TIMID MEN, STEP ASIDE: A feminist milestone: Our male President has been pulled into war by 3 women. “It’s the opposite of the Code Pink idea that women bring peace. How long have we heard : If only women had the power,...
PJ Donovini
TIMID MEN, STEP ASIDE: A feminist milestone: Our male President has
been pulled into war by 3 women. “It’s the opposite of the Code Pink
idea that women bring the peace. How long have we heard this feminist
plaint: If only women had the power, we would have peace, not
phallocratic war".
".. Mrs. Clinton joined Samantha Power, a senior aide at the National
Security Council, and Susan Rice, Mr. Obama’s ambassador to the United
Nations, who had been pressing the case for military action, according
to senior administration officials..."
GLOBALIST
Who in the hell do you think chose these women to be on his team?
All of them were simply doing their jobs. I know you Republicans
desperately want to call this a "war", but it isn't. The buck stops
at the President's desk. He simply allowed the United Nations to make
a decision and France and England are the real ring leaders. This
time it is not "our" wild hair up the ass, like under Bush.
Bill Bonde
problems with any military action against Libya; apparently she was
referring to President Obama.
Bill Bonde
>
>
> Who in the hell do you think chose these women to be on his team?
> All of them were simply doing their jobs. I know you Republicans
> desperately want to call this a "war", but it isn't.
>
on the ground.
> The buck stops
> at the President's desk. He simply allowed the United Nations to make
> a decision
>
Obama has veto power over the UN in this.
> and France and England are the real ring leaders. This
> time it is not "our" wild hair up the ass, like under Bush.
>
Who is paying for all those cruise missiles? Try as you might, can you
come up with any difference between Libya and Iraq regarding the need to
get rid of the strongman in charge there? Certainly you can't come up
with *more* good reasons for Libya.
Werner
> Who in the hell do you think chose these women to be on his team?
> All of them were simply doing their jobs. I know you Republicans
> desperately want to call this a "war", but it isn't.
What would it be if Libya sent missiles into the US?
The buck stops
> at the President's desk. He simply allowed the United Nations to make
> a decision and France and England are the real ring leaders. This
> time it is not "our" wild hair up the ass, like under Bush.
That makes it worse.
GLOBALIST
One great one said by Admiral Mike Mullen himself...THE GOAL IS NOT TO
TAKE OUT GADDAFI, BUT MEMERELY TO KEEP HIM FROM BOMBING IT'S CITIZENS.
(see below)
They simply are supporting "the people of Libya" to take charge of
their own country...(that ain't our job to do it for them)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/16/gaza
Cruise missiles have a shelf life, like any other item. If they
didn't fire them they would destroy the missiles anyway.
In Alaska, they use to take all the outdated shelf life parts of
missiles and reassemble one of them for practice , so the troops could
experience what firing a real one was like. Your military wastes more
in one day, then those missiles costs.
Herr PJ DonVonStein
Source:
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/03/feminist-milestone-our-male-president.html
Read the 204 (as of now) comments
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
This is not even remotely an easy situation to assess. There are strong
similarities with the Iraq fiasco but there are one or two important
differences.
Firstly, the similarities ...
We're talking about a dictator who has had a very chequered relationship with
Western, liberal democracies. From being a non-entity during his pan-Arabist,
populist phase prior to the 1980s to being public enemy #1 after the Lockerbie
attack to being best buds forever with the West more recently to, once again,
being public enemy #1 after his crackdown on his own people.
Also, Libya has bucketloads of oil.
Gaddafi has given a red hot go to the acquisition of WMD.
Islam has been used as a tool by Gaddafi to bolster his support and further his
aims.
The differences ...
There is extant unrest in Libya, almost a civil war - no such conditions existed
in Iraq prior to the invasion.
The action undertaken against Gaddafi is closer to what was done in Afghanistan
- not so much an invasion as aid given to the despot's opponents.
Am I for or against this? On balance, I'm against it. It seems hard hearted
and cold blooded but I honestly think that the USA is thinly enough spread as it
stands and the West in general has/have economic issues that can only be
exacerbated by further military adventures. Would adhering to my position lead
to the deaths of possibly thousands of innocents? You betcha. However, I'm not
sure that the military action might not do exactly the same (as we saw in Iraq -
we managed to directly or indirectly kill as many in around a decade as Saddam
managed in more than twenty years) and it does not seem unreasonable to keep our
noses out of it.
--
"Sarah Palin has a chief of staff, just like
so many private citizens without a day job."
- Roger Ebert
Bill Bonde
> On 2011-03-20, Bill Bonde<trybootil...@yahoo.co.uk> unwisely decided to post the following to Usenet:
>> GLOBALIST wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Who in the hell do you think chose these women to be on his team?
>>> All of them were simply doing their jobs. I know you Republicans
>>> desperately want to call this a "war", but it isn't.
>>>
>> It's part of the slow escalation that will likely ultimately mean troops
>> on the ground.
>>
>>
>>
>>> The buck stops
>>> at the President's desk. He simply allowed the United Nations to make
>>> a decision
>>>
>> Obama has veto power over the UN in this.
>>
>>
>>
>>> and France and England are the real ring leaders. This
>>> time it is not "our" wild hair up the ass, like under Bush.
>>>
>> Who is paying for all those cruise missiles? Try as you might, can you
>> come up with any difference between Libya and Iraq regarding the need to
>> get rid of the strongman in charge there? Certainly you can't come up
>> with *more* good reasons for Libya.
>
> This is not even remotely an easy situation to assess.
>
hypocrisy in those who opposed dealing with Saddam but support this,
it's not that difficult.
