a
>reason for that. In one issue (and one issue only) of Aviation Week
>during the war, there was a news item that Soviet surface to surface
>missile troops had deployed to Egypt.
The fact that the US was ready to use nuclear weapons is relevant
because ...?
>> In 1991,
>> they made a threat of retaliation which was interpreted to mean a
>> nuclear attack if Iraq used chemical or biological weapons.
>
>And your point is? It's US policy to respond to chemical and
>biological weapons attacks with nuclear weapons.
So the US has threatened the use of nuclear weapons as well? So what?
Mike Schilling
news:d2335e4c.03012...@posting.google.com...
> > 1. On the particular case of Iraq, I am inclined to agree with your
> > conclusion (that attacking them is imprudent), but not your argument.,
> > You are simply assuming that the objective is "selfish gain." Last time
> > I looked, Saudi Arabia had more oil and a smaller army than Iraq, not to
> > mention objectionable internal policies, but nobody has seriously
> > suggested attacking them.
>
> That's because Saudi Arabia is technically at least an ally of the US,
> and if the US starts attacking people considered its friends it will
> no longer have credibility with ANY government in the world. Even a
> superpower cannot survive with the whole world allied against it.
>
Not to mention that occupation of Mecca and Medina by a Christian nation
would effectively be a declaration of war on the entire Muslim world. (This
will no doubt elicit responses of "who cares?", which shows what
power-fantasies can do to the mind.)
Rob
>In the referenced article, pub...@avalon.net writes:
>
>>But more importantly, Bush is not basing his actions against Iraq
>>*solely* on its record supporting terrorism, and most especially not
>>on its ties to 9/11. Iraq is being singled out because, of all the
>>states you mention, it is the *only* one that (1) has weapons of mass
>>destruction (2) has demonstrated a willingness to use them against
>>enemies, both foreign and domestic AND (3) is openly continuing to
>>seek even more powerful weapons of mass destruction than the ones
>>they already have.
>
> (1) North Korea almost certainly has genuine weapons of mass
> destruction and Bush is a lot more polite to Kim than he is to
> Saddam, so it is probably not true that Iraq has anything more
> than empty shells. Certainly, Bush doesn't behave as if he
> believes it does.
>
them, so we have to be polite to them. If Iraq had nuclear weapons, we'd have
to be polite to them too, even if they did invade Kuwait.
You either act against Iraq now, before they have nuclear weapons, or you can
never act against them.
Mike Schilling
> In the referenced article, "Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com>
writes:
> >
> >"M J Carley" <ens...@bath.ac.uk> wrote in message
> >news:H95vwp.As...@bath.ac.uk...
> >
> >> (3) Pakistan, India, North Korea and Israel all have weapons of mass
> >> destruction and regularly threaten to use them. The US is either
> >> allied to, or polite to, all of those countries.
> >
> >When has Israel threatened to use WMD?
>
> It was on nuclear alert during the Yom Kippur war (twice) and the Gulf
> war in 1991. In 1973, they targeted Damascus with nuclear-capable
> artillery (which may or may not have been nuclear armed).
> In 1991,
> they made a threat of retaliation which was interpreted to mean a
> nuclear attack if Iraq used chemical or biological weapons.
That is, a veiled threat to retaliate for WMD attacks, not a threat of first
use.
James A. Donald
fOn Fri, 24 Jan 2003 16:30:46 GMT, "Mike Schilling"
<mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Not to mention that occupation of Mecca and Medina by a
> Christian nation would effectively be a declaration of war on
> the entire Muslim world.
Mecca and Medina is currently under the control of a small and
extremist sect of Islam, which most of the rest of Islam would
not be too distressed to see lose control.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
/difZw3r+ifRjVj9G2eQU9Jf8UXl12hxqPJLlWKM
4cjbq49E35XTg+pIGE/JWyS0ME7xyKVAo1VKIMUP9
Paul Austin
> In the referenced article, "Paul Austin" <pfau...@bellsouth.net>
writes:
> >
> >"M J Carley" <ens...@bath.ac.uk> wrote in message
> >news:H97q0I.AD...@bath.ac.uk...
>
> >> In 1973, they targeted Damascus with nuclear-capable
> >> artillery (which may or may not have been nuclear armed).
> >
> >This is a nonsequitur. _Any_ gun larger than 155mm is "nuclear
> >capable". To construe the shelling of the Damascus suburbs by 175mm
> >guns as a "nuclear threat" is absurd. If an artillery piece is
> >"nuclear armed", shortly after it fires, there's this very bright
> >flash at the other end.
