OT: National Moratorium to Stop the War
Bill Todd
rush to war (perhaps to start next week, according to some pundits), I
decided to take a look around to see what people were doing about it. Turns
out that today (March 5th) is the date of a planned 'moratorium' (letters to
legislators, work stoppages, teach-ins, civil disobedience - the gamut of
possible responses), and since the next major planned demonstration (a March
15th march on Washington) may turn out to be after the fact those who would
like to have a chance to register their opposition might want to do so
today. For further information, see www.internationalanswer.org.
- bill
Bob Ceculski
we have a nut in Iraq who wants to arm terrorists with
nuclear suitcase bombs which would make 9/11 look like
a picnic, and you are on this vms board promoting
flower power? Didn't you learn anything from WWII Bill?
9/11 was another Pearl Harbor, but you're still wanting
to appease murderers?
Jack Peacock
> like to have a chance to register their opposition might want to do so
> today.
>
history and we get a good look at what he's done. Funny we never heard from
all the Stalin apologists once the world found out what he did in the
Ukraine (today is 50th anniversary of a great day in history...Stalin died).
Myself, I'm glad I don't have to compromise my morals to support a guy who
uses poison gas on his own citizens.
Jack Peacock
Bill Todd
"Jack Peacock" <pea...@simconv.com> wrote in message
news:AuidnZEC66E...@mpowercom.net...
> "Bill Todd" <bill...@metrocast.net> wrote in message
> news:Q5ednUHaAJy...@metrocast.net...
> > those who would
> > like to have a chance to register their opposition might want to do so
> > today.
> >
> I trust you will be equally vociferous in your opposition once Hussein is
> history and we get a good look at what he's done.
Despite your confusion about the content of my post (a careful reading of it
reveals no direct expression of opposition on my part, vociferous or
otherwise), I will indeed continue to oppose the proposed aggression
regardless of what is later revealed - because what Hussein has done is not
the primary rationale being advanced for the unilateral prosecution of this
war (though of course Dubya and his thugs are throwing everything they can
think of into the pot).
Somehow, the U.S. seems to believe that it has the right to take over what
are clearly the prerogatives of the U.N. Security Council, despite the
objections of that body. It assumes (without even bothering to claim it
explicitly) the right to unilaterally judge the intent of the Council's
resolutions, unilaterally decide the degree to which they are being complied
with, and unilaterally take action in its name based on that decision - all,
again, *against* the wishes of that body.
Funny we never heard from
> all the Stalin apologists once the world found out what he did in the
> Ukraine (today is 50th anniversary of a great day in history...Stalin
died).
> Myself, I'm glad I don't have to compromise my morals to support a guy who
> uses poison gas on his own citizens.
Perhaps your entirely reasonable disgust at the regime has clouded your
analytical ability. I don't support that regime any more than you do, but I
also take grave exception to my own country acting as a rogue state.
There is absolutely no credible evidence that Iraq constitutes a dire and
imminent threat to the U.S., to any other nation, or even to its own people
(since the internal character of that country hasn't changed since we
treated it as a valued ally in the 1980s - a time which included the poison
gas attack which you mention above, and about which we were conspicuously
silent back then). That would be the *only* justification for attacking it
unilaterally instead of pursuing the matter through the Security Council
(which *is* a body constituted to make decisions about such interventions
when the need may not be a immediate one).
The irony is that our actions will only increase the desire of other nations
to acquire weapons of mass destruction (and the means to deliver them to us)
as a deterrent to such unbridled aggression on our part. So not only do we
lack legal and ethical justification for unilateral action, but it's more
likely than not to be counter-productive from a practical standpoint as
well. Unless the current Administration is far stupider than I give it
credit for, it is fully aware of all these issues - and is actively ignoring
them because it sees domestic political advantage to be gained from
aggressive pursuit of what is the *only* activity it has engaged over its
tenure in office that has any political traction whatsoever.
- bill
Bill Todd
...
those who would
> like to have a chance to register their opposition might want to do so
> today.
One possible way would be to join a petition which will be compiled and
submitted tomorrow to the members of the U.N. Security Council:
http://www.moveon.org/emergency/
- bill
John Smith
Nobody is talking about supporting a tyrant. They are only trying to
find means short of war to achieve the goals you want.
What's wrong with placing 5,000 UN inspectors on the ground in Iraq,
running 24x7 wherever they want? If they are that plentiful and
persistent, the Iraqi military/industrial complex won't be able to
make use of what it may have, unable to conduct any effective further
research or development of what they might like to have, and sooner or
later Hussein leaves office, voluntarily, via a heart attack, or gets
a 9mm hemorrhage. It's cheaper than a war, easier on the poor citizens
of Iraq who don't care for the current regime, and less costly than
rebuilding the country afterwards. Let the UN pass a resolution saying
that the inspectors get what they ask for from Iraq in 24 hrs. or the
building they want access to will be destroyed. Period. Start with all
the presidential palaces and places in Tikrit. Same goes for access to
people they need to speak with - full unrestricted access or something
else bad happens. If the Iraqi military interferes, then full war.
Don't forget that it's not only the US that has been victimized by
terror, and the rest of the world wants its voice heard too because
the repercussions of a war would affect them too. All nations with
'global' aspirations throughout history have operated under the dictum
that in diplomacy there are no friends
or enemies but only interests. And usually it has been the reaction of
anyone or any nation that has felt hard done by, rightly or wrongly,
as a result of those 'interests', to lash out. I'm not making excuses
for anyone or any regime - it's just the way human nature works. It
even happens in the school system when a kid brings a knife to 'get
even', when somebody 'goes postal', when a group decides that another
group is 'evil'.
But nobody is talking about appeasement.
Do the math - a war/occupation will cost $500 billion - don't think
that it'll be cheaper than that for direct costs and infrastructure
repairs. And GWB will be spending the lion's share of that - that's
your money. It will be hugely inflationary for the US economy, and
will stifle domestic growth, and hurt the rest of the world too. Those
of you who have a bit of a historic and economic bent, and some age,
may remember the stagflation of the early/mid '70's, partly brought on
by the oil crisis of '73, but more from the hangover effect of the
costs of Vietnam.
Now let's look at how that amount of money would be paid back.
At its peak, Iraq was pumping about 7 million bbls./day, but it's
currently about 2 million/day under the UN Oil for Food program. If
Iraq is attacked, one must expect that 5,000 Iraqi soldiers with
satchels of dynamite will blow-up all the wells, pipelines, and other
oil and transportation infrastructure. Goodbye 2 million bbls./day
into the world market. The price of oil goes up to $60/bbl. Saudi
probably would not increase production to fill the gap given the
politics of the situation, and they are really the only country with
the capability to turn the taps on that fast for that much extra oil.
It would take several years to repair destroyed Iraqi infrastructure,
and the increased cost of oil to the US and world economy in the
interim will be crippling. Eventually oil production gradually
increases and prices drop to $20/bbl.
So now the US wants to get paid back...$500 billion divided by $20 =
25 billion barrels to be pumped. Assume that the US takes 2 million
bbls./day as reparations, 25 billion barrels divided by 2 million
bbls./day = 12,500 days to be paid back = 34 years. And that's before
you consider the compounding effect on the interest costs of the
30-year Treasury bonds issued to finance this exercise. Admittedly the
$20/bbl. figure would initially be higher, but it's a round number and
as good as anything for an order of magnitude estimate.
You sell your SUV and buy a used Toyota Prius instead, if you can find
one. Your taxes go up. Your mortgage interest rate goes up. Inflation
goes up faster than your paycheck. The draft is re-instituted to
provide troops for the army of occupation because the regular Army
will need to be camped out in Korea - so your kids are drafted. You
start eating Kraft dinner instead of steak. You're lucky - hundreds of
thousands, if not millions of Iraqi's will be dead.
I agree that Iraq is probably hiding stuff and that there's no
question that Hussein and his henchmen deserve to go, but right now
the only thing Iraq is doing to the US is not shipping loads of oil to
refineries in Texas.
As Churchill once said, "Jaw, Jaw, Jaw is better than war, war, war."
Only we're not just talking - there would be credible threat behind an
appropriate UN resolution. Each day the UN inspectors are doing their
job is one day closer to defanging Iraq and changing the regime. There
is currently a proposal put forward by Canada at the UN that would
provide all that is necessary, even war if necessary. Think about it
in colloquial terms,
"You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes
You just might find
You get what you need."
Iraq is not threatening to turn Seoul into a molten puddle, and
nuclear war with anyone anywhere its missiles can reach, unlike
another state which is only getting circumspect attention from the US.
One other comment.....Powell is the only guy in the current
administration that has real gravitas with the rest of the world,
unlike Bush and Rumsfeld. Had Powell stood up in the UN several weeks
ago when he went to show the evidence of Iraqi non-compliance with
earlier resolutions and showed unequivocal evidence, all the other
countries would have immediately stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the
US and Britain - of that I am convinced. But what he showed was
equivocal.
So let's say that through 'national technical means' the US has some
other information that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there
are massive and flagrant violations by Iraq. Feed one or two of those
facts to the UN inspectors, give them the latitude/longitude of where
to go and let the UN inspectors 'find' the 'smoking gun'. If that
happened once or twice, then the UN would have been seen to be doing
its job, the United States would be seen to be fulfilling its role and
promise to the world, and the rest of the world would undoubtedly
support the US. But as far as the public world-wide knows, neither the
US nor Britain have provided evidence of the 'smoking guns' to the UN.
I'm waiting for the unequivocal, unfabricated evidence (unlike the
incident in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964) and am willing to support if,
as, and when it appears, as are millions of others around the world.
Barry Treahy, Jr.
Bill Todd wrote:
>"Bill Todd" <bill...@metrocast.net> wrote in message
>news:Q5ednUHaAJy...@metrocast.net...
>
>..
>
> those who would
>
>
>>like to have a chance to register their opposition might want to do so
>>today.
>>
>>
>
>One possible way would be to join a petition which will be compiled and
>submitted tomorrow to the members of the U.N. Security Council:
>
>
>
This is certainly not the place to be posting political 'opinions' that
are, IMHO, totally lame and typically liberal (ie. no back bone except
when its ok for Clinton to bomb aspirin factories!)
Barry
Bradford J. Hamilton
<snip>
>This is certainly not the place to be posting political 'opinions' that
>are, IMHO, totally lame and typically liberal
Perhaps not the proper place to post, but I note that you can't resist airing
your own opinions. Do liberals have less of a right to air their views? Will
you lock us up if we air them? If I wear a peace symbol on my T-shirt, will I
get arrested, as the lawyer who wore one in a shopping mall near Albany, N.Y.
did on Monday?
Sorry if my rhetoric offends, but I'm getting tired of the neo-fascism in this
country!
>(ie. no back bone except
>when its ok for Clinton to bomb aspirin factories!)
>
>Barry
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Bradford J. Hamilton "All opinions are my own"
bMradAha...@atMtAbi.cPoSm "Lose the MAPS"
Don Sykes
Problem 1: The Iraqi regime can move things from place to place. As soon
as a palace is designated ok by the inspectors it can be re-loaded with
whatever they want. 5000 inspectors isn't enough especially, if they
have to tell anyone in advance where they're going, which they currently
do.
Problem 2: It will take more than Saddam dying or leaving. His son and
all the rest of the Baath party have to be removed, since the only
members he has allowed to live are ones that think just like him.
Problem 3: Iraq is already supposed to be granting "unrestricted access"
to people who may be working on/with weapons. It obviously hasn't
helped.
Saddam can play games with the world for years, as he has already done,
by granting a inspection here, or a dismantling there. The cat & mouse
will never end while his group remains in control.
>
> Don't forget that it's not only the US that has been victimized by
> terror, and the rest of the world wants its voice heard too because
> the repercussions of a war would affect them too. All nations with
> 'global' aspirations throughout history have operated under the dictum
> that in diplomacy there are no friends
> or enemies but only interests. And usually it has been the reaction of
> anyone or any nation that has felt hard done by, rightly or wrongly,
> as a result of those 'interests', to lash out. I'm not making excuses
> for anyone or any regime - it's just the way human nature works. It
> even happens in the school system when a kid brings a knife to 'get
> even', when somebody 'goes postal', when a group decides that another
> group is 'evil'.
>
> But nobody is talking about appeasement.
That's exactly what the French ARE talking about. To protect their
relationship with Iraq and appease the arabs in their own community.
Appeasement is their national motto.
>
> Do the math - a war/occupation will cost $500 billion - don't think
> that it'll be cheaper than that for direct costs and infrastructure
> repairs. And GWB will be spending the lion's share of that - that's
> your money. It will be hugely inflationary for the US economy, and
> will stifle domestic growth, and hurt the rest of the world too. Those
> of you who have a bit of a historic and economic bent, and some age,
> may remember the stagflation of the early/mid '70's, partly brought on
> by the oil crisis of '73, but more from the hangover effect of the
> costs of Vietnam.
I am old enough to remember that too. I am also old enough to remember I
was proved wrong when Reagan raised the sword toward the "Evil Empire".
Many were saying the same thing then - i.e. he's a right winger who'll
start WW3. But he was right. When evil is confronted by strength, it
collapses.
I agree that the costs will be high, but what will the costs be if we
appease those like Saddam and allow him enough time to covertly make
some nukes and sneak them into London, New York and Chicago. Waiting is
not always the answer. What if Israel had not taken out Iraq's nuke
facility 20 years ago. Where would he be now? What would have happened
after the Kuwaiti invasion? Could we have gotten him out of there
without a nuclear holocaust?
>
> Now let's look at how that amount of money would be paid back.
>
> At its peak, Iraq was pumping about 7 million bbls./day, but it's
> currently about 2 million/day under the UN Oil for Food program. If
> Iraq is attacked, one must expect that 5,000 Iraqi soldiers with
> satchels of dynamite will blow-up all the wells, pipelines, and other
> oil and transportation infrastructure. Goodbye 2 million bbls./day
> into the world market.