> There are strong
> similarities with the Iraq fiasco but there are one or two important
> differences.
>
> Firstly, the similarities ...
>
> We're talking about a dictator who has had a very chequered relationship with
> Western, liberal democracies. From being a non-entity during his pan-Arabist,
> populist phase prior to the 1980s to being public enemy #1 after the Lockerbie
> attack to being best buds forever with the West more recently to, once again,
> being public enemy #1 after his crackdown on his own people.
>
He wasn't buddies with the West, they were just able to work a deal with
him, they figured. But what's he going to do, if he doesn't kill his own
people, he isn't going to retain power and he really wants to retain power.
> Also, Libya has bucketloads of oil.
>
> Gaddafi has given a red hot go to the acquisition of WMD.
>
> Islam has been used as a tool by Gaddafi to bolster his support and further his
> aims.
>
> The differences ...
>
> There is extant unrest in Libya, almost a civil war - no such conditions existed
> in Iraq prior to the invasion.
>
Just that Saddam had no control over large parts of Iraq. The Kurds, for
example, had created their own area with its own government. It's hard
to see how that isn't a civil war, even if it was more or less stable.
Actually, that was true in Afghanistan as well, the more or less stable
part.
> The action undertaken against Gaddafi is closer to what was done in Afghanistan
> - not so much an invasion as aid given to the despot's opponents.
>
To start out with. people like the idea of dropping a few bombs, giving
the people on the ground a shot at a new life. But you can't hold ground
from the air so eventually something more happens, e.g. Kosovo.
> Am I for or against this? On balance, I'm against it.
>
I think you have to oppose this, else you are going to have to really
explain how it is actually that different from Iraq.
> It seems hard hearted
> and cold blooded but I honestly think that the USA is thinly enough spread as it
> stands and the West in general has/have economic issues that can only be
> exacerbated by further military adventures. Would adhering to my position lead
> to the deaths of possibly thousands of innocents? You betcha.
>
Keep in mind that sanctions on Iraq and Saddam in power there was
costing perhaps 150,000 excess deaths in Iraq per year.
> However, I'm not
> sure that the military action might not do exactly the same (as we saw in Iraq -
> we managed to directly or indirectly kill as many in around a decade as Saddam
> managed in more than twenty years) and it does not seem unreasonable to keep our
> noses out of it.
>
One point for the Iraq intervention is that Iraq now isn't the centre of
everything in the Middle East and is instead working on democracy.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> Mr Q. Z. Diablo wrote:
>> On 2011-03-20, Bill Bonde<trybootil...@yahoo.co.uk> unwisely decided to post the following to Usenet:
>>> GLOBALIST wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Who in the hell do you think chose these women to be on his team?
>>>> All of them were simply doing their jobs. I know you Republicans
>>>> desperately want to call this a "war", but it isn't.
>>>>
>>> It's part of the slow escalation that will likely ultimately mean troops
>>> on the ground.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> The buck stops
>>>> at the President's desk. He simply allowed the United Nations to make
>>>> a decision
>>>>
>>> Obama has veto power over the UN in this.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> and France and England are the real ring leaders. This
>>>> time it is not "our" wild hair up the ass, like under Bush.
>>>>
>>> Who is paying for all those cruise missiles? Try as you might, can you
>>> come up with any difference between Libya and Iraq regarding the need to
>>> get rid of the strongman in charge there? Certainly you can't come up
>>> with *more* good reasons for Libya.
>>
>> This is not even remotely an easy situation to assess.
> >
> It depends on what you are accessing.
Quite. I am assessing whether it's a good idea to have done what has been done.
> If you are just trying to show
> hypocrisy in those who opposed dealing with Saddam but support this,
> it's not that difficult.
Certainly not. After all, one can done as you have and make the bald assertion
that both situations are exactly the same.
Of course, one can state that 1 + 1 = 5, which will be exactly as correct.
>> There are strong
>> similarities with the Iraq fiasco but there are one or two important
>> differences.
>>
>> Firstly, the similarities ...
>>
>> We're talking about a dictator who has had a very chequered relationship with
>> Western, liberal democracies. From being a non-entity during his pan-Arabist,
>> populist phase prior to the 1980s to being public enemy #1 after the Lockerbie
>> attack to being best buds forever with the West more recently to, once again,
>> being public enemy #1 after his crackdown on his own people.
>>
> He wasn't buddies with the West, they were just able to work a deal with
> him, they figured.
i.e. become buddies with him, just as we did with Saddam in the early 1980s. He
shook hands with western statesmen left right and centre just as Saddam managed
to shake Rummy's hand in that infamous photograph.
> But what's he going to do, if he doesn't kill his own
> people, he isn't going to retain power and he really wants to retain power.
The thing is, we haven't tended to worry in the past whether a dictator is
killing their own people. It's likely that we even helped this soft of thing to
happen (e.g. Chile, El Salvador).
>> Also, Libya has bucketloads of oil.
>>
>> Gaddafi has given a red hot go to the acquisition of WMD.
>>
>> Islam has been used as a tool by Gaddafi to bolster his support and further his
>> aims.
>>
>> The differences ...
>>
>> There is extant unrest in Libya, almost a civil war - no such conditions existed
>> in Iraq prior to the invasion.
> Just that Saddam had no control over large parts of Iraq. The Kurds, for
> example, had created their own area with its own government. It's hard
> to see how that isn't a civil war, even if it was more or less stable.
War != stability for the most part, you duffer.
> Actually, that was true in Afghanistan as well, the more or less stable
> part.