>
> According to Israel Shahak, Israel was on the point of using nuclear
> weapons in 1973.
See below. They had reason.
>
> >During the '73 war, the _US_ raised its nuclear alert level.
There's a
> >reason for that. In one issue (and one issue only) of Aviation Week
> >during the war, there was a news item that Soviet surface to
surface
> >missile troops had deployed to Egypt.
>
> The fact that the US was ready to use nuclear weapons is relevant
> because ...?
For the same reason that Israelis went to a nuclear alert: intel that
the Sovs had moved nuclear-armed SSMs into Egypt when Egypt was on the
verge of catastrophic defeat.
Mike Schilling
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:dic33vs4tsbj6qt1k...@4ax.com...
> --
> fOn Fri, 24 Jan 2003 16:30:46 GMT, "Mike Schilling"
> <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Not to mention that occupation of Mecca and Medina by a
> > Christian nation would effectively be a declaration of war on
> > the entire Muslim world.
>
> Mecca and Medina is currently under the control of a small and
> extremist sect of Islam, which most of the rest of Islam would
> not be too distressed to see lose control.
>
Asked them, did you?
Brandon Ray
smw wrote:
> "There's no evidence that there's no evidence!" Sure.
>
> Silly boy, the point is not whether he's a bad man who might have weapons
> of mass destruction. The point is that that's not the reason your bad
> guy who definitely does have weapons of mass destruction wants to go to
> war against him.
>
Actually, I believe that *is* the reason, and I have seen no credible evidence to
the contrary.
>
> But I'll stop confusing you now.
I don't think I'm the one who's confused ....
Steve Taylor
>> Not to mention that occupation of Mecca and Medina by a
>> Christian nation would effectively be a declaration of war on
>> the entire Muslim world.
> Mecca and Medina is currently under the control of a small and
> extremist sect of Islam, which most of the rest of Islam would
> not be too distressed to see lose control.
To Christians? Get serious.
> James A. Donald
Steve
Elysium
> extremist sect of Islam, which most of the rest of Islam would
> not be too distressed to see lose control.
>
smw
Brandon Ray wrote:
>
> smw wrote:
>
>
>>"There's no evidence that there's no evidence!" Sure.
>>
>> Silly boy, the point is not whether he's a bad man who might have weapons
>>of mass destruction. The point is that that's not the reason your bad
>>guy who definitely does have weapons of mass destruction wants to go to
>>war against him.
>>
>>
>
> Actually, I believe that *is* the reason, and I have seen no credible evidence to
> the contrary.
Yes, you have. All the bad guys with weapons of mass destruction you're
not going to war to. Since, then, bad-guy-ness combined with weapons is
clearly and demonstrably not a sufficient reason, there must be other ones.
>> But I'll stop confusing you now.
>>
>
> I don't think I'm the one who's confused ....
It's true. As a rule, brainwashing produces not confusion, but a sense
of certainty.
zztop8970-
> In the referenced article, "Paul Austin" <pfau...@bellsouth.net> writes:
> >
> >"M J Carley" <ens...@bath.ac.uk> wrote in message
> >news:H97q0I.AD...@bath.ac.uk...
>
> >> In 1973, they targeted Damascus with nuclear-capable
> >> artillery (which may or may not have been nuclear armed).
> >
> >This is a nonsequitur. _Any_ gun larger than 155mm is "nuclear
> >capable". To construe the shelling of the Damascus suburbs by 175mm
> >guns as a "nuclear threat" is absurd. If an artillery piece is
> >"nuclear armed", shortly after it fires, there's this very bright
> >flash at the other end.
>
> According to Israel Shahak, Israel was on the point of using nuclear
> weapons in 1973.
Mr. Austin has already done a fine job of dismantling your argumets,
but I just want to address this point.
What would Shahak, a professor emeritus of chemistry, know of any
Israeli gov't plans to use nukes? Think the PM called him up to
discuss this and get his opinion prior to taking action?
And why should Shahak, a discredited and proven liar, be taken
seriously in the first place?
David Friedman
ad...@fostas.freeserve.co.uk (Elysium) wrote:
Presumably, if the U.S. wanted to conquer the Saudis, they would do
their best to find an Islamic ally to do it with. If it weren't for
recent difficulties, Iraq might even qualify.
The Islamic world is very far from a united body; the people Iraq has
used poison gas against so far are almost all fellow Muslims.
Jeffrey C. Dege
>Presumably, if the U.S. wanted to conquer the Saudis, they would do
>their best to find an Islamic ally to do it with. If it weren't for
>recent difficulties, Iraq might even qualify.