The pentagon is aware of that and working on plans to see that doesn't
happen.
> The price of oil goes up to $60/bbl. Saudi
> probably would not increase production to fill the gap given the
> politics of the situation, and they are really the only country with
> the capability to turn the taps on that fast for that much extra oil.
> It would take several years to repair destroyed Iraqi infrastructure,
> and the increased cost of oil to the US and world economy in the
> interim will be crippling. Eventually oil production gradually
> increases and prices drop to $20/bbl.
A lot of supposition here.
>
> So now the US wants to get paid back...$500 billion divided by $20 =
> 25 billion barrels to be pumped. Assume that the US takes 2 million
> bbls./day as reparations, 25 billion barrels divided by 2 million
> bbls./day = 12,500 days to be paid back = 34 years. And that's before
> you consider the compounding effect on the interest costs of the
> 30-year Treasury bonds issued to finance this exercise. Admittedly the
> $20/bbl. figure would initially be higher, but it's a round number and
> as good as anything for an order of magnitude estimate.
>
> You sell your SUV and buy a used Toyota Prius instead, if you can find
> one. Your taxes go up. Your mortgage interest rate goes up. Inflation
> goes up faster than your paycheck. The draft is re-instituted to
> provide troops for the army of occupation because the regular Army
> will need to be camped out in Korea - so your kids are drafted. You
> start eating Kraft dinner instead of steak. You're lucky - hundreds of
> thousands, if not millions of Iraqi's will be dead.
A worst case scenario for sure!
A best case is, Saddam falls quickly without all the hyperbole you claim
and Iraq becomes the economic and political jewel of the mideast.
Surrounding countries are influenced by this and begin their own changes
from within.
>
> I agree that Iraq is probably hiding stuff and that there's no
> question that Hussein and his henchmen deserve to go, but right now
> the only thing Iraq is doing to the US is not shipping loads of oil to
> refineries in Texas.
>
> As Churchill once said, "Jaw, Jaw, Jaw is better than war, war, war."
Unless that just gives the bad guys more time to build better weapons!
> Only we're not just talking - there would be credible threat behind an
> appropriate UN resolution.
What threat? If we don't act now what do we say next? Ok you guys! You
haven't disarmed after our last 22 threats, over the last 12 years, but
now we really mean it!
I'm sure they'll have a good laugh.
> Each day the UN inspectors are doing their
> job is one day closer to defanging Iraq and changing the regime. There
> is currently a proposal put forward by Canada at the UN that would
> provide all that is necessary, even war if necessary. Think about it
> in colloquial terms,
> "You can't always get what you want
> But if you try sometimes
> You just might find
> You get what you need."
>
> Iraq is not threatening to turn Seoul into a molten puddle, and
> nuclear war with anyone anywhere its missiles can reach, unlike
> another state which is only getting circumspect attention from the US.
A different situation which will probably involve China and Japan. One
that should have our FULL attention - next year.
>
> One other comment.....Powell is the only guy in the current
> administration that has real gravitas with the rest of the world,
> unlike Bush and Rumsfeld. Had Powell stood up in the UN several weeks
> ago when he went to show the evidence of Iraqi non-compliance with
> earlier resolutions and showed unequivocal evidence, all the other
> countries would have immediately stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the
> US and Britain - of that I am convinced. But what he showed was
> equivocal.
Let's always give the benefit of the doubt to the murderous dictator,
never to the country that saved and rebuilt Europe and Japan and sent
troops to stop the disasters in Haiti, Yugoslavia and Ethiopia!
>
> So let's say that through 'national technical means' the US has some
> other information that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there
> are massive and flagrant violations by Iraq. Feed one or two of those
> facts to the UN inspectors, give them the latitude/longitude of where
> to go and let the UN inspectors 'find' the 'smoking gun'. If that
> happened once or twice, then the UN would have been seen to be doing
> its job, the United States would be seen to be fulfilling its role and
> promise to the world, and the rest of the world would undoubtedly
> support the US. But as far as the public world-wide knows, neither the
> US nor Britain have provided evidence of the 'smoking guns' to the UN.
Let's hope the smoking gun doesn't take the form of a mushroom in Europe
or the US.
>
> I'm waiting for the unequivocal, unfabricated evidence (unlike the
> incident in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964) and am willing to support if,
> as, and when it appears, as are millions of others around the world.
I'm waiting for a UN that could be trusted with such data.
--
Have VMS, Will Travel
Wire paladin, San Francisco
(paladinATalphaseDOTcom)
Bill Todd
"Barry Treahy, Jr." <Tre...@MMaz.com> wrote in message
news:3E669B69...@MMaz.com...
>
> Bill Todd wrote:
>
> >"Bill Todd" <bill...@metrocast.net> wrote in message
> >news:Q5ednUHaAJy...@metrocast.net...
> >
> >..
> >
> > those who would
> >
> >
> >>like to have a chance to register their opposition might want to do so
> >>today.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >One possible way would be to join a petition which will be compiled and
> >submitted tomorrow to the members of the U.N. Security Council:
> >
> >
> >
> This is certainly not the place to be posting political 'opinions'
As noted before, neither my original post nor the one to which you responded
advanced any explicit opinion. And this is *exactly* the right place to be
mentioning an issue which I feel is immediately critical to the world at
large (unlike the fate of VMS, for example) and where there are
acquaintances (with whom I don't interact anywhere else) potentially of like
mind who might be unaware of what's going on right now (as I was to a
significant extent). People who don't like off-topic posts have only
themselves to blame if they read them, especially when the subject line
makes their nature clear, as this one does.
that
> are, IMHO, totally lame and typically liberal (ie. no back bone except
> when its ok for Clinton to bomb aspirin factories!)
So don't sign the petition. And by all means disagree if you wish to: I
don't have any respect for your opinion in this matter, but certainly feel
that you should be free to express it.
- bill
bra...@dalsemi.com
>
> your own opinions. Do liberals have less of a right to air their views? Will
> you lock us up if we air them? If I wear a peace symbol on my T-shirt, will I
> get arrested, as the lawyer who wore one in a shopping mall near Albany, N.Y.
> did on Monday?
>
> Sorry if my rhetoric offends, but I'm getting tired of the neo-fascism in this
> country!
>
I agree with "Barry Treahy, Jr." - I joined the Info-VAX to match wits,
exchange ideas, learn a few tricks, think a little differently about why I VMS
the way I do, poke a little good natured fun, etc - all about VAX -er- VMS,
hmmmm, Alpha, ugh, Intel, ... Next???
I did NOT, however, join up to hear anti-war rhetoric or otherwise.
I am in the reserves, I have my own opinions and I would love to tell you a
thing or two, however this is a non-political venue - PLEASE!
If you have a beef with peace symbols, cops killing dogs, the war on drugs,
or other things, please post them somewhere else.
I want to read about VMS, VMS, VMS, nothing less than VMS - Thank you very much.
As a soldier, I pray for peace and prepare for war.
John Brandon
VMS Systems Administrator
Dallas Semiconductor
john.b...@dalsemi.com
972.371.4172 wk
972.371.4003 fx
JF Mezei
The end of the world is VERY close...
I think itis the second time I find myself agreeing with Bill Todd...
And if the war does start, the end of the world will be even closer. Eithert
way, we're doomed.
Bill Todd
<bra...@dalsemi.com> wrote in message
news:0303052...@dscis6-0.dalsemi.com...
...
> I did NOT, however, join up to hear anti-war rhetoric or otherwise.
Then you should have had no problem with my initial post, which was
informational rather than rhetorical in nature. And as it was clearly
identified as an off-topic post (in its subject line, which also made its
subject clear), ignoring it if you were not interested should not have been
difficult.
Newsgroups are communities, and when an external event of importance comes
up that may be of interest to some in the community it's not inappropriate
to mention it - though extended discussion should move elsewhere unless a
large portion of the community is interested in participating. For example,
the moveon.org information came to me in a private email.
I'm not sure there's much more to be said on the meta-subject of the
posting. If people want to continue to discuss the root issue - the
apparently imminent war - here, because this is where the people they're
interested in talking with hang out, then that will likely happen, but I'm
not advocating that.
- bill
JF Mezei
> your own opinions. Do liberals have less of a right to air their views?
Is it permitted to be republican in philosophy (eg: pro business) and totally
disagree with the current administration ? Seems like anyone disagreing with
the Bush Jr foreign policy is automatically labeled un-patriotic and/or liberal.
Considering the human rights abuses inside the USA, considering the state of
the economy, and especially considering the state of the US airline industry,
it seems to me that the Bush Jr administration has done a lot of harm to the
USA economy with worsening situation should he push ahead with his expensive
fireworks show in Iraq.
One example: bankrupt United Airlines, once the world's largest airline, is
selling some of its now surplus 747s to a foreign airline. This mean 7 fewer
747 Boeing will be building in the medium term. And then the cost of his
fireworks show in Iraq will cripple the government's achievements towards
balanced budgets that were so hard to achoeve over the years.
This is why I fail to understand how pro-=business republicans could support
such a government.
Bill Todd
"Bob Ceculski" <b...@instantwhip.com> wrote in message
news:d7791aa1.03030...@posting.google.com...
Thank you, Bob, for making the quality of the opposing viewpoint clear.
Although those who agree with you might counter with the observation that
even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
- bill
Bob Ceculski
yes, history does repeat itself for people like you Bill
who don't learn a thing from it ...
Bob Koehler
>
> are, IMHO, totally lame and typically liberal (ie. no back bone except
> when its ok for Clinton to bomb aspirin factories!)
You would like to see only those 'opinions' which are totaly lame and
typically conservative?
No.
JF Mezei
> Problem 2: It will take more than Saddam dying or leaving.
The USA should have learned its lessons already that it cannot impose dramatic
changes. It must sow the seeds of democracy/capitalism and let them take
roots. They helped the Taliban push the Soviets out of Afghanistan, and look
what happened.
They helped the Shah of Iran bring Iran into the 20th century and look what
happened. Need I go on with all the south american examples ?
Note that Ironically, Iraq was good buddies with the USA and helped do the
dirty work that the USA wanted, notably the war against Iran. The USA and the
rest of the world kept a blind eye to all the atrocities Iraq did because it
was convenient to all, especially when he weakened the radicals in the fringes
of his country, helping prevent fundamentalism spread to neighbouring countries.
Iraq already has some seed of democracy. The regions are getting more and more
autonomy with their own governments. The King may still be uncontested, but as
long as the trend continues, it is best to just help it instead of doing a
major upheaval. At one point, the king may become as relevant as the queen of
england. He gets to continue to benefit from his castles etc, but the rest
will be done by a less dictatorial nationla government with devolution for the
regions with greater autonomy.
The USA may be bragging about having been in touch with plenty of opposition
in Iraq who would be ready to take power once Saddam is removed. HINT: these
may just be worse than Saddam.
Look at the reforms Iran has gone through since the early radical 1980s. If it
comes from the outside, any country will rebel. If it comes from within, then
it takes roots and grows.
Phillipines are a good example. The push to democracy to throw away Marcos
came from within (perhaps with some subtle help from the outside, of course.
But it required no invasion, no foreign military government to overthrow
Marcos etc etc.
> His son and
> all the rest of the Baath party have to be removed, since the only
> members he has allowed to live are ones that think just like him.
Iraqis should decide, not americans or anyone else. We, as foreigners to
Iraq, can only complain about Iraq acting outside its own borders, or using
banned weapons or torture against his own people. On the other hand, the USA,
with the death penalty, is really in no position to argue that Saddam has no
right to kill what his country defines as a criminal.
Don't do onto others what you don't want done onto yourself. How would the USA
have reacted if, during the 2000 slection/selection debacle, other countries
would not have recognised the nomination of Bush Jr as president of the USA
and requested the election considered failed with a new election held ?
I could go on and on. I have watched both USA and non-USA media and I can
understand why do many americans are numbed and don't realise what their
government is really doing and how much they are lying to the american public
and how much propaganda is happening in the USA. Listen to foreign news for a
couple of weeks and you'll see a pretty dramatic difference in facts and you
will hear the media criticise what Bush Jr says in his speeches.
HINT: Bush Jr, during the NATO discussions, claimed that the USA had a wide
coalition of some 13 countries with only 6 opposing the USA. But all NATO had
been tasked to do is to deploy DEFENSES in Turkey. It had nothing to do with
supporting a war on Iraq. Yet, Bush claimed such.
HINT: When Turkey announced support for the USA war, I saw CNN cut the
announcement before the "If such war is sanctioneed by the UN". At least for
the first few days, after which, I think that they realised it was very wrong,
yet, their editors decided to cut that "IF" statement and make it look like
Turkey was in full support of granting US troup access. (This was a few months ago).
And while the USA media may have focused on the work that the UN inspectors
hadn,t completed by 1998, they unfortunatly never focus on the amount of work
that they had succesfully done prior to 1998. Note that for all its might, the
USA intelligence had been unaware of the Iraq nuclear efforts until after the
war when inspectors came in.
That was one of the major arguments used by the Bush Jr admin for a preemptive
strike: if their intel had missed that prior to Gulf War Version 1.0, what
else are they missing now ? Better destroy the country now before the USA gets
a bad surprise.
> Saddam can play games with the world for years, as he has already done,
> by granting a inspection here, or a dismantling there. The cat & mouse
> will never end while his group remains in control.
1-Inspectors costs are measured in millions. War is measured in Billions.
2-Since the inspectors came in in 1991-1992, has Saddam used banned weapons ?
Until there is an internationally agreed upon process to remove one country's
head of state, there is no legal means to do so, and the USA would go against
international law if it wanted to kill a foreign head of state or force its
replacement with military force.