If you count more or less open war between the warlords of the Northern Alliance
and the would-be Taliban rulers of the country then it was "more or less
stable", I suppose.
>> The action undertaken against Gaddafi is closer to what was done in Afghanistan
>> - not so much an invasion as aid given to the despot's opponents.
> To start out with. people like the idea of dropping a few bombs, giving
> the people on the ground a shot at a new life. But you can't hold ground
> from the air so eventually something more happens, e.g. Kosovo.
And therein lies the problem with bothering to engage at all.
>> Am I for or against this? On balance, I'm against it.
> I think you have to oppose this, else you are going to have to really
> explain how it is actually that different from Iraq.
I have explained exactly that, Bill. Regardless, I'm not a fan of this action.
>> It seems hard hearted
>> and cold blooded but I honestly think that the USA is thinly enough spread as it
>> stands and the West in general has/have economic issues that can only be
>> exacerbated by further military adventures. Would adhering to my position lead
>> to the deaths of possibly thousands of innocents? You betcha.
> Keep in mind that sanctions on Iraq and Saddam in power there was
> costing perhaps 150,000 excess deaths in Iraq per year.
That backs up my position more than it weakens it.
>> However, I'm not
>> sure that the military action might not do exactly the same (as we saw in Iraq -
>> we managed to directly or indirectly kill as many in around a decade as Saddam
>> managed in more than twenty years) and it does not seem unreasonable to keep our
>> noses out of it.
> One point for the Iraq intervention is that Iraq now isn't the centre of
> everything in the Middle East and is instead working on democracy.
Iraq is not _perceived_ as the centre of everything in the Middle East. I doubt
that anywhere was _actually_ the centre of everything in the Middle East. It
shifts around more or less in line with the level of MSM interest in it.
Bill Bonde
> On 2011-03-20, Bill Bonde<trybootil...@yahoo.co.uk> unwisely decided to post the following to Usenet:
>> Mr Q. Z. Diablo wrote:
>>> On 2011-03-20, Bill Bonde<trybootil...@yahoo.co.uk> unwisely decided to post the following to Usenet:
>>>> GLOBALIST wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Who in the hell do you think chose these women to be on his team?
>>>>> All of them were simply doing their jobs. I know you Republicans
>>>>> desperately want to call this a "war", but it isn't.
>>>>>
>>>> It's part of the slow escalation that will likely ultimately mean troops
>>>> on the ground.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The buck stops
>>>>> at the President's desk. He simply allowed the United Nations to make
>>>>> a decision
>>>>>
>>>> Obama has veto power over the UN in this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> and France and England are the real ring leaders. This
>>>>> time it is not "our" wild hair up the ass, like under Bush.
>>>>>
>>>> Who is paying for all those cruise missiles? Try as you might, can you
>>>> come up with any difference between Libya and Iraq regarding the need to
>>>> get rid of the strongman in charge there? Certainly you can't come up
>>>> with *more* good reasons for Libya.
>>>
>>> This is not even remotely an easy situation to assess.
>>>
>> It depends on what you are accessing.
>
> Quite. I am assessing whether it's a good idea to have done what has been done.
>
isn't that Gaddaffy was on his last legs and this will end it, it was
that he was resurgent and this will prolong whatever fighting is going
on. So expect if you want some outcome that gets rid of him to be doing
more bombing and, yes, ground troops. I suspect that will be mostly
"peace keepers" but there will be shooting.
>> If you are just trying to show
>> hypocrisy in those who opposed dealing with Saddam but support this,
>> it's not that difficult.
>
> Certainly not. After all, one can done as you have and make the bald assertion
> that both situations are exactly the same.
>
Exactly the same? I didn't say that. There were more reasons to become
involved in dealing with the Saddam problem than this one. In fact,
Gaddaffy was mostly behaving himself and has mostly behaved in the last
some odd years.
> Of course, one can state that 1 + 1 = 5, which will be exactly as correct.
>
I'm not sure how.
>>> There are strong
>>> similarities with the Iraq fiasco but there are one or two important
>>> differences.
>>>
>>> Firstly, the similarities ...
>>>
>>> We're talking about a dictator who has had a very chequered relationship with
>>> Western, liberal democracies. From being a non-entity during his pan-Arabist,
>>> populist phase prior to the 1980s to being public enemy #1 after the Lockerbie
>>> attack to being best buds forever with the West more recently to, once again,
>>> being public enemy #1 after his crackdown on his own people.
>>>
>> He wasn't buddies with the West, they were just able to work a deal with
>> him, they figured.
>
> i.e. become buddies with him, just as we did with Saddam in the early 1980s.
>
If you mean try to work with him, I'm not sure what else you'd suggest.
> He
> shook hands with western statesmen left right and centre just as Saddam managed
> to shake Rummy's hand in that infamous photograph.
>
>> But what's he going to do, if he doesn't kill his own
>> people, he isn't going to retain power and he really wants to retain power.
>
> The thing is, we haven't tended to worry in the past whether a dictator is
> killing their own people. It's likely that we even helped this soft of thing to
> happen (e.g. Chile, El Salvador).
>
The numbers in those countries, certainly Chile are not anywhere near
what we are talking about with Saddam or even Gadaffy. In fact, the
"disappearing" stuff was done under cover of the night. How can you
compare that to genocide?
>>> Also, Libya has bucketloads of oil.
>>>
>>> Gaddafi has given a red hot go to the acquisition of WMD.
>>>
>>> Islam has been used as a tool by Gaddafi to bolster his support and further his
>>> aims.
>>>
>>> The differences ...