Most likely we'd just set up the local sheiks as independent rulers,
like Kuwait, Bahrain, etc., and leave the Saudis in control of Mecca,
Medina, Jedda, and the desert.
--
I have noticed also myself, gentlemen, that when men seek for nothing in
warfare but only life at all costs, they are generally the ones to die,
and that with disgrace and ignominy; but when they recognize that all
men must die, for this is their common lot, and strive only to die with
honor, these I generally see growing to old age, and while they live,
much happier.
Learn this lesson yourselves, for now is the time we need it: be men
yourselves, and encourage others to do the same.
- Xenophon, "Anabasis"
David Tomlin
> Last time
> I looked, Saudi Arabia had more oil and a smaller army than Iraq, not to
> mention objectionable internal policies, but nobody has seriously
> suggested attacking them.
The Saudis have stayed on good terms with American oil companies.
Nationalization was more acrimonious in Iraq. The Iraqis turned
to the French and Russians, and more recently the Japanese. It
seems a deal with the Japanese fell through because of the
sanctions.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/08jim.htm
> 2. It doesn't look to me like imperialism, since it doesn't look as
> though the U.S. plans to convert Iraq into a colony.
What do you think they're going to do with it? :-)
David Tomlin
> Iraq is being singled out because, of all the states you mention, it is the
> *only* one that (1) has weapons of mass destruction (2) has demonstrated a
> willingness to use them against enemies, both foreign and domestic AND (3) is
> openly continuing to seek even more powerful weapons of mass destruction than
> the ones they already have.
You think you can wave around the catch-phrase "weapons of mass
destruction" and make people forget the difference between
poison gas and nuclear bombs? I suppose there are people that
dumb, but how many of them are functionally literate?
David Friedman
jet...@home.com (David Tomlin) wrote:
4. Lost a war to us, surrendered on terms, and arguably violated the
terms, thus giving us colorable grounds for an attack.
In my view, the theory that we are just trying to steal oil is
implausible. The real question is whether the objective is to prevent
Iraq from ending up with much more serious weapons than it has, or to de
facto weaken sovereignty by demonstrating that countries that do things
the U.S. very much disapproves of are likely to suffer serious
consequences. Both seem to me plausible motives, both can reasonably be
argued to be desirable, but I am, on the whole, in favor of the first
and opposed to the second.
James A. Donald
James A. Donald:
> > Mecca and Medina is currently under the control of a small
> > and extremist sect of Islam, which most of the rest of
> > Islam would not be too distressed to see lose control.
Elysium
> Try imagining the reaction if Syria occupied the Vatican.
There would be a reaction if Syria occupied Greece. Vatican, no
one would notice.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
iwGOghZhyD9w45GrINb/tAy37P9HO/eGoVusTIhc
4cg4NrF/nMjQ4x690ZW25ijV4+nDa/wfphwwFkiWx
Elysium
> their best to find an Islamic ally to do it with. If it weren't for
> recent difficulties, Iraq might even qualify.
>
> The Islamic world is very far from a united body; the people Iraq has
> used poison gas against so far are almost all fellow Muslims.
Any Islamic nation that supported Western aggression against their
holy land would very rapidly find its government being brought down.
Imagine the reaction of the people of America if their government
joined in with another invasion of Israel on the side of Egypt or
Jordan.
David Friedman
ad...@fostas.freeserve.co.uk (Elysium) wrote:
What western aggression against their holy land? The Muslim country in
question would be liberating the holy cities from the rule of heretical
Muslims--with the help of allies. From the standpoint of the Shia it
would be a great triumph, but we would probably be safer if we could
find Sunni allies who didn't like the Saudi version.
David Tomlin
> 4. Lost a war to us, surrendered on terms, and arguably violated the
> terms, thus giving us colorable grounds for an attack.
"Whoever has a mind to do mischief will always find a pretext."
GWB has already declared all "terrorist" governments to be fair
game.
> In my view, the theory that we are just trying to steal oil is
> implausible.
I don't think the U.S. is going to "steal" the oil. I think they
are going to install a regime that will, among other things, give
U.S. oil companies a deal comparable to what they presently have
in Saudi Arabia.
In the article I linked to earlier, there is some speculation
that a pro-U.S. Iraq might withdraw from OPEC, an event which
might destroy the cartel. I have no idea if this is an objective
of U.S. policy, but most Americans probably think it should be.
I don't think oil is the only motivation. The question is
whether it is a motivation at all. It appears that it could
well be.