For as much as everyone dislikes Hussein, there can be no precedent set for
removing a leader you don't like. If the USA removes Hussein by force, what is
to prevent China from removing the Taiwanese government and installing one
that would be friendly to re-unification with China ?
Bush Jr must be told that he isn't playing with plastic army toys in a sand
box. He is playing with reak countries, real people, real governments. And
that he must abide by the wishes of the UN.
If Bush Jr disregards a veto by the UN and attacks again, will he accept that
the UN will disregard a US veto against Israel ?
> That's exactly what the French ARE talking about. To protect their
> relationship with Iraq and appease the arabs in their own community.
> Appeasement is their national motto.
And one which the USA should have adopted on september 12. If you wnat to stop
being a target for terrorism, you work hard to become friends with arabs, not
raise their level of hatred against you. Europe knows this full well. They are
not new to terrorism. Bush Jr was outclassed and is nowhere near capable of
handling this properly.
This is the 21st century. War is no longer acceptable as a solution.
Rob Young
>
> I could go on and on. I have watched both USA and non-USA media and I can
> understand why do many americans are numbed and don't realise what their
> government is really doing and how much they are lying to the american public
> and how much propaganda is happening in the USA. Listen to foreign news for a
> couple of weeks and you'll see a pretty dramatic difference in facts and you
> will hear the media criticise what Bush Jr says in his speeches.
>
You talk as if we aren't clued in. Of course we are. We live
here, you don't. Here is some latest poll results (as if this
sort of thing should be decided by a poll - NOT):
http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030228.asp
PRINCETON, NJ -- A new CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll shows 59% of Americans in
favor of invading Iraq with ground troops in an attempt to remove Saddam
Hussein from power. That level of support is unchanged from last week, and down
slightly from the 63% found shortly after U.S. Secretary of State Colin
Powell's U.N. speech arguing for military action against Iraq.
To characterize us as being numbed and not realizing what our
government is doing, is silliness on your part.
> If you wnat to stop
> being a target for terrorism, you work hard to become friends with arabs, not
> raise their level of hatred against you. Europe knows this full well. They are
> not new to terrorism. Bush Jr was outclassed and is nowhere near capable of
> handling this properly.
>
I disagree. You want to stop being a target for terrorism?
Make sure the terrorists pay a price that excruciatingly painful.
They come back and do it again? Make the pain even more painful.
They'll get clued in eventually.
> This is the 21st century. War is no longer acceptable as a solution.
Tell that to a Kuwaiti. If we hadn't invaded when we did, that
country would be totally looted and a great many ADDITIONAL
number of their citizens tortured, raped and otherwise abused by
Iraqi invaders. Perhaps we should have just dropped leaflets in late
1990 early 1991.
Oh I get it , that was "soooo.... " 20th century. Pleeze, give
us a break!!!!
Rob
Barry Treahy, Jr.
Rob Young wrote:
Good work Rob!
You know, if the planes had crashed into the Louvre, the Eiffel Tower,
Munich, Moscow, there would be a lot less of this 'bleeding heart'
crap! The fact that for over ten years, Saddam's atrocities have
continued, these whiners would have us wait another ten years at which
point, who knows when a nuke or biological will be detonated on domestic
soil.
Look back at history, WW I and WW II, it was us Yanks that saved the
Euro-ass from oppression and conquer. Funny how what was good for one
generation, country, and time period is no longer the right thing to do
today, HA! That's one thing about "Lib's," always a double standard
because their standards (if you call it that) are never based on a
foundation or morality and unchanging principles...
Barry
Alan E. Feldman
> "Jack Peacock" <pea...@simconv.com> wrote in message
> news:AuidnZEC66E...@mpowercom.net...
> > "Bill Todd" <bill...@metrocast.net> wrote in message
> > news:Q5ednUHaAJy...@metrocast.net...
>
> The irony is that our actions will only increase the desire of other nations
> to acquire weapons of mass destruction (and the means to deliver them to us)
> as a deterrent to such unbridled aggression on our part. So not only do we
Pardon me, but isn't the U.S. going there *because* Saddam is building
weapons of mass destruction? And some extra military aircraft or
whatever were sent to somewhere near N. Korea because they are
starting to make nuclear weapons? I don't see any huge U.S. military
buildup threatening countries that aren't building weapons of mass
destruction, so why should these countries develop them?
[...]
>
> - bill
Disclaimer: JMHO
Alan E. Feldman
Alan E. Feldman
> Don Sykes wrote:
> > Problem 2: It will take more than Saddam dying or leaving.
I am not strongly for or against going to war with Iraq at this point.
nor do I strongly agree or disagree with your overall post, but I have
some comments on specific portions.
> The USA should have learned its lessons already that it cannot impose dramatic
> changes. It must sow the seeds of democracy/capitalism and let them take
> roots. They helped the Taliban push the Soviets out of Afghanistan, and look
> what happened.
>
> They helped the Shah of Iran bring Iran into the 20th century and look what
> happened. Need I go on with all the south american examples ?
What about WWII? Japan, Germany, Italy.
What about Eastern Europe and Russia?
> Note that Ironically, Iraq was good buddies with the USA and helped do the
> dirty work that the USA wanted, notably the war against Iran. The USA and the
> rest of the world kept a blind eye to all the atrocities Iraq did because it
> was convenient to all, especially when he weakened the radicals in the fringes
> of his country, helping prevent fundamentalism spread to neighbouring countries.
And how do you know that if the U.S. hadn't helped Iraq, that Iran
would have become just as bad or even worse? You don't. It's easy to
criticize based on what happened, but you have to also consider what
would have happened if other actions were taken or not taken. That
makes it more difficult to judge.
> Iraq already has some seed of democracy. The regions are getting more and more
> autonomy with their own governments. The King may still be uncontested, but as
> long as the trend continues, it is best to just help it instead of doing a
> major upheaval. At one point, the king may become as relevant as the queen of
> england. He gets to continue to benefit from his castles etc, but the rest
> will be done by a less dictatorial nationla government with devolution for the
> regions with greater autonomy.
At this pace, it'll take centuries to achieve democracy.
> The USA may be bragging about having been in touch with plenty of opposition
> in Iraq who would be ready to take power once Saddam is removed. HINT: these
> may just be worse than Saddam.
Could be. Could be better, too.
> Look at the reforms Iran has gone through since the early radical 1980s. If it
> comes from the outside, any country will rebel. If it comes from within, then
> it takes roots and grows.
It's going kind of slow. Also, the Afgahns didn't rebel when the U.S.
defeated the Taliban.
> Phillipines are a good example. The push to democracy to throw away Marcos
> came from within (perhaps with some subtle help from the outside, of course.
> But it required no invasion, no foreign military government to overthrow
> Marcos etc etc.
>
> > His son and
> > all the rest of the Baath party have to be removed, since the only
> > members he has allowed to live are ones that think just like him.
>
> Iraqis should decide, not americans or anyone else. We, as foreigners to
> Iraq, can only complain about Iraq acting outside its own borders, or using
> banned weapons or torture against his own people. On the other hand, the USA,
> with the death penalty, is really in no position to argue that Saddam has no
> right to kill what his country defines as a criminal.
Iraqis can't decide as long as Saddam is in power.
> Don't do onto others what you don't want done onto yourself. How would the USA
> have reacted if, during the 2000 slection/selection debacle, other countries
> would not have recognised the nomination of Bush Jr as president of the USA
> and requested the election considered failed with a new election held ?
Saddam wasn't elected, unless you believe that 100% krap.
> I could go on and on. I have watched both USA and non-USA media and I can
> understand why do many americans are numbed and don't realise what their
> government is really doing and how much they are lying to the american public
> and how much propaganda is happening in the USA. Listen to foreign news for a
> couple of weeks and you'll see a pretty dramatic difference in facts and you
> will hear the media criticise what Bush Jr says in his speeches.
I'm not convinced either way on whether the U.S. should go to war with
Iraq. But you have to admit that Bush is risking his presidency big
time on this.
> HINT: Bush Jr, during the NATO discussions, claimed that the USA had a wide
> coalition of some 13 countries with only 6 opposing the USA. But all NATO had
> been tasked to do is to deploy DEFENSES in Turkey. It had nothing to do with
> supporting a war on Iraq. Yet, Bush claimed such.
Yes, Mr. Bush doesn't have a lot of credibility.
> HINT: When Turkey announced support for the USA war, I saw CNN cut the
> announcement before the "If such war is sanctioneed by the UN". At least for
> the first few days, after which, I think that they realised it was very wrong,
> yet, their editors decided to cut that "IF" statement and make it look like
> Turkey was in full support of granting US troup access. (This was a few months ago).
I'm no fan of CNN.
> And while the USA media may have focused on the work that the UN inspectors
> hadn,t completed by 1998, they unfortunatly never focus on the amount of work
> that they had succesfully done prior to 1998. Note that for all its might, the
> USA intelligence had been unaware of the Iraq nuclear efforts until after the
> war when inspectors came in.
Some argue that in favor of getting him now before he makes nukes, or
more nukes.
> That was one of the major arguments used by the Bush Jr admin for a preemptive
> strike: if their intel had missed that prior to Gulf War Version 1.0, what
> else are they missing now ? Better destroy the country now before the USA gets
> a bad surprise.
>
> > Saddam can play games with the world for years, as he has already done,
> > by granting a inspection here, or a dismantling there. The cat & mouse
> > will never end while his group remains in control.
>
> 1-Inspectors costs are measured in millions. War is measured in Billions.
> 2-Since the inspectors came in in 1991-1992, has Saddam used banned weapons ?
Yes, but without the U.S. military buildup hanging over his head,
Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors back in. So it's more than
millions.
> Until there is an internationally agreed upon process to remove one country's
> head of state, there is no legal means to do so, and the USA would go against
> international law if it wanted to kill a foreign head of state or force its
> replacement with military force.
I think in some cases it would have been a wise thing to do, like
Germany and Japan in the late 30's. In this case, I don't really know.
> For as much as everyone dislikes Hussein, there can be no precedent set for
> removing a leader you don't like. If the USA removes Hussein by force, what is
> to prevent China from removing the Taiwanese government and installing one
> that would be friendly to re-unification with China ?
I don't know, but I don't think they care much about precedent or
international law.
> Bush Jr must be told that he isn't playing with plastic army toys in a sand
> box. He is playing with reak countries, real people, real governments. And
> that he must abide by the wishes of the UN.
>
> If Bush Jr disregards a veto by the UN and attacks again, will he accept that
> the UN will disregard a US veto against Israel ?
>
> > That's exactly what the French ARE talking about. To protect their
> > relationship with Iraq and appease the arabs in their own community.
> > Appeasement is their national motto.
>
> And one which the USA should have adopted on september 12. If you wnat to stop
> being a target for terrorism, you work hard to become friends with arabs, not
> raise their level of hatred against you. Europe knows this full well. They are
> not new to terrorism. Bush Jr was outclassed and is nowhere near capable of
> handling this properly.
We've actually helped the Arabs and Muslims. $2 billion/yr to Egypt.
We helped the Muslims in Bosnia and such. We spoke up for the
Chechens. We helped Arabs kick the Soviets out of Afghanistan. We
helped Kuwait and Saudi Arabia against Iraq. That's not enough? And we
get repaid for all this with 9/11 and such. Talk about ingratitude!
Disclaimer: JMHO
Alan E. Feldman
> This is the 21st century. War is no longer acceptable as a solution.
Bill Todd
argument solidly the result is worthwhile. Factual analysis, unfortunately,
seems to be considerably less valued by those who oppose your views.
"JF Mezei" <jfmezei...@vl.videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:3E678A39...@vl.videotron.ca...
...
> Don't do onto others what you don't want done onto yourself. How would the
USA
> have reacted if, during the 2000 slection/selection debacle, other
countries
> would not have recognised the nomination of Bush Jr as president of the
USA
> and requested the election considered failed with a new election held ?
The hypothetical (though rather far-fetched) example I like is how we would
react if the Russians decided that they had the right to invade Israel
(without Security Council sanction) to force compliance with the multitude
of U.N. resolutions that Israel has flouted for decades.
>
> I could go on and on. I have watched both USA and non-USA media and I can
> understand why do many americans are numbed and don't realise what their
> government is really doing and how much they are lying to the american
public
> and how much propaganda is happening in the USA.
Indeed. The networks have so consistently ignored the legal an ethical
problems with the Administration's approach that it's hard not to wonder
whether they've been intimidated by its similar disregard of the
Constitution in its domestic policies. Or perhaps, like Hearst in the
Spanish-American War, they find war to be good for their business. In any
event, only very recently has network coverage started to explore (though
hardly aggressively) the other side of the issue - perhaps because
controversy is also good for their business.
The print media seem at least a bit more willing to mention alternatives
(though I wouldn't characterize them as being really even-handed).
...
> > That's exactly what the French ARE talking about. To protect their
> > relationship with Iraq and appease the arabs in their own community.
> > Appeasement is their national motto.
>
> And one which the USA should have adopted on september 12.
But don't get sucked into the error of letting that be characterized as
'appeasement': correcting your own past errors is an honorable and in fact
courageous course of action.
If you wnat to stop
> being a target for terrorism, you work hard to become friends with arabs,
not
> raise their level of hatred against you. Europe knows this full well. They
are
> not new to terrorism. Bush Jr was outclassed and is nowhere near capable
of
> handling this properly.
I give him more credit for intelligence than that: I think instead he's
fully aware but believes he can bull his way through anyway.
>
> This is the 21st century. War is no longer acceptable as a solution.