>>>
>>> There is extant unrest in Libya, almost a civil war - no such conditions existed
>>> in Iraq prior to the invasion.
>
>> Just that Saddam had no control over large parts of Iraq. The Kurds, for
>> example, had created their own area with its own government. It's hard
>> to see how that isn't a civil war, even if it was more or less stable.
>
> War != stability for the most part, you duffer.
>
A war can be stable, see WWI. People might call it a stalemate, actually.
>> Actually, that was true in Afghanistan as well, the more or less stable
>> part.
>
> If you count more or less open war between the warlords of the Northern Alliance
> and the would-be Taliban rulers of the country then it was "more or less
> stable", I suppose.
>
They had trenches and were taking pot shots at each other. It was pretty
stable, actually. When the US became involved, it brought in air power
and this changed everything.
>>> The action undertaken against Gaddafi is closer to what was done in Afghanistan
>>> - not so much an invasion as aid given to the despot's opponents.
>
>> To start out with. people like the idea of dropping a few bombs, giving
>> the people on the ground a shot at a new life. But you can't hold ground
>> from the air so eventually something more happens, e.g. Kosovo.
>
> And therein lies the problem with bothering to engage at all.
>
So we let countries commit genocide? These issues, I mentioned
"contingent sovereignty", are important to discuss, to flesh out.
>>> Am I for or against this? On balance, I'm against it.
>
>> I think you have to oppose this, else you are going to have to really
>> explain how it is actually that different from Iraq.
>
> I have explained exactly that, Bill. Regardless, I'm not a fan of this action.
>
So your view is based mostly on not wanting to be a hypocrite?
>>> It seems hard hearted
>>> and cold blooded but I honestly think that the USA is thinly enough spread as it
>>> stands and the West in general has/have economic issues that can only be
>>> exacerbated by further military adventures. Would adhering to my position lead
>>> to the deaths of possibly thousands of innocents? You betcha.
>
>> Keep in mind that sanctions on Iraq and Saddam in power there was
>> costing perhaps 150,000 excess deaths in Iraq per year.
>
> That backs up my position more than it weakens it.
>
150,000 a year endlessly backs up not doing anything? Even if the death
rate is double for a few years, if it goes to something like zero after
that, a lot of people will be alive who wouldn't otherwise be alive.
>>> However, I'm not
>>> sure that the military action might not do exactly the same (as we saw in Iraq -
>>> we managed to directly or indirectly kill as many in around a decade as Saddam
>>> managed in more than twenty years) and it does not seem unreasonable to keep our
>>> noses out of it.
>
>> One point for the Iraq intervention is that Iraq now isn't the centre of
>> everything in the Middle East and is instead working on democracy.
>
> Iraq is not _perceived_ as the centre of everything in the Middle East. I doubt
> that anywhere was _actually_ the centre of everything in the Middle East.
>
It isn't today because Saddam is gone. but with Saddam in power, it was
always about Saddam. The only real competing location was the Israel and
Palestinian mess and that was being supported by Saddam!
> It
> shifts around more or less in line with the level of MSM interest in it.
>
Not really. Oh maybe *now*. If you think about how much of a pain Saddam
was, you'll see that he was always getting attention by doing things
that got him attention. That is what he'd do.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> Mr Q. Z. Diablo wrote:
>> On 2011-03-20, Bill Bonde<trybootil...@yahoo.co.uk> unwisely decided to post the following to Usenet:
> So your view is based mostly on not wanting to be a hypocrite?
No. HTH.
>>> Keep in mind that sanctions on Iraq and Saddam in power there was
>>> costing perhaps 150,000 excess deaths in Iraq per year.
>>
>> That backs up my position more than it weakens it.
>>
> 150,000 a year endlessly backs up not doing anything?'
150,000 a year - most of the estimate being direct or indirect casualties of
sanctions - almost exactly backs up not doing anything, you dill.
>> Iraq is not _perceived_ as the centre of everything in the Middle East. I doubt
>> that anywhere was _actually_ the centre of everything in the Middle East.
> It isn't today because Saddam is gone. but with Saddam in power, it was
> always about Saddam.
Only because we made it about Saddam, you goof.
>> It
>> shifts around more or less in line with the level of MSM interest in it.
>>
> Not really. Oh maybe *now*. If you think about how much of a pain Saddam
> was, you'll see that he was always getting attention by doing things
> that got him attention. That is what he'd do.
His getting attention was not really a very good reason for killing possibly
hundreds of thousands of Iraqis by invading his country, you berk.
Bill Bonde
> On 2011-03-21, Bill Bonde<trybootil...@yahoo.co.uk> unwisely decided to post the following to Usenet:
>> Mr Q. Z. Diablo wrote:
>>> On 2011-03-20, Bill Bonde<trybootil...@yahoo.co.uk> unwisely decided to post the following to Usenet:
>
>> So your view is based mostly on not wanting to be a hypocrite?
>
> No. HTH.
>
>>>> Keep in mind that sanctions on Iraq and Saddam in power there was
>>>> costing perhaps 150,000 excess deaths in Iraq per year.
>>>
>>> That backs up my position more than it weakens it.
>>>
>> 150,000 a year endlessly backs up not doing anything?'
>
> 150,000 a year - most of the estimate being direct or indirect casualties of
> sanctions - almost exactly backs up not doing anything, you dill.
>
>>> Iraq is not _perceived_ as the centre of everything in the Middle East. I doubt
>>> that anywhere was _actually_ the centre of everything in the Middle East.
>
>> It isn't today because Saddam is gone. but with Saddam in power, it was
>> always about Saddam.