> The real question is whether the objective is to prevent
> Iraq from ending up with much more serious weapons than it has, or to de
> facto weaken sovereignty by demonstrating that countries that do things
> the U.S. very much disapproves of are likely to suffer serious
> consequences.
In light of recent history in the Balkans and Afghanistan, I am
expecting an indefinite occupation of Iraq by western forces.
That will achieve multiple goals, summed up as domination
of the Middle East by U.S.-Israel-Turkey.
> Both seem to me plausible motives, both can reasonably be
> argued to be desirable, but I am, on the whole, in favor of the first
> and opposed to the second.
Preventing nuclear proliferation in the Middle East is certainly a
worthy goal. Israel would have been a good place to start.
M J Carley
>ens...@bath.ac.uk (M J Carley) wrote in message news:<H9843q.BI...@bath.ac.uk>...
>> According to Israel Shahak, Israel was on the point of using nuclear
>> weapons in 1973.
>
>Mr. Austin has already done a fine job of dismantling your argumets,
>but I just want to address this point.
Actually, he has agreed that Israel *was* on the point of using
nuclear weapons. He simply said that it had good reason to (which is a
different question).
>What would Shahak, a professor emeritus of chemistry, know of any
>Israeli gov't plans to use nukes? Think the PM called him up to
>discuss this and get his opinion prior to taking action?
>
>And why should Shahak, a discredited and proven liar, be taken
>seriously in the first place?
Because, first of all, he backs up his claim and, secondly, Mr Austin
agrees that Israel was on the point of using nuclear weapons.
James A. Donald
On 27 Jan 2003 02:18:47 -0800, jet...@home.com (David Tomlin)
wrote:
> David Friedman wrote
>
> > 4. Lost a war to us, surrendered on terms, and arguably
> > violated the terms, thus giving us colorable grounds for an
> > attack.
>
> "Whoever has a mind to do mischief will always find a
> pretext."
>
> GWB has already declared all "terrorist" governments to be
> fair game.
Actually that was congress. Three days after the two towers
fell, congress issued a war powers act, authorizing the
president to make war on any government that sponsors
terrorists "of global scope"
Surprisingly however, the president has not, as yet, done
anything about Saudi Arabia, which I would think a far more
important adversary than Iraq.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
jZdM3QCXzj/n+T036NySB5rOYq+pSENvYOrisoDM
4DqAUZ3d2V+aQ0z7xnRqT3zVnX1Re69Pod6kRdqVq
zztop8970-
> In the referenced article, zzto...@yahoo.com (zztop8970-) writes:
> >ens...@bath.ac.uk (M J Carley) wrote in message news:<H9843q.BI...@bath.ac.uk>...
>
> >> According to Israel Shahak, Israel was on the point of using nuclear
> >> weapons in 1973.
> >
> >Mr. Austin has already done a fine job of dismantling your argumets,
> >but I just want to address this point.
>
> Actually, he has agreed that Israel *was* on the point of using
> nuclear weapons. He simply said that it had good reason to (which is a
> different question).
Your original arguemnt was "Israel [has] weapons of mass destruction
and regularly threaten[s] to use them"
This is the nonsense argument which Mr. Austin has dismantled. Israel
has never threatened to use its nuclear weapons, much less 'regularly'
does so.
Mr. Austin has agreed that on one occasion, Israel went on nuclear
alert, which is quite a different argument than the one you were
making.
>
> >What would Shahak, a professor emeritus of chemistry, know of any
> >Israeli gov't plans to use nukes? Think the PM called him up to
> >discuss this and get his opinion prior to taking action?
> >
> >And why should Shahak, a discredited and proven liar, be taken
> >seriously in the first place?
>
> Because, first of all, he backs up his claim
Really? Where, and how? Was he privy to secret Israeli gov't meetings
in which such was discussed?
>and, secondly, Mr Austin
> agrees that Israel was on the point of using nuclear weapons.
Mr. Austin agrees that on one occasion, Israel went on nuclear alert.
That is a a far cry from your nonsensical claim that Israel regualrly
threatens to use nuclear weapons.
William Newman
Translating it into American terms might be more complicated than you
suggest. Christianity mostly got over the notion of heretics being a
serious problem several centuries ago. Now the tent is so big that in
most cases (with occasional newsworthy exceptions e.g. in the ex-USSR)
Mormons and back-to-Jewish-ritual splinter groups and pretty much
everything else I can think of are "with us", not "agin' us". YMMV,
but I don't get the same impression for the Islamic world.