Again, well-said. Rather than create yet more verbiage around this issue,
in closing I'll just recycle a letter I sent today to my Congressional
delegation (and a similar copy to Dubya: not that I think it'll make much
difference in either case, but it's one's obligation as a citizen when the
country is taking action in your name that you disagree with):
March 6, 2003
Dear :
I'm fed up with having my intelligence insulted every time some
Administration sock-puppet parrots its "Everybody's out of step but me"
defense of a war with Iraq. Others aren't to blame for the 'divisions' in
the U.N. Security Council and around the world: the only division is
between us (and the few governments we've been able to convince to ignore
the desires of their own people) and the rest of the world, and the only
entity that will be 'marginalized' if we continue to go it alone will be our
own country.
It is only the tact of those who would still like to consider themselves our
friends that keeps them from pointing out that the U.S. has no right
whatsoever to define unilaterally the intent of Security Council
resolutions, no right whatsoever to decide unilaterally the degree to which
they are being complied with, and no right whatsoever to take unilateral
action based on that decision: all those rights belong only to the Security
Council itself, and provide not a fig-leaf of justification for independent
action by its members. In the absence of U.N. approval ours will be no less
a war of aggression than the annexation of Kuwait was a dozen years ago, and
appears to be accompanied by similar lies in attempts to rationalize it.
Our own intelligence agencies indicate that to the best of their rather
considerable knowledge Iraq presents no immediate threat to us or to its
neighbors and had no hand in the 9/11/2001 (or any other) terrorist attacks.
Its abuse of its own population - including the gassing of the Kurds in
1988, about which we remained conspicuously silent at the time - was no
secret back when Iraq was a valued Reagan/Bush ally against Iran. Mostly,
Iraq is an embarrassing testament to our own failure to follow through
thoroughly in the aftermath of the Gulf War: instead, after its forces were
routed from Kuwait we let Iraq largely drop off our radar screen, demanding
the mindless continuation of sanctions even after they proved to be
counter-productive instead of buckling down and figuring out how to deal
with the remaining problems effectively.
It's not Saddam Hussein who has made us and the international community look
like fools, it's our own failure to provide competent leadership in this
matter to the international organization which we (usually) dominate.
Bush's rounding up a group of vigilantes to teach Saddam a lesson won't make
us look any less like fools, it will just make us look like bullies as well
who have no respect for international law.
The newest Bush plan seems to be that we can sweep over Iraq in short order
and then largely leave it up to the rest of the world to pay for cleaning up
the mess we've left - another disturbing echo of the Gulf War and an
approach far more likely to result in repetitions of the events of 9/11/2001
than to foster world-wide support for averting them. And it's hardly news
that examples of unchecked aggression by the powerful lead other nations to
seek weapons to protect themselves from being the next targets - the best
and perhaps only justification for the weapons of mass destruction that our
policies are supposedly designed to discourage.
A major reason why we have three co-equal branches of government in this
country is to provide checks when one of them starts to run amuck. The
decision to wage war is very specifically vested in the Congress by our
Constitution, a document that seems to be considered increasingly irrelevant
by this Administration. It's time for the Congress to step up to the plate
and do its duty, uncomfortable as that may be.
Sincerely yours,
William Todd
Strafford, NH
Bill Todd
"Rob Young" <you...@encompasserve.org> wrote in message
news:4hugmD...@eisner.encompasserve.org...
> In article <3E678A39...@vl.videotron.ca>, JF Mezei
<jfmezei...@vl.videotron.ca> writes:
>
> >
> > I could go on and on. I have watched both USA and non-USA media and I
can
> > understand why do many americans are numbed and don't realise what their
> > government is really doing and how much they are lying to the american
public
> > and how much propaganda is happening in the USA. Listen to foreign news
for a
> > couple of weeks and you'll see a pretty dramatic difference in facts and
you
> > will hear the media criticise what Bush Jr says in his speeches.
> >
>
> You talk as if we aren't clued in. Of course we are.
Coming from you, Rob, that's doubly laughable.
We live
> here, you don't. Here is some latest poll results (as if this
> sort of thing should be decided by a poll - NOT):
>
> http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030228.asp
>
> PRINCETON, NJ -- A new CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll shows 59% of Americans in
> favor of invading Iraq with ground troops in an attempt to remove Saddam
> Hussein from power. That level of support is unchanged from last week, and
down
> slightly from the 63% found shortly after U.S. Secretary of State Colin
> Powell's U.N. speech arguing for military action against Iraq.
>
> To characterize us as being numbed and not realizing what our
> government is doing, is silliness on your part.
Yet another inadequate analysis of the data you yourself provided, Rob. If
you'd bothered to read the *whole* article you cite you would have found
that a large portion of that 59% support invading Iraq *only* if the U.N.
approves the action: without U.N. approval, the gung-ho crowd reduces to
38% - and goes down even farther in the event that Iraq destroys the
missiles it has been told to (which, of course, it is in the process of
doing).
>
>
> > If you wnat to stop
> > being a target for terrorism, you work hard to become friends with
arabs, not
> > raise their level of hatred against you. Europe knows this full well.
They are
> > not new to terrorism. Bush Jr was outclassed and is nowhere near capable
of
> > handling this properly.
> >
>
> I disagree. You want to stop being a target for terrorism?
> Make sure the terrorists pay a price that excruciatingly painful.
> They come back and do it again? Make the pain even more painful.
> They'll get clued in eventually.
That, of course, is exactly the same wisdom that the terrorists themselves
advance while blowing up those who oppress them. And they seem far more
willing to pay the price of that approach than we're likely to be.
>
> > This is the 21st century. War is no longer acceptable as a solution.
>
> Tell that to a Kuwaiti.
A legitimate response. JF should have said that war is no longer acceptable
save as a last resort (such as the presence of a dire and immediate threat
which must be met immediately or not at all - internal genocide being a good
example when no external threat exists).
- bill
Bill Todd
"Barry Treahy, Jr." <Tre...@MMaz.com> wrote in message
...
That's one thing about "Lib's," always a double standard
> because their standards (if you call it that) are never based on a
> foundation or morality and unchanging principles...
Y'know, colossally ignorant statements like that are why people like you get
a reputation as knuckle-draggers.
- bill
John Smith
"Bob Koehler" <koe...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org> wrote in
message news:oBEVoU...@eisner.encompasserve.org...
He may want to see more actions like the mall owner in this story:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=564&ncid=716&e=15&u=/
nm/20030306/ts_nm/iraq_usa_shirt_dc
Alan E. Feldman
[... huge cut ...]
> This is the 21st century. War is no longer acceptable as a solution.
Uh, could you please tell this to Al Qaeda, the Palestinians, North
Korea, China, The Balkan peninsula, The Chechens, Iraq, and any others
I missed?
Why don't you tell any of them that? Huh?
Alan E. Feldman
Bill Todd
"Alan E. Feldman" <spamsi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b096a4ee.03030...@posting.google.com...
...
> > The USA should have learned its lessons already that it cannot impose
dramatic
> > changes. It must sow the seeds of democracy/capitalism and let them take
> > roots. They helped the Taliban push the Soviets out of Afghanistan, and
look
> > what happened.
> >
> > They helped the Shah of Iran bring Iran into the 20th century and look
what
> > happened. Need I go on with all the south american examples ?
>
> What about WWII? Japan, Germany, Italy.
It's not obvious what you think your point is: WWII was hardly an example
of the kinds of attempts to impose changes on other countries that JF was
noting, it was a clear matter of self-defense (we didn't actually enter the
war until we were attacked) and defense of our allies.
>
> What about Eastern Europe and Russia?
Another non-sequitur to JF's comment.
>
> > Note that Ironically, Iraq was good buddies with the USA and helped do
the
> > dirty work that the USA wanted, notably the war against Iran. The USA
and the
> > rest of the world kept a blind eye to all the atrocities Iraq did
because it
> > was convenient to all, especially when he weakened the radicals in the
fringes
> > of his country, helping prevent fundamentalism spread to neighbouring
countries.
>
> And how do you know that if the U.S. hadn't helped Iraq, that Iran
> would have become just as bad or even worse? You don't. It's easy to
> criticize based on what happened, but you have to also consider what
> would have happened if other actions were taken or not taken. That
> makes it more difficult to judge.
Not really: the third (and most ethical) option was simply less
convenient - taking a more direct hand ourselves rather than supporting a
despicable regime just because it counter-balanced another regime that we
liked even less. Of course, there's also the question of whether our
dislike to the Iranian regime was justified in the first place: true, they
had no love for us given our uncritical support of the Shah, but larger
fences have been mended when we made the effort (and the fact that the same
regime has slowly become less hostile anyway suggests that with some effort
faster progress could have been made).
The bottom line is that when you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas:
it's better to take the higher, if more difficult, road to begin with.
>
> > Iraq already has some seed of democracy. The regions are getting more
and more
> > autonomy with their own governments. The King may still be uncontested,
but as
> > long as the trend continues, it is best to just help it instead of doing
a
> > major upheaval. At one point, the king may become as relevant as the
queen of
> > england. He gets to continue to benefit from his castles etc, but the
rest
> > will be done by a less dictatorial nationla government with devolution
for the
> > regions with greater autonomy.
>
> At this pace, it'll take centuries to achieve democracy.
If it does, that's their business, not ours - though fostering the
development of democracy through peaceful and ethical means is certainly
acceptable.
>
> > The USA may be bragging about having been in touch with plenty of
opposition
> > in Iraq who would be ready to take power once Saddam is removed. HINT:
these
> > may just be worse than Saddam.
>
> Could be. Could be better, too.
Not our business in either case: any such concerns are the province of the
U.N., if it decides they need to be addressed.
>
> > Look at the reforms Iran has gone through since the early radical 1980s.
If it
> > comes from the outside, any country will rebel. If it comes from within,
then
> > it takes roots and grows.
>
> It's going kind of slow.
Again, none of our business, save for providing etihcal encouragement.
Also, the Afgahns didn't rebel when the U.S.
> defeated the Taliban.
Nor did they solidify into a nation. And the tentative government that we
installed is now criticizing us for not following through on our promises of
continued involvement for the second time: just as we dropped Afghanistan
like a hot potato after helping what later became the Taliban kick out the
Soviets, we're 'way shy of the kind of support we promised the current
government, and they're specifically suggesting that if we do the same thing
in Iraq (as Bush now seems to be suggesting in response to queries about how
much all this will cost) there'll be major problems there.
...
> > Iraqis should decide, not americans or anyone else. We, as foreigners
to
> > Iraq, can only complain about Iraq acting outside its own borders, or
using
> > banned weapons or torture against his own people. On the other hand, the
USA,
> > with the death penalty, is really in no position to argue that Saddam
has no
> > right to kill what his country defines as a criminal.
>
> Iraqis can't decide as long as Saddam is in power.
Yet again, the U.N. is the sole body responsible for deciding whether any
intervention to change this is appropriate.
>
> > Don't do onto others what you don't want done onto yourself. How would
the USA
> > have reacted if, during the 2000 slection/selection debacle, other
countries
> > would not have recognised the nomination of Bush Jr as president of the
USA
> > and requested the election considered failed with a new election held ?
>
> Saddam wasn't elected, unless you believe that 100% krap.
Leaving aside the question of whether Dubya was in fact elected, the fact
remains that who runs Iraq is *none of our business* (any more than who runs
the U.S. is anyone else's business, which was JF's point).
...
> I'm not convinced either way on whether the U.S. should go to war with
> Iraq. But you have to admit that Bush is risking his presidency big
> time on this.
I don't think so: rather, I suspect that the expanded 'war on terrorism'
that seems to include anyone we don't like is the sole aspect of his
Administration that he believes may get him reelected. If he can bull his
way through this, regardless of the price America pays economically, in loss
of external friends, or in increased danger of terrorism, he may just get
the 'Murcan public to think he's a real leader; had he simply done what he
originally (and correctly) set out to ("Hunt down those responsible and
bring them to justice"), he'd have had to justify his reelection on - what?
...
> > And while the USA media may have focused on the work that the UN
inspectors
> > hadn,t completed by 1998, they unfortunatly never focus on the amount of
work
> > that they had succesfully done prior to 1998. Note that for all its
might, the
> > USA intelligence had been unaware of the Iraq nuclear efforts until
after the
> > war when inspectors came in.
>
> Some argue that in favor of getting him now before he makes nukes, or
> more nukes.
That argument ignores the increasing evidence that he has no remaining
active nuclear program whatsoever - something which the inspectors feel
they'll be in a position to state with reasonable certainty before long,
even if the issues of chemical and biological weapons may be less
immediately verifiable.
...
> > 1-Inspectors costs are measured in millions. War is measured in
Billions.
> > 2-Since the inspectors came in in 1991-1992, has Saddam used banned
weapons ?
>
> Yes, but without the U.S. military buildup hanging over his head,
> Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors back in. So it's more than
> millions.
That's almost certainly true: the pressure is appropriate, it's only the
fact that it was applied outside the auspices of the Security Council (which
thus constituted intimidation by a rogue state, however desirable its
effect) which is not. The *right* way to go about this would have been to
gather up Security Council support and *then* apply the pressure rather than
announce to the world that we were going to whether they approved of it or
not.
Dubya's father proved more than capable of gathering up such consensus for
support in 1991. But Dubya is not his father.
>
> > Until there is an internationally agreed upon process to remove one
country's
> > head of state, there is no legal means to do so, and the USA would go
against
> > international law if it wanted to kill a foreign head of state or force
its
> > replacement with military force.
>
> I think in some cases it would have been a wise thing to do, like
> Germany and Japan in the late 30's.
The more suitable course of action would have been to move against Germany
when it annexed Austria (though my history is a bit rusty and there *might*
have been sufficient support in the Austrian population to give that action
some legitimacy). Or at the latest when it gobbled up the Sudetenland
(which was as blatant an invasion as that of Kuwait). Similar observations
apply to Japan's pre-WWII activities in China (and perhaps elsewhere -
again, my knowledge of history isn't what it might be). There were plenty
of opportunities to curb the Axis using accepted norms of international
response (rather than, e.g., assassination) before the invasion of Poland
finally precipitated a declaration of war (though even that didn't cause
*actual* war to break out: it took the invasion of France and its neighbors
to do that, IIRC).