>
> Only because we made it about Saddam, you goof.
>
He was always doing things to make it about Saddam.
>>> It
>>> shifts around more or less in line with the level of MSM interest in it.
>>>
>> Not really. Oh maybe *now*. If you think about how much of a pain Saddam
>> was, you'll see that he was always getting attention by doing things
>> that got him attention. That is what he'd do.
>
> His getting attention was not really a very good reason for killing possibly
> hundreds of thousands of Iraqis by invading his country, you berk.
>
I mean that he'd do things that would require a response, you know, like
chase the Kurds up to the Turk border in the freezing cold. Or drain the
Marsh Arab's swamps in the south. Or not allow inspectors to figure out
what WMDs were still there or were destroyed. Or fund sucide bombers
attacking Israel.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> Mr Q. Z. Diablo wrote:
>> On 2011-03-21, Bill Bonde<trybootil...@yahoo.co.uk> unwisely decided to post the following to Usenet:
>>> Mr Q. Z. Diablo wrote:
>>>> On 2011-03-20, Bill Bonde<trybootil...@yahoo.co.uk> unwisely decided to post the following to Usenet:
>>
>>> So your view is based mostly on not wanting to be a hypocrite?
>>
>> No. HTH.
>>
>>>>> Keep in mind that sanctions on Iraq and Saddam in power there was
>>>>> costing perhaps 150,000 excess deaths in Iraq per year.
>>>>
>>>> That backs up my position more than it weakens it.
>>>>
>>> 150,000 a year endlessly backs up not doing anything?'
>>
>> 150,000 a year - most of the estimate being direct or indirect casualties of
>> sanctions - almost exactly backs up not doing anything, you dill.
>>
> So you'd drop sanctions *and* let Saddam stay in power? So you'd cave.
I would even seek to curry favour with the nasty sonofabitch, Bill, just like
Reagan did in the early '80s.
>>>> Iraq is not _perceived_ as the centre of everything in the Middle East. I doubt
>>>> that anywhere was _actually_ the centre of everything in the Middle East.
>>
>>> It isn't today because Saddam is gone. but with Saddam in power, it was
>>> always about Saddam.
>>
>> Only because we made it about Saddam, you goof.
>>
> He was always doing things to make it about Saddam.
Only because we decided it was, you nut.
>>>> It
>>>> shifts around more or less in line with the level of MSM interest in it.
>>>>
>>> Not really. Oh maybe *now*. If you think about how much of a pain Saddam
>>> was, you'll see that he was always getting attention by doing things
>>> that got him attention. That is what he'd do.
>>
>> His getting attention was not really a very good reason for killing possibly
>> hundreds of thousands of Iraqis by invading his country, you berk.
> I mean that he'd do things that would require a response, you know, like
> chase the Kurds up to the Turk border in the freezing cold. Or drain the
> Marsh Arab's swamps in the south. Or not allow inspectors to figure out
> what WMDs were still there or were destroyed. Or fund sucide bombers
> attacking Israel.
They didn't seem to require a response during most of the '80s. And that's when
he did the worst of it. Strange how we were so worried about him in the early
'00s when he was an almost toothless tiger who could have been bent to our own
purposes.
Bill Bonde
> On 2011-03-21, Bill Bonde<trybootil...@yahoo.co.uk> unwisely decided to post the following to Usenet:
>> Mr Q. Z. Diablo wrote:
>>> On 2011-03-21, Bill Bonde<trybootil...@yahoo.co.uk> unwisely decided to post the following to Usenet:
>>>> Mr Q. Z. Diablo wrote:
>>>>> On 2011-03-20, Bill Bonde<trybootil...@yahoo.co.uk> unwisely decided to post the following to Usenet:
>>>
>>>> So your view is based mostly on not wanting to be a hypocrite?
>>>
>>> No. HTH.
>>>
>>>>>> Keep in mind that sanctions on Iraq and Saddam in power there was
>>>>>> costing perhaps 150,000 excess deaths in Iraq per year.
>>>>>
>>>>> That backs up my position more than it weakens it.
>>>>>
>>>> 150,000 a year endlessly backs up not doing anything?'
>>>
>>> 150,000 a year - most of the estimate being direct or indirect casualties of
>>> sanctions - almost exactly backs up not doing anything, you dill.
>>>
>> So you'd drop sanctions *and* let Saddam stay in power? So you'd cave.
>
> I would even seek to curry favour with the nasty sonofabitch, Bill, just like
> Reagan did in the early '80s.
>
containment of Iran. Iraq had attacked Iran and Iran was more powerful.
This meant that without help, Iraq would likely be overrun. I'm not
connecting that with what you are talking about, no policy isn't the answer.
>>>>> Iraq is not _perceived_ as the centre of everything in the Middle East. I doubt
>>>>> that anywhere was _actually_ the centre of everything in the Middle East.
>>>
>>>> It isn't today because Saddam is gone. but with Saddam in power, it was
>>>> always about Saddam.
>>>
>>> Only because we made it about Saddam, you goof.
>>>
>> He was always doing things to make it about Saddam.
>
> Only because we decided it was, you nut.
>
Because there were things he did that were responded to because they had
to be responded to.
>>>>> It
>>>>> shifts around more or less in line with the level of MSM interest in it.
>>>>>
>>>> Not really. Oh maybe *now*. If you think about how much of a pain Saddam
>>>> was, you'll see that he was always getting attention by doing things
>>>> that got him attention. That is what he'd do.
>>>
>>> His getting attention was not really a very good reason for killing possibly
>>> hundreds of thousands of Iraqis by invading his country, you berk.