So how do we translate Islamic schisms into Western schisms? I suggest
that Western religious schisms won't cut it. So I nominate our
disagreements about governmental forms. We have recognized
undemocratic states as allies, or Western, but we're not real happy
with them.
So as our heretics, imagine a decidedly Christian undemocratic
government vaguely analogous to Franco's Spain. It's not someone we
like, but it didn't jump in on the losing side in WWII, and lived on
indefinitely. Imagine it in Italy today, which since it was where
Mussolini used to be, and wouldn't require it hanging on much longer
than Stalin's heirs did, shouldn't be too much of a stretch.
We also need to twist history around some so that external,
non-Western power decides their fate. You can have your choice of the
1970s predictions that the oil-rich Arabs were going to dominate the
world, or the 1980s predictions that the Japanese were going to
dominate the world, or the 1990s predictions that the Chinese were
going to dominate the world, and that in any case the the US would
fade into irrelevance. Whichever set of predictions we choose to come
true, US ability to project power to Italy has declined to the level
of Egypt's ability to project power into Iraq, so the US doesn't have
much of a say one way or the other about Franco/Mussolini/whoever's
heirs controlling Rome, while the A/J/C do.
Now how does the US mob react when the Arab or Japanese or Chinese
power brokers push some arguably less undemocratic Western state into
control of Rome?
Obviously I've bent the world totally out of shape in this analogy,
and there are all sorts of things wrong with it, and US ability to be
smoothly Machiavellian in the real world is likely poorer than the
fictional Machiavellianism I'm imagining. But still I'm not sure it's
a poorer fit than the original analogy.
(One place where I've *really* bent it out of shape is that Rome
doesn't have the same importance to Christians as the Saudi Arabian
holy sites do for Moslems. But you could ask "how do US Catholics
feel" (about the Pope and all being under the physical control of
another regime) and it might not be too bad.)
(Or, if you prefer the invasion of Israel to the invasion of Rome,
imagine the A/J/C maneuvering it so that Britain or France or Italy or
someone got a new protectorate sort of arrangement there. Even if it
was a pretty thin veil over someone else calling the shots, it's not
clear "the people of America" would base their reactions on seeing
through it. Many of the leftist critics of US policy -- dunno about
you -- argue in other contexts that most USians don't have a clear
idea what is going on in the current conflict. It's not clear they'd
be better informed about this hypothetical conflict...)
David Friedman
> David Friedman wrote
>
> > 4. Lost a war to us, surrendered on terms, and arguably violated the
> > terms, thus giving us colorable grounds for an attack.
>
> "Whoever has a mind to do mischief will always find a pretext."
>
> GWB has already declared all "terrorist" governments to be fair
> game.
But he isn't in fact going after all of them--just two. The one that was
in fact sheltering the people apparently responsible for the 9/11
attack, adn the one that meets my condition 4 above.
> > In my view, the theory that we are just trying to steal oil is
> > implausible.
>
> I don't think the U.S. is going to "steal" the oil. I think they
> are going to install a regime that will, among other things, give
> U.S. oil companies a deal comparable to what they presently have
> in Saudi Arabia.
Which deal, I think, is that the Saudis nationalized the oil and hired
foreign companies to actually drill and pump--with most of the money
going to the Saudis. Or am I misperceiving the Saudi situation?
> In the article I linked to earlier, there is some speculation
> that a pro-U.S. Iraq might withdraw from OPEC, an event which
> might destroy the cartel. I have no idea if this is an objective
> of U.S. policy, but most Americans probably think it should be.
I suppose it's possible, but a variety of other theoretically pro-U.S.
governments haven't.
David Tomlin
>David Tomlin wrote:
> > GWB has already declared all "terrorist" governments to be fair
> > game.
> But he isn't in fact going after all of them--just two.
We don't know that yet. If true its beside the point.
> Which deal, I think, is that the Saudis nationalized the oil and hired
> foreign companies to actually drill and pump--with most of the money
> going to the Saudis. Or am I misperceiving the Saudi situation?
I'm sure you know more about it than I. What's your point?
> > In the article I linked to earlier, there is some speculation
> > that a pro-U.S. Iraq might withdraw from OPEC, an event which
> > might destroy the cartel. I have no idea if this is an objective
> > of U.S. policy, but most Americans probably think it should be.
> I suppose it's possible, but a variety of other theoretically pro-U.S.
> governments haven't.
This one will be hand-picked, and probably dependent on occupation
forces for its survival. But I said it was a speculation, and that
I'm not sure the U.S. wants to break up OPEC.