That's what makes comparing the present treatment of Iraq to the appeasement
of the 1930s so ludicrous. Anyone with even a smidgeon of historical
knowledge understands that the two situations have nothing in common:
instead of appeasing Iraq, we acted decisively to reverse its actions, and
all the discussion now centers on how to deal with the details of the
aftermath.
In this case, I don't really know.
>
> > For as much as everyone dislikes Hussein, there can be no precedent set
for
> > removing a leader you don't like. If the USA removes Hussein by force,
what is
> > to prevent China from removing the Taiwanese government and installing
one
> > that would be friendly to re-unification with China ?
>
> I don't know, but I don't think they care much about precedent or
> international law.
Is that just a guess, or do you consider it an informed opinion? While the
PRC jealously defends its prerogative to handle internal matters as it sees
fit, in the international sphere it has been at least a relatively good
citizen compared with its actions before, say, 1972.
...
> > And one which the USA should have adopted on september 12. If you wnat
to stop
> > being a target for terrorism, you work hard to become friends with
arabs, not
> > raise their level of hatred against you. Europe knows this full well.
They are
> > not new to terrorism. Bush Jr was outclassed and is nowhere near capable
of
> > handling this properly.
>
> We've actually helped the Arabs and Muslims.
The perception seems to be that our *net* effect has been negative, and I
tend to agree with it.
> $2 billion/yr to Egypt.
Still, or only while the Soviet Union was still around? Of course, on a
per-capita basis it doesn't begin to compare with our aid to Israel.
> We helped the Muslims in Bosnia and such.
Indeed we did, and got a reasonable amount of credit for it from the Muslim
world.
We spoke up for the
> Chechens.
While the sentiment was doubtless appreciated, results are what count.
> We helped Arabs kick the Soviets out of Afghanistan.
And then left the survivors to pick up the pieces as best they could,
clearly demonstrating that our actions were strategic rather than performed
out of the goodness of our hearts.
We
> helped Kuwait and Saudi Arabia against Iraq.
Yup. And got at least some credit for that, though once again one has to
suspect that our motives were influenced at least as much by oil and the
stability of the region in which it's found than by altruism (and the
continuing presence of our troops near the holy cities helped cancel out
some of the goodwill).
> That's not enough?
No, it's not. Not after decades of supporting regimes that oppress their
citizenry (because doing so suits our own interests) and propping up
Israel's occupation and, worse, settlement activities for three decades
despite the condemnation of the world community.
And we
> get repaid for all this with 9/11 and such.
That's exactly how we get repaid. And our current approach to Iraq makes it
appear that we're seeking more of the same.
- bill
John Smith
Well said.
There are some smaller percentage of the populace that will oppose war
under any circumstance, but by and large the majority will be of the
opinion:
War if necessary, but not necessarily war.
And the majority of world opinion, and dare I say US opinion, is that
war is not called for, nor is it justifiable at this time.
John Vottero
news:3E67C23...@MMaz.com...
>
[snip]
> You know, if the planes had crashed into the Louvre, the Eiffel Tower,
> Munich, Moscow, there would be a lot less of this 'bleeding heart'
> crap! The fact that for over ten years, Saddam's atrocities have
> continued, these whiners would have us wait another ten years at which
> point, who knows when a nuke or biological will be detonated on domestic
> soil.
>
> Look back at history, WW I and WW II, it was us Yanks that saved the
> Euro-ass from oppression and conquer. Funny how what was good for one
> generation, country, and time period is no longer the right thing to do
> today, HA! That's one thing about "Lib's," always a double standard
> because their standards (if you call it that) are never based on a
> foundation or morality and unchanging principles...
>
"based on a foundation [of] morality and unchanging principles"???? What
the hell are you talking about? In the 80's Ronald Reagan sold weapons of
mass destruction to Saddam! You call that "unchanging principles"?? When
Saddam used poison gas on his own people, Reagan virtually ignored the
atrocity, you call that moral?
John Vottero
Bill Todd
"Alan E. Feldman" <spamsi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b096a4ee.03030...@posting.google.com...
news:<6KSdnb2u-5F...@metrocast.net>...
> > "Jack Peacock" <pea...@simconv.com> wrote in message
> > news:AuidnZEC66E...@mpowercom.net...
> > > "Bill Todd" <bill...@metrocast.net> wrote in message
> > > news:Q5ednUHaAJy...@metrocast.net...
> [...]
> >
> > The irony is that our actions will only increase the desire of other
nations
> > to acquire weapons of mass destruction (and the means to deliver them to
us)
> > as a deterrent to such unbridled aggression on our part. So not only do
we
>
> Pardon me, but isn't the U.S. going there *because* Saddam is building
> weapons of mass destruction?
1. You miss the distinction between the U.S. going there and the U.N. going
there. The latter is a distinctly less belligerent body than we are these
days, and thus far less likely to engender such fears.
2. You also seem to have accepted without question the 'fact' that Saddam
is building such weapons. In the case of nuclear weapons the inspectors
appear fairly confident that this is not the case, and AFAIK there's no real
evidence that he's *building* more chemical or biological weapons either,
mostly the strong suspicion that there may be left-overs not yet destroyed
(though a lot were).
And some extra military aircraft or
> whatever were sent to somewhere near N. Korea because they are
> starting to make nuclear weapons? I don't see any huge U.S. military
> buildup threatening countries that aren't building weapons of mass
> destruction, so why should these countries develop them?
For starters, because of the hodge-podge of additional 'justifications' that
Dubya has advanced for invading Iraq. Any country that feels we might
consider it to be oppressing its people, any country that feels we might
suspect it of not liking us (and hence aiding terrorists who might move
against us), even any country that is not a democracy (since we've now
stated a goal of introducing democrary to the Middle East - by war if
necessary, since that's another supposed 'justification' for it) has good
reason to feel threatened.
If you saw Nightline last night, you got a chilling view of where Dubya's
Imperial America thinks it is heading. We know what's best for your country
and the world and will do whatever we think is necessary to make it happen
(all of course from the best of motives), because we're America and you
can't do a damn thing to stop us.
- bill
Shane Smith
Someone acting immorally in past years doesn't absolve his successor
from the responsibility to act morally now. If anything, it makes a
moral decision now more important.
Also, to make some observations about Barry's post: Don't forget that
pretty much every country has been victim to terrorism. Some with higher
body counts than America, albeit from repeated smaller attacks rather
than one big one. See any smoking nuclear craters? Didn't think so. And
of course World War 1 and 2 were not started by America. Whole different
ball game. I'll exercise restraint on the rest of that paragraph. Don't
want to start another front in the flame war.
I'm staying out of the "should there be a war now" subject, though.
Shane
David J. Dachtera
Reagan was nothing more than the White House's version of Charlie
McCarthy (or Pinoccio): a puppet who danced as his handlers pulled the
strings.
--
David J. Dachtera
dba DJE Systems
http://www.djesys.com/
Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/
GreyCloud
I wonder who his handlers were??
But it does bring up a few questions, like why now??
It makes one wonder what the real story is. I doubt the
newsmedia version.
GreyCloud
>
<snip>
>
> And one which the USA should have adopted on september 12. If you wnat to stop
> being a target for terrorism, you work hard to become friends with arabs, not
> raise their level of hatred against you. Europe knows this full well. They are
> not new to terrorism. Bush Jr was outclassed and is nowhere near capable of
> handling this properly.
>
> This is the 21st century. War is no longer acceptable as a solution.
http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/nation/200303/kt2003030417272311970.htm
I found this one that should be addressed. Odd thing that
the newsmedia kept very quiet about it.
North Korean warhead found in Alaska.
Anybody have anymore info on this one???
Phillip Helbig
I fail to see how this logic applies to a suicide terrorist (such as
those who attacked the WTC, the suicide bombers in Palestine etc).
Paddy O'Brien
Yep, not too many suicide terrorists get a chance for a second go.
Probably old, but one of these "bumper-sticker" things: Why did the
Japanese Kamikase pilots wear crash helmets?
Regards, Paddy
***********************************************************************
"This electronic message and any attachments may contain privileged
and confidential information intended only for the use of the
addressees named above. If you are not the intended recipient of
this email, please delete the message and any attachment and advise
the sender. You are hereby notified that any use, dissemination,
distribution, reproduction of this email is prohibited.
If you have received the email in error, please notify TransGrid
immediately. Any views expressed in this email are those of the
individual sender except where the sender expressly and with
authority states them to be the views of TransGrid. TransGrid uses
virus scanning software but excludes any liability for viruses
contained in any attachment.
Please note the email address for TransGrid personnel is now
firstname...@transgrid.com.au"
***********************************************************************
Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy
Barry Treahy, Jr. wrote:
>
>
> You know, if the planes had crashed into the Louvre, the Eiffel Tower,
> Munich, Moscow, there would be a lot less of this 'bleeding heart'
> crap! The fact that for over ten years, Saddam's atrocities have
> continued, these whiners would have us wait another ten years at which
> point, who knows when a nuke or biological will be detonated on domestic
> soil.
> Look back at history, WW I and WW II, it was us Yanks that saved the
> Euro-ass from oppression and conquer. Funny how what was good for one
> generation, country, and time period is no longer the right thing to do
> today, HA! That's one thing about "Lib's," always a double standard
> because their standards (if you call it that) are never based on a
> foundation or morality and unchanging principles...
>
Actually thats historically inacurate. In WW II although the US entered
the war in 1941 it only did so because of the Japanese attack on Pearl
Harbour, public sentiment up to then was that it was pretty much a
european conflict.
Before Pearl Harbour the UK and its Colonial Allies and the Free
French were the only people standing between Hitler and European
domination. The defining battles which effectively ended Hitlers
chances of doing this were Dunkirk which was effectively a defeat
for the Allies but one where the UK managed to salvage the bulk
of their army that would otherwise have been destroyed in France
and the Battle of Britain where the RAF won.
The Battle for the Atlantic where convoys of food etc (paid
for by the UK and not given by the US) were shipped across
the Atlantic under German UBoat attack had also largely been
won.
Two British inventions were key in both the Uboat war and
the Battle of Britain, These were the Code Breaking program
at Bletchley Park which broke the Enigma Code and Radar.
And the tide of the war changed largely due to two events the battle
of El Alamein which the British 8th army won which then paved the way
for the invasion of Italy and Hitler attacking Russia in June 1941.
Many historians think that the latter and particualarly the
battle of Stalingrad was the point at which Hitler effectively
lost the war.
And lets not forget the finacial motive here. In 1939 the Uk
was the worlds super power financially. By the end of the war
in 1945 the Uk was effectively broke, gold reserves gone etc
most of this wealth flowed west to the US which was the
only major economy to profit from WW II.
Despite winning WW II the UK then suffered years of rationing
of basic goods after 1945 to help pay for the war.
Regards
Andrew Harrison
John Smith
"Phillip Helbig" <HEL...@sysdev.deutsche-boerse.com> wrote in message
news:01KT8IWKI...@sysdev.deutsche-boerse.com...
Let's just call them what they are....murderers who don't care if they
die in the process.
John Smith
"Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy"
<Andrew_No....@nospamn.sun.com> wrote in message
news:3E687CD1...@nospamn.sun.com...
In fairness, the US did enact the Lend-Lease program, but by the time
it was enacted the original purpose of which to have the US 'lend' 50
old WW-I destroyers to the UK, it was already past the most critical
time during which the UK could have used them. And as it turns out,
those old US destroyers were in such need of refitting, that it took
until 1943 until most of them were actually returned to service.
> Before Pearl Harbour the UK and its Colonial Allies and the Free
> French were the only people standing between Hitler and European
> domination. The defining battles which effectively ended Hitlers
> chances of doing this were Dunkirk which was effectively a defeat
> for the Allies but one where the UK managed to salvage the bulk
> of their army that would otherwise have been destroyed in France
> and the Battle of Britain where the RAF won.
>
> The Battle for the Atlantic where convoys of food etc (paid
> for by the UK and not given by the US) were shipped across
> the Atlantic under German UBoat attack had also largely been
> won.
>
> Two British inventions were key in both the Uboat war and
> the Battle of Britain, These were the Code Breaking program
> at Bletchley Park which broke the Enigma Code and Radar.
And UK invented sonar (ASDIC), first used during WW-I.
> And the tide of the war changed largely due to two events the battle
> of El Alamein which the British 8th army won which then paved the
way
> for the invasion of Italy and Hitler attacking Russia in June 1941.
>
> Many historians think that the latter and particualarly the
> battle of Stalingrad was the point at which Hitler effectively
> lost the war.
>
> And lets not forget the finacial motive here. In 1939 the Uk
> was the worlds super power financially. By the end of the war
> in 1945 the Uk was effectively broke, gold reserves gone etc
> most of this wealth flowed west to the US which was the
> only major economy to profit from WW II.
>
> Despite winning WW II the UK then suffered years of rationing
> of basic goods after 1945 to help pay for the war.
I think it is accurate, based on several books read long ago - under
Lend/Lease, the UK paid to the US every cent it was owed. On the other
hand, the US granted non-repayable aid to Germany and Japan after the
war.
Alan E. Feldman
> "Alan E. Feldman" <spamsi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:b096a4ee.03030...@posting.google.com...
> > JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vl.videotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:<3E678A39...@vl.videotron.ca>...
>
> ...
>
> > > The USA should have learned its lessons already that it cannot impose
> dramatic
> > > changes. It must sow the seeds of democracy/capitalism and let them take
> > > roots. They helped the Taliban push the Soviets out of Afghanistan, and
> look
> > > what happened.