>
>> I mean that he'd do things that would require a response, you know, like
>> chase the Kurds up to the Turk border in the freezing cold. Or drain the
>> Marsh Arab's swamps in the south. Or not allow inspectors to figure out
>> what WMDs were still there or were destroyed. Or fund sucide bombers
>> attacking Israel.
>
> They didn't seem to require a response during most of the '80s.
>
He didn't do that until after the 1991 Gulf War.
> And that's when
> he did the worst of it.
>
??? The Kurds up to the Turk border was after 1991. That's when the No
fly zones were put in place.
> Strange how we were so worried about him in the early
> '00s when he was an almost toothless tiger who could have been bent to our own
> purposes.
>
If you mean, could he invade a neighbour in 2000+, no. But that's not
the concern.
John Rennie
Even more to the point Saddam was in many ways an enemy of
extreme Islam. Osama bin Laden detested him and even
did his best to undermine him when Iraq was attacked.
As you say by the end of the 90s containment had worked
well enough to place him quite firmly in the West's grip.
Bill Bonde
stood in opposition to rad Islam in those countries, democratic forces
being pummeled usually by both sides. The problem is that secular
dictators are just as bad as religious ones because they both abridge
the basic rights of their citizens. Supporting these sorts, e.g. Iran
1953 gets us Iran 1979. I thought we had some sort of consensus on that.
> Osama bin Laden detested him and even
> did his best to undermine him when Iraq was attacked.
>
I think you are exaggerating. Bin Laden wanted to have a new fight and
offered to help defend Saudi Arabia against Saddam. He was turned down
and this ended in bin Laden getting in trouble and sent into exile.
> As you say by the end of the 90s containment had worked
> well enough to place him quite firmly in the West's grip.
>
I don't believe that "containment" as a permanent policy is very
sensible. Essentially having Arab military dictators in the Middle East
and North Africa is the policy of "containment".
Donna Evleth
> From: Bill Bonde <trybootil...@yahoo.co.uk>
> Organization: X-Privat.Org NNTP Server - http://www.x-privat.org
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 23:42:09 +0000
> Subject: Re: TIMID MEN, STEP ASIDE: A feminist milestone: Our male President
> has been pulled into war by 3 women. ?It?s the opposite of the Code Pink idea
> that women bring peace. How long have we heard : If only women had the
> power,...
This logic seems akin to killing a mosquito with an atomic bomb.
Donna Evleth
>
>
>
>
Donna Evleth
> From: Bill Bonde <trybootil...@yahoo.co.uk>
> Organization: X-Privat.Org NNTP Server - http://www.x-privat.org
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 00:35:41 +0000
> Subject: Re: TIMID MEN, STEP ASIDE: A feminist milestone: Our male President
> has been pulled into war by 3 women. ?It?s the opposite of the Code Pink idea
> that women bring peace. How long have we heard : If only women had the
> power,...
Pop psych 101.
Donna Evleth
>
>
>
Donna Evleth
> From: Bill Bonde <trybootil...@yahoo.co.uk>
> Organization: X-Privat.Org NNTP Server - http://www.x-privat.org
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 00:54:53 +0000
> Subject: Re: TIMID MEN, STEP ASIDE: A feminist milestone: Our male President
> has been pulled into war by 3 women. ?It?s the opposite of the Code Pink idea
> that women bring peace. How long have we heard : If only women had the
> power,...
The inspectors had been allowed back in. They had to leave again before
completing their mission because Bush invaded.
Donna Evleth
>
>
>
Donna Evleth
> From: Bill Bonde <trybootil...@yahoo.co.uk>
> Organization: X-Privat.Org NNTP Server - http://www.x-privat.org
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 03:24:02 +0000
> Subject: Re: TIMID MEN, STEP ASIDE: A feminist milestone: Our male President
> has been pulled into war by 3 women. ?It?s the opposite of the Code Pink idea
> that women bring peace. How long have we heard : If only women had the
> power,...
so what is the concern? The WMD which the inspectors would have found were
not there if they had not been interrupted by Bush's foolish invasion?
Donna Evleth
>
>
>
Donna Evleth
> From: Bill Bonde <trybootil...@yahoo.co.uk>
> Organization: X-Privat.Org NNTP Server - http://www.x-privat.org
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:31:15 +0000
> Subject: Re: TIMID MEN, STEP ASIDE: A feminist milestone: Our male President
> has been pulled into war by 3 women. ?It?s the opposite of the Code Pink idea
> that women bring peace. How long have we heard : If only women had the
> power,...
So why do we keep supporting these secular dictators who are just as bad,
over and over? Right up to the moment when the whole thing goes south.
>
>
>
>> Osama bin Laden detested him and even
>> did his best to undermine him when Iraq was attacked.
>>
> I think you are exaggerating. Bin Laden wanted to have a new fight and
> offered to help defend Saudi Arabia against Saddam. He was turned down
> and this ended in bin Laden getting in trouble and sent into exile.
>
>
>> As you say by the end of the 90s containment had worked
>> well enough to place him quite firmly in the West's grip.
>>
> I don't believe that "containment" as a permanent policy is very
> sensible. Essentially having Arab military dictators in the Middle East
> and North Africa is the policy of "containment".
And your alternative is??
Donna Evleth
Bill Bonde
> over and over? Right up to the moment when the whole thing goes south.
>
The US didn't support Gadaffy Duck.
>>> Osama bin Laden detested him and even
>>> did his best to undermine him when Iraq was attacked.
>>>
>> I think you are exaggerating. Bin Laden wanted to have a new fight and
>> offered to help defend Saudi Arabia against Saddam. He was turned down
>> and this ended in bin Laden getting in trouble and sent into exile.