> > >
> > > They helped the Shah of Iran bring Iran into the 20th century and look
> what
> > > happened. Need I go on with all the south american examples ?
> >
> > What about WWII? Japan, Germany, Italy.
>
> It's not obvious what you think your point is: WWII was hardly an example
> of the kinds of attempts to impose changes on other countries that JF was
> noting, it was a clear matter of self-defense (we didn't actually enter the
> war until we were attacked) and defense of our allies.
True. However, it shows that nation building can be successful.
Unfortunately, it also seems to show that it helps a lot if you defeat
the target country in a war.
>
> >
> > What about Eastern Europe and Russia?
>
> Another non-sequitur to JF's comment.
Here we did try to improve countries via the Cold War. The attempt to
contain Soviet Communism. And it worked! Mostly.
> > > Note that Ironically, Iraq was good buddies with the USA and helped do
> the
> > > dirty work that the USA wanted, notably the war against Iran. The USA
> and the
> > > rest of the world kept a blind eye to all the atrocities Iraq did
> because it
> > > was convenient to all, especially when he weakened the radicals in the
> fringes
> > > of his country, helping prevent fundamentalism spread to neighbouring
> countries.
> >
> > And how do you know that if the U.S. hadn't helped Iraq, that Iran
> > would have become just as bad or even worse? You don't. It's easy to
> > criticize based on what happened, but you have to also consider what
> > would have happened if other actions were taken or not taken. That
> > makes it more difficult to judge.
>
> Not really: the third (and most ethical) option was simply less
> convenient - taking a more direct hand ourselves rather than supporting a
> despicable regime just because it counter-balanced another regime that we
> liked even less. Of course, there's also the question of whether our
> dislike to the Iranian regime was justified in the first place: true, they
> had no love for us given our uncritical support of the Shah, but larger
> fences have been mended when we made the effort (and the fact that the same
> regime has slowly become less hostile anyway suggests that with some effort
> faster progress could have been made).
I'm not saying we made the right decision. I'm just saying it's
important to look at what might have happened had we done something
else. People often say "Well, look what happened when we did X" but
don't consider what would have happened had we not done X.
>
> The bottom line is that when you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas:
> it's better to take the higher, if more difficult, road to begin with.
OK.
>
> >
> > > Iraq already has some seed of democracy. The regions are getting more
> and more
> > > autonomy with their own governments. The King may still be uncontested,
> but as
> > > long as the trend continues, it is best to just help it instead of doing
> a
> > > major upheaval. At one point, the king may become as relevant as the
> queen of
> > > england. He gets to continue to benefit from his castles etc, but the
> rest
> > > will be done by a less dictatorial nationla government with devolution
> for the
> > > regions with greater autonomy.
> >
> > At this pace, it'll take centuries to achieve democracy.
>
> If it does, that's their business, not ours - though fostering the
> development of democracy through peaceful and ethical means is certainly
> acceptable.
They are not a free people and therefore they cannot make it their own
business.
>
> >
> > > The USA may be bragging about having been in touch with plenty of
> opposition
> > > in Iraq who would be ready to take power once Saddam is removed. HINT:
> these
> > > may just be worse than Saddam.
> >
> > Could be. Could be better, too.
>
> Not our business in either case: any such concerns are the province of the
> U.N., if it decides they need to be addressed.
The U.N. is a joke.
>
> >
> > > Look at the reforms Iran has gone through since the early radical 1980s.
> If it
> > > comes from the outside, any country will rebel. If it comes from within,
> then
> > > it takes roots and grows.
> >
> > It's going kind of slow.
>
> Again, none of our business, save for providing etihcal encouragement.
It's still going kind of slow. My point was that JF seemed to be
saying "See, democracy is coming when we do it the "right way". All I
was saying is that it was kind of slow, so slow, in fact, that it
could easily reverse.
>
> Also, the Afgahns didn't rebel when the U.S.
> > defeated the Taliban.
>
> Nor did they solidify into a nation. And the tentative government that we
> installed is now criticizing us for not following through on our promises of
> continued involvement for the second time: just as we dropped Afghanistan
> like a hot potato after helping what later became the Taliban kick out the
> Soviets, we're 'way shy of the kind of support we promised the current
> government, and they're specifically suggesting that if we do the same thing
> in Iraq (as Bush now seems to be suggesting in response to queries about how
> much all this will cost) there'll be major problems there.
They're lucky we helped them at all.
>
> ...
>
> > > Iraqis should decide, not americans or anyone else. We, as foreigners
> to
> > > Iraq, can only complain about Iraq acting outside its own borders, or
> using
> > > banned weapons or torture against his own people. On the other hand, the
> USA,
> > > with the death penalty, is really in no position to argue that Saddam
> has no
> > > right to kill what his country defines as a criminal.
> >
> > Iraqis can't decide as long as Saddam is in power.
>
> Yet again, the U.N. is the sole body responsible for deciding whether any
> intervention to change this is appropriate.
The U.N. is a joke.
>
> >
> > > Don't do onto others what you don't want done onto yourself. How would
> the USA
> > > have reacted if, during the 2000 slection/selection debacle, other
> countries
> > > would not have recognised the nomination of Bush Jr as president of the
> USA
> > > and requested the election considered failed with a new election held ?
> >
> > Saddam wasn't elected, unless you believe that 100% krap.
>
> Leaving aside the question of whether Dubya was in fact elected, the fact
> remains that who runs Iraq is *none of our business* (any more than who runs
> the U.S. is anyone else's business, which was JF's point).
That depends on what that leader does.
>
> ...
>
> > I'm not convinced either way on whether the U.S. should go to war with
> > Iraq. But you have to admit that Bush is risking his presidency big
> > time on this.
>
> I don't think so: rather, I suspect that the expanded 'war on terrorism'
> that seems to include anyone we don't like is the sole aspect of his
> Administration that he believes may get him reelected. If he can bull his
> way through this, regardless of the price America pays economically, in loss
> of external friends, or in increased danger of terrorism, he may just get
> the 'Murcan public to think he's a real leader; had he simply done what he
> originally (and correctly) set out to ("Hunt down those responsible and
> bring them to justice"), he'd have had to justify his reelection on - what?
I don't buy it. He is taking a big gamble. I think that has to be
factored in. If the war goes poorly, he'll be another Johnson. Do you
think he doesn't know that?
>
> ...
>
> > > And while the USA media may have focused on the work that the UN
> inspectors
> > > hadn,t completed by 1998, they unfortunatly never focus on the amount of
> work
> > > that they had succesfully done prior to 1998. Note that for all its
> might, the
> > > USA intelligence had been unaware of the Iraq nuclear efforts until
> after the
> > > war when inspectors came in.
> >
> > Some argue that in favor of getting him now before he makes nukes, or
> > more nukes.
>
> That argument ignores the increasing evidence that he has no remaining
> active nuclear program whatsoever - something which the inspectors feel
> they'll be in a position to state with reasonable certainty before long,
> even if the issues of chemical and biological weapons may be less
> immediately verifiable.
The West has consistently underestimated the status of Saddam's
nuclear program.
I think they would take Taiwan if they thought the world wouldn't care
that much. I think they think of it purely as a practical matter.
> PRC jealously defends its prerogative to handle internal matters as it sees
> fit, in the international sphere it has been at least a relatively good
> citizen compared with its actions before, say, 1972.
> ...
>
> > > And one which the USA should have adopted on september 12. If you wnat
> to stop
> > > being a target for terrorism, you work hard to become friends with
> arabs, not
> > > raise their level of hatred against you. Europe knows this full well.
> They are
> > > not new to terrorism. Bush Jr was outclassed and is nowhere near capable
> of
> > > handling this properly.
> >
> > We've actually helped the Arabs and Muslims.
>
> The perception seems to be that our *net* effect has been negative, and I
> tend to agree with it.
>
> > $2 billion/yr to Egypt.
>
> Still, or only while the Soviet Union was still around? Of course, on a
> per-capita basis it doesn't begin to compare with our aid to Israel.
According to what I've read, still. Israel gets $3B per year.
> > We helped the Muslims in Bosnia and such.
>
> Indeed we did, and got a reasonable amount of credit for it from the Muslim
> world.
HAH! You must be joking.
>
> We spoke up for the
> > Chechens.
>
> While the sentiment was doubtless appreciated, results are what count.
Did anyone else speak up for them? Would you have us fight Russia to
save them?
>
> > We helped Arabs kick the Soviets out of Afghanistan.
>
> And then left the survivors to pick up the pieces as best they could,
> clearly demonstrating that our actions were strategic rather than performed
> out of the goodness of our hearts.
They're lucky we helped them at all.
>
> We
> > helped Kuwait and Saudi Arabia against Iraq.
>
> Yup. And got at least some credit for that, though once again one has to
> suspect that our motives were influenced at least as much by oil and the
> stability of the region in which it's found than by altruism (and the
> continuing presence of our troops near the holy cities helped cancel out
> some of the goodwill).
Stability is important. It was also important not to let Saddam
benefit from Kuwaiti oil.
>
> > That's not enough?
>
> No, it's not. Not after decades of supporting regimes that oppress their
> citizenry (because doing so suits our own interests) and propping up
So you're saying that the 9/11 attacks were justified? Are you for
real?
> Israel's occupation and, worse, settlement activities for three decades
> despite the condemnation of the world community.
It was the Arabs fault that there even is an occupation. And it is the
Palestinians' fault that they don't have their own country. They could
have had one in 1948, but they went to war instead. From 1948 to 1967
they didn't care that they didn't have their own country. If the Arabs
hadn't forced Israel into a war in 1967, there'd be no occupation.
If the Palestinians had made as good an offer to Israel as Israel
under Ehud made to them, and if Israel responded with the equivalent
of an intifada, wouldn't you be pretty angry with Israel? Hmmm? Oh,
but turn the tables and somehow you still find Israel to be at fault.
Yeah, there were complaints about the offer Ehud made to them. But it
is controversial just what these problems were. Even so, had the
Palestinians accepted it it would have been the best thing to happen
to them in decades. And to respond to even a slightly flawed offer
with suicide bombers? This is to be commended or overlooked? What it
does is show what the Palestinians really are. They want to destroy
Israel. It still says so in the PLO's charter. IT SAYS SO!
I have lost all sympathy for the Palestinians, though I have little
for the "settlers" who obviously don't help matters. I understand how
people are not happy with the settlements. But it seems to me the
Palestinians are much more at fault.
Aid to Israel helps preserve the only democracy in the Middle East.
>
> And we
> > get repaid for all this with 9/11 and such.
>
> That's exactly how we get repaid. And our current approach to Iraq makes it
> appear that we're seeking more of the same.
I don't buy that. It was because of our percieved weakness that Al
Qaeda become bolder and bolder. And once they got started, I don't
think it makes any difference what we do. They are already doing
everything they can to destroy us and will continue to do so unless we
destroy them.
>
> - bill
Alan E. Feldman
Rob Young
>
> If you saw Nightline last night, you got a chilling view of where Dubya's
> Imperial America thinks it is heading. We know what's best for your country
> and the world and will do whatever we think is necessary to make it happen
> (all of course from the best of motives), because we're America and you
> can't do a damn thing to stop us.
>
Bill, I respectfully disagree. We had very similar nasty
exchanges here in cov leading up to the Afghanistan bombing/invasion
to chase Al Qaeda. Much of your fears never materialized.
This campaign will be much larger (if and when it happens) and
could be argued from many corners that it is very necessary.
Bosnia was very necessary as that situation had descended into
chaos. Today there is still thousands of American troops there to
maintain peace. Post WWII there were thousands of American troops
occupying and rebuilding post war Japan. Today the forces allied
against U.S. , Great Britain, France, etc.. are democratic societies
and much of our money and resources were used to make that happen.
To suggest there is some sort of hidden Imperialist American
agenda, isn't born out by history. Our methods are to establish
democratic societies and as an added bonus pay for it with our
own money.
Historically, there are no examples (other than ours) that I know
of whereby conquerers establish a democratic government (locals
electing their own officials) , pay to rebuild a society, and
don't in turn tax the locals to be repaid.
Rob
Rob Young
Somebody sponsors (pays for them) and they have a home base.
Only a matter of time to find out who sponsors them and
where they live. No, you can't guard against nor retaliate
against the occasional shoe bomber.
Rob
VAXVMS
<David Dachtera said:>
>Reagan was nothing more than the White House's version of Charlie
>McCarthy (or Pinoccio): a puppet who danced as his handlers pulled the
>strings.
I try *really, really hard* to stay out of these threads but there are
just
some statements which cannot be allowed to pass without rebuttal:
Reagan, pre-Alzheimer's, was a much more complex and enigmatic person
than is suggested by your statement: even those who worked closely with
him said that they really never got to know the man- you got only *so*
close to him- and then there was this invisible wall.
I'd suggest that you read three books which will give you a more complete
and objective picture of Reagan than the one which exists in popular
stereotypes (e.g. Clark Clifford's "amiable dunce" remark) and from which
you apparently have based your opinion of him:
---
Reagan, In His Own Hand: The Writings of Ronald Reagan That Reveal His
Revolutionary Vision for America- by Ronald Reagan, Annelise Anderson,
George P. Shultz, Kiron K. Skinner, Martin Anderson
Skinner and Anderson were doing research in the Reagan archives when they
stumbled across Reagan's original longhand notes from which his 1970s
radio addresses had been prepared, and which had long been assumed to
have been lost. (Evidently the secretaries who typed up the final text
of these addresses realized that there might be historical significance to
the originals and so, contrary to Reagan's instructions, they preserved
them instead of destroying them.)
Virtually every domestic and foreign policy of the Reagan presidency was
covered in these addresses; and Reagan's analysis of them was neither
simplistic nor formulaic.
---
Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty Year Struggle and Final Triumph
Over Communism, by Peter Schweizer
This book traces Reagan's views of Communism from his days in Hollywood
until the fall of the USSR. This book chronicles how his view of
communism was consistent and based on the premise that communism was a
moral evil, and therefore the only proper strategy for dealing with it
was neither appeasement or the seeking of what the Soviets called
"peaceful co-existence", but active opposition by any means necessary.
At the beginning of the Reagan administration, the predominant thinking
was that the spread of Communism was inevitable and unstoppable, and
that negotiation was the only avenue left for the West.
This book outlines how Reagan's viewpoint on communism was the basis of
the Reagan Administration's execution of specific strategies in the
political and economic arenas which led to the breakup of the USSR and
the liberation of millions in Eastern Europe.
---
Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader - by
Dinesh D'Souza
One of the most distinguishing characterstics of the way D'Souza writes is
that he has the ability to examine an issue where there are strong
opinions
on both sides and dispassionately evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of
the arguments posited by both sides. D'Souza does this again in this
book:
he discusses in detail when and how liberals consistently misunderstood
and
underestimated Reagan, and then he outlines how conservatives *also*
misunderstood and underestimated him.
As a final statement, let me add that Reagan and Churchill, in my opinion,
are the pivotal figures of the twentieth century, and that we are all
indebted to them both for the fact that totalitarianism is in retreat and
individual liberty is spreading across the globe.
WWWebb
>--
>David J. Dachtera
>dba DJE Systems
>http://www.djesys.com/
>Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:
>http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/
>========================
William W. Webb - EMS Operations
OpenVMS Systems Support - USPS DSSC Annex
4730 Hargrove Road, Raleigh, NC 27616-2874
919.325.7500 x4186 <FirstInitialLastNameAtEmailDotUSPSDotGov>
Bob Ceculski
>
> There are some smaller percentage of the populace that will oppose war
> under any circumstance, but by and large the majority will be of the
> opinion:
>
> War if necessary, but not necessarily war.
>
> And the majority of world opinion, and dare I say US opinion, is that
> war is not called for, nor is it justifiable at this time.
not called for ... Iraq was probably behind both the OK. city
and NY attacks, are now working to arm terrorists with poisons
and nuclear suitcases, and you say sit on our butts and wait
to be nuked? We don't need the UN to weigh in when our
natioanl security is at stake ... glad you aren't president!
Bob Ceculski
>
> There are some smaller percentage of the populace that will oppose war
> under any circumstance, but by and large the majority will be of the
> opinion:
>
> War if necessary, but not necessarily war.
>
> And the majority of world opinion, and dare I say US opinion, is that
> war is not called for, nor is it justifiable at this time.
not called for ... Iraq was probably behind both the OK. city
and NY attacks, are now working to arm terrorists with poisons
and nuclear suitcases, and you say sit on our butts and wait
to be nuked? We don't need the UN to weigh in when our
national security is at stake ... glad you aren't president!
Shane Smith
Bill Todd wrote:
<snip>
>If you saw Nightline last night, you got a chilling view of where Dubya's
>Imperial America thinks it is heading. We know what's best for your country
>and the world and will do whatever we think is necessary to make it happen
>(all of course from the best of motives), because we're America and you
>can't do a damn thing to stop us.
If there is a world war 3, I'm pretty sure this is what it'll be about.
America trying to impose its idea of "freedom" on the world. I wish more
average Americans traveled and actually lived in other places for a
while (vacations aren't long enough), it'd give them more respect for
other ways of life and viewpoints. They don't even realise how much of
what they think of as basic truths are actually American cultural
opinions. You wouldn't /believe/ some of the conversations I've had over
here. This insular, closed minded attitude so prevalent among the
American masses is a large part of why the attacks happened. Now, after
the attacks, it's getting worse.
Shane
Rob Young
Sigh. Big big sigh.
So vacuous and content free.
Let me add my two cents. I've been to cultures where attitudes
and opinions differ. They too are close-minded in their approach.
We also know of other cultures that are notoriously xenophobic.
So much so, that if you are caught proselytizing or practicing certain
religions you are arrested.
How's that for a good vacuous counterpoint?
The difference is of course my examples are easy to trot out
and defend. Your's in contrast aren't. Or you would give us
examples other than some vacuous content free posting. Right?
Rob
Arne Vajhøj
> Bill, I respectfully disagree. We had very similar nasty
> exchanges here in cov leading up to the Afghanistan bombing/invasion
> to chase Al Qaeda. Much of your fears never materialized.
Out of curiosity: how can you be sure that about that
considering that the war in afghanistan is not over yet ?
Arne
Rob Young
Am I sure? Of course not. Highly unlikely not to amount to much?
Well... similarly Bosnia was in a state of anarchy/chaos a few
years back and anyone that has read about the history of Afghanistan
knows it is a tribal society ravaged by war over the centuries. If
you were to look at the top 5 unstable/volatile nations in the world
over the years, Afghanistan has to make everyone's top 5 list.
That said, women in Afghanistan are a lot better off today then
they were 2 short years ago when we saw scenes of bizarre
behaviour from the fundamentalist regime (Taliban) that had been
in charge.
But what if Afghanistan decends into chaos and the tribes decide
to rout the American troops and make it their mission to
destroy the infidels? I would say we would pull out and leave
them to their own devices. Al Qaeda (or son of Al Qaeda) comes back,
we do it again , and again and again. Stand off weapons and then
drop in cleanup troops. The face of warfare has changed dramatically
in the last 20 years in case you haven't noticed. And no way
we would hang around and let them have fun with a guerrilla campaign.
Rob
Arne Vajhøj
> But what if Afghanistan decends into chaos and the tribes decide
> to rout the American troops and make it their mission to
> destroy the infidels? I would say we would pull out and leave
> them to their own devices. Al Qaeda (or son of Al Qaeda) comes back,
> we do it again , and again and again. Stand off weapons and then
> drop in cleanup troops. The face of warfare has changed dramatically
> in the last 20 years in case you haven't noticed. And no way
> we would hang around and let them have fun with a guerrilla campaign.
US and allied troop entered afghanistan more than a year ago.
They are still engaged in heavy figthing.
So guess we are hanging around and letting them have fun with
a guerilla campaign !
Arne
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
>"John Smith" <a...@nonymous.com> wrote in message news:<kyT9a.61073$em1....@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
>>
>> There are some smaller percentage of the populace that will oppose war
>> under any circumstance, but by and large the majority will be of the
>> opinion:
>>
>> War if necessary, but not necessarily war.
>>
>> And the majority of world opinion, and dare I say US opinion, is that
>> war is not called for, nor is it justifiable at this time.
>
>and NY attacks, are now working to arm terrorists with poisons
>and nuclear suitcases, and you say sit on our butts and wait
>to be nuked? We don't need the UN to weigh in when our
I never heard the claim that Iraq was behind the Oklahoma City attack, nor
for that matter that the Oklahoma City attack _needed_ anyone to be behind
it. Is Saddam supposed to have smuggled McVeigh the ingredients for a
fertilizer bomb? Loaned him the deposit for the rental truck?
I'm not, here, expressing any opinion on the apparently-forthcoming war. I'm
just expressing curiousity (and doubt) about Bob's claims.
-- Alan
===============================================================================
Alan Winston --- WIN...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL Phone: 650/926-3056
Paper mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 99, 2575 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park CA 94025
===============================================================================
Bill Todd
"Rob Young" <you...@encompasserve.org> wrote in message
news:agQ$Jf59...@eisner.encompasserve.org...
...
women in Afghanistan are a lot better off today then
> they were 2 short years ago
That's nice, but it's not why we went there (though, as with Iraq, it was
one of the extra added attractions that Dubya threw into the pot to justify
the invasion).
when we saw scenes of bizarre
> behaviour from the fundamentalist regime (Taliban) that had been
> in charge.
And that we helped put there. Sure, it wasn't intentional, but it *was* the
result first of our alliance to oust the Soviets and then of our subsequent
abandonment once that job was done.
>
> But what if Afghanistan decends into chaos
If it does, it will be because we've abandoned the promises we made there
yet again - which, given Dubya's attitude about how to cut expenses abroad
(except when there's a war he wants to fight) seems increasingly likely.
- bill
Bill Todd
> In article <k5KcnfgRYby...@metrocast.net>, "Bill Todd"
<bill...@metrocast.net> writes:
> >
>
> >
> > If you saw Nightline last night, you got a chilling view of where
Dubya's
> > Imperial America thinks it is heading. We know what's best for your
country
> > and the world and will do whatever we think is necessary to make it
happen
> > (all of course from the best of motives), because we're America and you
> > can't do a damn thing to stop us.
> >
>
> Bill, I respectfully disagree. We had very similar nasty
> exchanges here in cov leading up to the Afghanistan bombing/invasion
> to chase Al Qaeda. Much of your fears never materialized.
Statements to the effect that we'd roll right over Pakistan if they didn't
give us transit approval were still bad enough, I'd say. Though my memory
is rusty and that may have come from a very recently retired rather than a
current military official. And our failure to follow through (for the
second time) in supporting the government we installed there is hardly
laudable - not to mention the bullying tone that Dubya took even before the
invasion ("You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists" is still
costing us friends today).
So enough of my fears materialized, and are still characterizing the
Administration today, that the rest of world seems to agree that Dubya is
more of a threat to world peace and security than Saddam Hussein is (even
45% of the *British* population thinks so, according to a recent poll).
IIRC the nastiest of the exchanges involved suggestions that nuclear weapons
had every right to be used in Afghanistan. That, of course, did not come to
pass, but even the suggestion of it was *way* out of line.
>
> This campaign will be much larger (if and when it happens) and
> could be argued from many corners that it is very necessary.
Please list any countries whose populations favor action without U.N.
support. I don't know of any in Europe, or Africa, or Asia, but I haven't
seen polls for *all* of them or for Latin America or Mexico (the U.S. and
Canada certainly don't).
>
> Bosnia was very necessary as that situation had descended into
> chaos.
Was anyone arguing otherwise? I certainly wasn't. But the relevance
escapes me.
Today there is still thousands of American troops there to
> maintain peace. Post WWII there were thousands of American troops
> occupying and rebuilding post war Japan.
Ah, but those troops were emplaced and commitments were made by Presidents
willing to keep their promises in such regards. The only example we have
for Dubya is Afghanistan, and that's not nearly as encouraging.
...
> To suggest there is some sort of hidden Imperialist American
> agenda, isn't born out by history.
We're not talking about history, we're talking about the cabal established
in 1997 to establish direction for Republican policy in Iraq and elsewhere.
I wish I had seen the entire Nightline program two nights ago, but the part
I did see was chilling enough.
Our methods are to establish
> democratic societies
Whether that's laudable or criminal depends on the *methods* we use:
encouragement is fine, coercion is not.
- bill
Don Sykes
Bill Todd wrote:
<snip>
> March 6, 2003
>
> Dear :
>
> I'm fed up with having my intelligence insulted every time some
> Administration sock-puppet parrots its "Everybody's out of step but me"
> defense of a war with Iraq. Others aren't to blame for the 'divisions' in
> the U.N. Security Council and around the world: the only division is
> between us (and the few governments we've been able to convince to ignore
> the desires of their own people) and the rest of the world, and the only
> entity that will be 'marginalized' if we continue to go it alone will be our
> own country.
>
> It is only the tact of those who would still like to consider themselves our
> friends that keeps them from pointing out that the U.S. has no right
> whatsoever to define unilaterally the intent of Security Council
> resolutions, no right whatsoever to decide unilaterally the degree to which
> they are being complied with, and no right whatsoever to take unilateral
> action based on that decision: all those rights belong only to the Security
> Council itself, and provide not a fig-leaf of justification for independent
> action by its members. In the absence of U.N. approval ours will be no less
> a war of aggression than the annexation of Kuwait was a dozen years ago, and
> appears to be accompanied by similar lies in attempts to rationalize it.
>
> Our own intelligence agencies indicate that to the best of their rather
> considerable knowledge Iraq presents no immediate threat to us or to its
> neighbors and had no hand in the 9/11/2001 (or any other) terrorist attacks.
> Its abuse of its own population - including the gassing of the Kurds in
> 1988, about which we remained conspicuously silent at the time - was no
> secret back when Iraq was a valued Reagan/Bush ally against Iran. Mostly,
> Iraq is an embarrassing testament to our own failure to follow through
> thoroughly in the aftermath of the Gulf War: instead, after its forces were
> routed from Kuwait we let Iraq largely drop off our radar screen, demanding
> the mindless continuation of sanctions even after they proved to be
> counter-productive instead of buckling down and figuring out how to deal
> with the remaining problems effectively.
>
> It's not Saddam Hussein who has made us and the international community look
> like fools, it's our own failure to provide competent leadership in this
> matter to the international organization which we (usually) dominate.
> Bush's rounding up a group of vigilantes to teach Saddam a lesson won't make
> us look any less like fools, it will just make us look like bullies as well
> who have no respect for international law.
>
> The newest Bush plan seems to be that we can sweep over Iraq in short order
> and then largely leave it up to the rest of the world to pay for cleaning up
> the mess we've left - another disturbing echo of the Gulf War and an
> approach far more likely to result in repetitions of the events of 9/11/2001
> than to foster world-wide support for averting them. And it's hardly news
> that examples of unchecked aggression by the powerful lead other nations to
> seek weapons to protect themselves from being the next targets - the best
> and perhaps only justification for the weapons of mass destruction that our
> policies are supposedly designed to discourage.
>
> A major reason why we have three co-equal branches of government in this
> country is to provide checks when one of them starts to run amuck. The
> decision to wage war is very specifically vested in the Congress by our
> Constitution, a document that seems to be considered increasingly irrelevant
> by this Administration. It's time for the Congress to step up to the plate
> and do its duty, uncomfortable as that may be.