>>
>>
>>> As you say by the end of the 90s containment had worked
>>> well enough to place him quite firmly in the West's grip.
>>>
>> I don't believe that "containment" as a permanent policy is very
>> sensible. Essentially having Arab military dictators in the Middle East
>> and North Africa is the policy of "containment".
>
> And your alternative is??
>
Democracy. I've explained this over and over.
Bill Bonde
in under Clinton too, Saddam always let them in long enough to force a
build down of the miltiary force arrayed against him. Bush didn't fall
for that.
Bill Bonde
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> Maybe you should take Snip 101!
I'm getting cautious about snipping in threads where you've got your oar in,
Bill, as it tends to trigger an incessant whining noise that appears to
originate from somewhere near you.
Bill Bonde
>
>> Maybe you should take Snip 101!
>
> I'm getting cautious about snipping in threads where you've got your oar in,
> Bill, as it tends to trigger an incessant whining noise that appears to
> originate from somewhere near you.
>
bottom, what she did this time, that's OK? Note here that you've cut
*more* than you should have. You should have cut all the crap that you
were not replying to and left in what I said and requote that I replied
to. That gives context. Then number of *relevant* levels to leave in
depends on the specific case.
This would have been fine:
#begin quote PROPOSED POST
>> >> It
>> >> shifts around more or less in line with the level of MSM interest
in it.
>> >>
>> Not really. Oh maybe *now*. If you think about how much of a pain Saddam
> > was, you'll see that he was always getting attention by doing things
> > that got him attention. That is what he'd do.
Pop psych 101.
#end quote
I always add a blank line with a leading > under requote to set off new
material, makes it easier to read.
The following is what Donna left in:
> > From: Bill Bonde <trybootil...@yahoo.co.uk>
> > Organization: X-Privat.Org NNTP Server - http://www.x-privat.org
> > Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> > Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 00:35:41 +0000
> > Subject: Re: TIMID MEN, STEP ASIDE: A feminist milestone: Our male
President
> > has been pulled into war by 3 women. ?It?s the opposite of the Code
Pink idea
> > that women bring peace. How long have we heard : If only women had the
> > power,...
> >
> > Mr Q. Z. Diablo wrote:
>> >> On 2011-03-20, Bill Bonde<trybootil...@yahoo.co.uk>
unwisely decided
>> >> to post the following to Usenet:
>>> >>> Mr Q. Z. Diablo wrote:
>>>> >>>> On 2011-03-20, Bill Bonde<trybootil...@yahoo.co.uk>
unwisely
>>>> >>>> decided to post the following to Usenet:
Donna Evleth
> >
> >
> >
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
[snip protracted 327-line whine that actually proves my point]
Nothing left.
Irony's a metal to you, isn't it, Bill?
Donna Evleth
> From: Bill Bonde <trybootil...@yahoo.co.uk>
> Organization: X-Privat.Org NNTP Server - http://www.x-privat.org
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 23:42:12 +0000
And how do you implement that in tribal societies, which is about all the
countries in the Middle East. Thomas Friedman, writing in this morning's
International Herald Tribune, calls them "tribes with flags" (the title of
his article). He believes that the only exceptions are Egypt, Tunisia,
Morocco, Iran, which have long histories and strong national identities. He
sees the "tribes with flags" as "artificial states with boundaries drawn in
sharp straight lines by pens of colonial powers that have trapped inside
their borders myriad tribes and sects who not only never volunteered to live
together but have never fully melded into a unified family of citizens".
Even the four Friedman mentions are not doing all that well. Tunisia is
still a question mark. Egypt could end up with yet another military
dictatorship, which would play on fears of the Muslim Brotherhood. Morocco
might be able to pull off democracy if it became a constitutional monarchy.
As to Iran, it has already taken a horribly wrong turn with its current
theocracy.
"Democracy" in the Middle East has a hard time covering this myriad of
realities.
Donna Evleth
>
>
>
Donna Evleth
> From: "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@thisbitisnotreal.freakishandunnatural.net>
> Organization: The Infernal Bureaucracy
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> Date: 24 Mar 2011 04:07:42 GMT
> Subject: Re: TIMID MEN, STEP ASIDE: A feminist milestone: Our male President
> has been pulled into war by 3 women. ?It?s the opposite of the Code Pink idea
> that women bring peace. How long have we heard : If only women had the
> power,...
>
> On 2011-03-24, Bill Bonde <trybootil...@yahoo.co.uk> unwisely decided to
> post the following to Usenet:
>
>> Maybe you should take Snip 101!
>
> I'm getting cautious about snipping in threads where you've got your oar in,
> Bill, as it tends to trigger an incessant whining noise that appears to
> originate from somewhere near you.
I'm also cautious about snipping in his case, as I'm really tired of hearing
the eternal yowl "you cut the requote, you cut the requote!"
Donna Evleth
Donna Evleth
> From: Bill Bonde <trybootil...@yahoo.co.uk>
> Organization: X-Privat.Org NNTP Server - http://www.x-privat.org
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 05:12:06 +0000
> Subject: Re: TIMID MEN, STEP ASIDE: A feminist milestone: Our male President
> has been pulled into war by 3 women. ?It?s the opposite of the Code Pink idea
> that women bring peace. How long have we heard : If only women had the
> power,...
>
>>
>>> Maybe you should take Snip 101!
>>
Consider it done.
Donna Evleth
John Rennie
in those countries that try to practice it. Consider
my vote and most of my family's vote in the last
General Election - May 2010. We voted Liberal Democrat
for slightly different reasons but the over riding
reason for ex-Labour voters was not to vote for
anyone that supported the Iraq War. So what did
we achieve? A Coalition Government - it seems
that we voted Tory LOL. As pointed out frequently
on this news group the United States is NOT a
democracy - well not a pure democracy. When
one vote in Wyoming is worth twenty votes in
California or New York it means that the majority
does not rule as proven by the 2000 election. So
here we are trying to coerce tribes etc that are
just not interested with a system that is more than
flawed.
Bill Bonde
>
> [snip protracted 327-line whine that actually proves my point]
>
> Nothing left.
>
> Irony's a metal to you, isn't it, Bill?
>
Bill Bonde
>
>
>> From: "Mr Q. Z. Diablo"<dia...@thisbitisnotreal.freakishandunnatural.net>
>> Organization: The Infernal Bureaucracy
>> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>> Date: 24 Mar 2011 04:07:42 GMT
>> Subject: Re: TIMID MEN, STEP ASIDE: A feminist milestone: Our male President
>> has been pulled into war by 3 women. ?It?s the opposite of the Code Pink idea
>> that women bring peace. How long have we heard : If only women had the
>> power,...
>>
>> On 2011-03-24, Bill Bonde<trybootil...@yahoo.co.uk> unwisely decided to
>> post the following to Usenet:
>>
>>> Maybe you should take Snip 101!
>>
>> I'm getting cautious about snipping in threads where you've got your oar in,
>> Bill, as it tends to trigger an incessant whining noise that appears to
>> originate from somewhere near you.
>
> I'm also cautious about snipping in his case, as I'm really tired of hearing
> the eternal yowl "you cut the requote, you cut the requote!"
>
removing materials that are obviously irrelevant?
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Admission of defeat noted.
Bill Bonde
> On 2011-03-24, Bill Bonde<trybootil...@yahoo.co.uk> unwisely decided to post the following to Usenet:
>> Mr Q. Z. Diablo wrote:
>>> On 2011-03-24, Bill Bonde<trybootil...@yahoo.co.uk> unwisely decided to post the following to Usenet:
>>>
>>> [snip protracted 327-line whine that actually proves my point]
>>>
>>> Nothing left.
>>>
>>> Irony's a metal to you, isn't it, Bill?
>>>
>> Kook Alert.
>
> Admission of defeat noted.
>
was wrong in pointing out how Donna could've replied by cutting extra
material and leaving in useful material. I explained this exactly. You
then cut everything and insisted something about irony.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> Mr Q. Z. Diablo wrote:
>> On 2011-03-24, Bill Bonde<trybootil...@yahoo.co.uk> unwisely decided to post the following to Usenet:
>>> Mr Q. Z. Diablo wrote:
>>>> On 2011-03-24, Bill Bonde<trybootil...@yahoo.co.uk> unwisely decided to post the following to Usenet:
>>>>
>>>> [snip protracted 327-line whine that actually proves my point]
>>>>
>>>> Nothing left.
>>>>
>>>> Irony's a metal to you, isn't it, Bill?
>>>>
>>> Kook Alert.
>>
>> Admission of defeat noted.
>>
> Kook Alerts are
Happy to have cleared things up for you.
Bill Bonde
> On 2011-03-25, Bill Bonde<trybootil...@yahoo.co.uk> unwisely decided to post the following to Usenet:
>> Mr Q. Z. Diablo wrote:
>>> On 2011-03-24, Bill Bonde<trybootil...@yahoo.co.uk> unwisely decided to post the following to Usenet:
>>>> Mr Q. Z. Diablo wrote:
>>>>> On 2011-03-24, Bill Bonde<trybootil...@yahoo.co.uk> unwisely decided to post the following to Usenet:
>>>>>
>>>>> [snip protracted 327-line whine that actually proves my point]
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing left.
>>>>>
>>>>> Irony's a metal to you, isn't it, Bill?
>>>>>
>>>> Kook Alert.
>>>
>>> Admission of defeat noted.
>>>
>> Kook Alerts are
> admissions of defeat.
>
> Happy to have cleared things up for you.
>
Irony?:
What in our lives is burnt In the fire of this?
The heart's dear granary? The much we shall miss?
Three lives hath one life---
Iron, honey, gold. The gold, the honey gone---
Left is the hard and cold.
Iron are our lives,
Molten right through our youth.
A burnt space through ripe fields,
A fair mouth's broken tooth.
Donna Evleth
> From: Bill Bonde <trybootil...@yahoo.co.uk>
> Organization: X-Privat.Org NNTP Server - http://www.x-privat.org
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 02:16:04 +0000
> Subject: Re: TIMID MEN, STEP ASIDE: A feminist milestone: Our male President
> has been pulled into war by 3 women. ?It?s the opposite of the Code Pink idea
> that women bring peace. How long have we heard : If only women had the
> power,...
>
> Kook Alerts are public services.
Kook alert
Donna Evleth
Donna Evleth
> From: Bill Bonde <trybootil...@yahoo.co.uk>
> Organization: X-Privat.Org NNTP Server - http://www.x-privat.org
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 04:13:08 +0000
> Subject: Re: TIMID MEN, STEP ASIDE: A feminist milestone: Our male President
> has been pulled into war by 3 women. ?It?s the opposite of the Code Pink idea
> that women bring peace. How long have we heard : If only women had the
> power,...
>
There are also iron pills. Useful for those who have proved themselves to
be anemic.
Donna Evleth
>
>
Bill Bonde
Bill Bonde
Křřk Alert