>
> Sincerely yours,
>
> William Todd
> Strafford, NH
Although I disagree with most of your argument, the last paragraph
deserves some comment.
WW2 was the last time the US formally declared war on anyone. Since that
time, we've had the Korean War, Vietnam War and Gulf War, not to mention
Panama, Grenada, Somalia and other interventions. So it's not just this
administration that ignores important parts of the Constitution, but
every administration - Demo & Rep alike - for some 50 years. You are
correct that Congress needs to step up to the plate, but once they
allowed the Korean War to proceed they, in effect, gave up their
authority to wage war, or peace. That's a shame, but it's just one more
reason we need serious Constitutional reform.
--
HAD VMS, Will Travel
Wire paladin, San Francisco
(paladinATalphaseDOTcom)
John Vottero
>
> "Rob Young" <you...@encompasserve.org> wrote in message
> news:QzdDeX...@eisner.encompasserve.org...
[snip]
> > To suggest there is some sort of hidden Imperialist American
> > agenda, isn't born out by history.
>
> We're not talking about history, we're talking about the cabal established
> in 1997 to establish direction for Republican policy in Iraq and
elsewhere.
> I wish I had seen the entire Nightline program two nights ago, but the
part
> I did see was chilling enough.
>
Very chilling, these people are dangerous!
There agenda isn't hidden, their web site is:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
Bill Todd
"Don Sykes" <alp...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3E69119D...@pacbell.net...
...
> WW2 was the last time the US formally declared war on anyone.
I'm well aware of that.
Since that
> time, we've had the Korean War,
That was a U.N. affair in which we were merely the central rather than the
only player. IIRC it was termed a 'police action', though it certainly
qualified as a war. In any event, it was not the U.S. prosecuting its own
war but the U.N., so it was reasonably arguable that no U.S. declaration of
war was required.
> Vietnam War
That was an undeclared (and thus unConstitutional) war in very much the same
sense that the proposed war with Iraq seems likely to be.
> and Gulf War,
Another U.N.-sanctioned action (read the text of Security Council Resolution
678), though with the twist that the U.N. left it up to its individual
members to organize the activity (so that made it at least *closer* to a
U.S., plus allies, war).
not to mention
> Panama, Grenada, Somalia and other interventions.
Those you mention start getting down into more the realm of 'police actions'
than 'wars'. Somalia in particular was definitely such, though Panama and
Grenada were more troubling (not so much because of their scope as because
of their motivation - though IIRC there was at least a fig leaf of U.S.
citizen protection rationale for the latter).
So it's not just this
> administration that ignores important parts of the Constitution, but
> every administration - Demo & Rep alike - for some 50 years.
Leaving aside the *other* critical portions of the Constitution that this
Administration has been ignoring with relish, as I noted above there are
signifant areas of grey in the majority of examples you provided which do
not pertain to the proposed invasion of Iraq.
You are
> correct that Congress needs to step up to the plate, but once they
> allowed the Korean War to proceed they, in effect, gave up their
> authority to wage war, or peace.
As noted, there's at least some room for justifying the Korean action as a
U.N. rather than a U.S. war. But IMO there's no similar excuse for Vietnam,
so while I'd disagree the *every* Administration for 50 years has ignored
the Constitution in this area that's certainly an example of one Democratic
Administration which did.
None of which means that the Congress 'gave up' anything in any permanent
manner: they simply neglected to stand up for their rights, which in no way
gave up those rights in perpetuity. If they weighed in against war with
Iraq, the matter would then become a matter for the Supreme Court if the
Administration refused to back down.
That's a shame, but it's just one more
> reason we need serious Constitutional reform.
Are you advocating that the Constitution be changed, or just followed?
- bill
Don Sykes
Shane Smith wrote:
>
> Bill Todd wrote:
> <snip>
> >If you saw Nightline last night, you got a chilling view of where Dubya's
> >Imperial America thinks it is heading. We know what's best for your country
> >and the world and will do whatever we think is necessary to make it happen
> >(all of course from the best of motives), because we're America and you
> >can't do a damn thing to stop us.
Well thank God it's the USA that has all the power. I can think of 100
other countries which would not wield it as morally as we do.
>
> If there is a world war 3, I'm pretty sure this is what it'll be about.
> America trying to impose its idea of "freedom" on the world. I wish more
> average Americans traveled and actually lived in other places for a
> while (vacations aren't long enough), it'd give them more respect for
> other ways of life and viewpoints. They don't even realise how much of
> what they think of as basic truths are actually American cultural
> opinions. You wouldn't /believe/ some of the conversations I've had over
> here. This insular, closed minded attitude so prevalent among the
> American masses is a large part of why the attacks happened. Now, after
> the attacks, it's getting worse.
>
> Shane
How is it then that we are BY FAR the most diverse country on earth. Our
cultural inputs have been from, and continue to be from, every nation.
I've been to Asia and Europe myself several times and I appreciate all
the cultures I've come in contact with. My children were even raised in
a French school system, setup here in the states to accommodate
transient expatriates (diplomats, etc.), so I've know many people who
were French speaking. And the one thing I've noticed about virtually ALL
of the non-US-citizens I've met is how much they appreciate the US.
The closed mindedness you attribute to the "American masses" is found
everywhere else in the world too. The close-minded and un-traveled are
often myopic in their world view, but that IN NO WAY is limited to those
in the US. If anything, "our masses" are exposed to other cultures far
more than those in the rest of the world.
I hate to label anyone, but you sound like a typical Leftist; spouting
from the "Red Book of the Politically Correct", subtitled "Hate America:
It's the Right Thing to Do".
--
Have VMS, Will Travel
Jan-Erik Söderholm
>
> If there is a world war 3,...
Well, in a sense there is *now*.
On one side there is McDonalds, CocaCola, Hollywood and Disney,
on the other is all those other (real) cultures strugling for there
lifes.
We'll see on a couple a 100's years who survived.
I'w no idea...
Jan-Erik.
Bill Todd
"John Vottero" <Jo...@mvpsi.com> wrote in message
news:v6i5cck...@news.supernews.com...
Thanks. Too much to even begin to digest in one sitting, but seeing the
letter to Dubya advocating active interference with China's mamagement of
Hong Kong (which is now of course *part* of China) was a sufficient start.
Their notes on Europe to the effect that it's only internationalist because
it lacks the power to dictate also seem a good indication of their
philosophy.
Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz (the hard-core Iraq war crowd) were charter
members. Woolsey's statement praising their new book on Iraq says it all:
"We can only make the world safe for democracy by finishing the job of
democratizing it."
- bill
Bill Todd
> In article <01C2E498...@sulfer.icius.com>, Shane Smith
<ssm...@icius.com> writes:
> >
> > Bill Todd wrote:
> > <snip>
> >>If you saw Nightline last night, you got a chilling view of where
Dubya's
> >>Imperial America thinks it is heading. We know what's best for your
country
> >>and the world and will do whatever we think is necessary to make it
happen
> >>(all of course from the best of motives), because we're America and you
> >>can't do a damn thing to stop us.
> >
> > If there is a world war 3, I'm pretty sure this is what it'll be about.
> > America trying to impose its idea of "freedom" on the world. I wish more
> > average Americans traveled and actually lived in other places for a
> > while (vacations aren't long enough), it'd give them more respect for
> > other ways of life and viewpoints. They don't even realise how much of
> > what they think of as basic truths are actually American cultural
> > opinions. You wouldn't /believe/ some of the conversations I've had over
> > here. This insular, closed minded attitude so prevalent among the
> > American masses is a large part of why the attacks happened. Now, after
> > the attacks, it's getting worse.
> >
>
> Sigh. Big big sigh.
>
> So vacuous and content free.
As usual, Rob, you're confused.
Exactly what about the assertion that the U.S. population is incredibly
insular and parochial is content-free? Seems like a pretty specific
statement to me: you can of course choose to *disagree* with it, but to
suggest that it's content-free is, well, simply incompetent.
>
> Let me add my two cents.
We don't seem to have much choice in the matter, so I guess that's just more
persiflage. Perhaps we'll find actual content below.
I've been to cultures where attitudes
> and opinions differ.
I'm glad for you.
> They too are close-minded in their approach.
'They too' would seem to agree that the U.S. is as well: is that your
intent, or are you just throwing phrases around incompetently again?
> We also know of other cultures that are notoriously xenophobic.
> So much so, that if you are caught proselytizing or practicing certain
> religions you are arrested.
>
> How's that for a good vacuous counterpoint?
Ah - you were providing an *example* of vacuity. However, that in no way
makes Shane's statement vacuous - and therefore continues your perfect
batting average here: no content whatsoever.
>
> The difference is of course my examples are easy to trot out
> and defend.
The other difference is that they're wholly irrelevant to Shane's comments
about *U.S.* attidutes.
> Your's in contrast aren't. Or you would give us
> examples
Finally: content in the form of a request.
The situation since Dubya's quick escalation from "Hunt down those
responsible and bring them to justice" on 9/11/2001 - an entirely laudable
goal - to a generalized war on terrorism by 9/14/2001 (Nightline the other
night noted that by 9/13/2001 the rabid Administration hawks were already
talking about including Iraq, but of course that wasn't made public until
much later), to "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists" a
couple of weeks later, to the 'Axis of evil' declaration, to the invasion of
Iraq, in which save for the very first two steps the U.S. is so dramatically
out of step with the rest of the world, seems example enough. But of course
earlier examples included the scrapping of the Kyoto treaty and general
disregard of the international community's views.
The U.S. population has by and large gone along with such Dubya
'leadership', though the disconnects with the rest of the world have been so
dramatic that at least some elements of them have seeped into the
consciousness of those whose eyes weren't completely shut (unfortunately, a
small minority). I'm sure that others can provide additional examples for
your edification.
- bill
Arne Vajhøj
> If anything, "our masses" are exposed to other cultures far
> more than those in the rest of the world.
Are you sure about that ?
How large a percentage of americans has been outside
the US ?
How large a percentage of americans speak a foreign
language ?
Arne
Don Sykes
Bill Todd wrote:
>
> "Don Sykes" <alp...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:3E69119D...@pacbell.net...
>
> ...
>
> > WW2 was the last time the US formally declared war on anyone.
>
> I'm well aware of that.
>
> Since that
> > time, we've had the Korean War,
>
> That was a U.N. affair in which we were merely the central rather than the
> only player. IIRC it was termed a 'police action', though it certainly
> qualified as a war. In any event, it was not the U.S. prosecuting its own
> war but the U.N., so it was reasonably arguable that no U.S. declaration of
> war was required.
>
That's just semantics. Call it a "police action" and it doesn't qualify
as a war? Tell that to the 30k dead Americans.
Whether it was with, or without the UN, the point I was making is that
the Constitution was not followed. I don't believe it was "reasonably
arguable that no U.S. declaration of war was required". It was just a
way for Truman to get around it and in doing so he (and the complicit
Congress) set a very bad and lasting precedent.
> > Vietnam War
>
> That was an undeclared (and thus unConstitutional) war in very much the same
> sense that the proposed war with Iraq seems likely to be.
True as far as legality - not as far as morality, objective, etc.
>
> > and Gulf War,
>
> Another U.N.-sanctioned action (read the text of Security Council Resolution
> 678), though with the twist that the U.N. left it up to its individual
> members to organize the activity (so that made it at least *closer* to a
> U.S., plus allies, war).
Again, semantics to allow the Congress continue to avoid actually
*declaring* a war.
>
> not to mention
> > Panama, Grenada, Somalia and other interventions.
>
> Those you mention start getting down into more the realm of 'police actions'
> than 'wars'. Somalia in particular was definitely such, though Panama and
> Grenada were more troubling (not so much because of their scope as because
> of their motivation - though IIRC there was at least a fig leaf of U.S.
> citizen protection rationale for the latter).
>
> So it's not just this
> > administration that ignores important parts of the Constitution, but
> > every administration - Demo & Rep alike - for some 50 years.
>
> Leaving aside the *other* critical portions of the Constitution that this
> Administration has been ignoring with relish, as I noted above there are
> signifant areas of grey in the majority of examples you provided which do
> not pertain to the proposed invasion of Iraq.
Nor do those *other* critical portions of the Constitution you mention
pertain to the proposed invasion of Iraq. But I say again your arguments
are all basically semantical and contrived by those who never wanted to
face a declaration of war vote.
>
> You are
> > correct that Congress needs to step up to the plate, but once they
> > allowed the Korean War to proceed they, in effect, gave up their
> > authority to wage war, or peace.
>
> As noted, there's at least some room for justifying the Korean action as a
> U.N. rather than a U.S. war. But IMO there's no similar excuse for Vietnam,
> so while I'd disagree the *every* Administration for 50 years has ignored
> the Constitution in this area that's certainly an example of one Democratic
> Administration which did.
>
> None of which means that the Congress 'gave up' anything in any permanent
> manner: they simply neglected to stand up for their rights, which in no way
> gave up those rights in perpetuity. If they weighed in against war with
> Iraq, the matter would then become a matter for the Supreme Court if the
> Administration refused to back down.
While they did not *technically* give up their right to decide war, they
implicitly turned that right over to the Executive branch and now it
probably *would* take an action of the Supreme Court to get it back.
>
> That's a shame, but it's just one more
> > reason we need serious Constitutional reform.
>
> Are you advocating that the Constitution be changed, or just followed?
Big, big question. A few years back (6-7) I wrote a sweeping
constitutional amendment that addresses just that (see
http://alphase.com/newusa/newusa.html). I haven't revisited it in some
time, but it lays out a new "true democracy" - but that really is a much
different discussion and as this is a VMS NG I think we've gone far
enough in OT'ness!
>
> - bill
--
Have VMS, Will Travel
Bill Todd
>
>
> Shane Smith wrote:
> >
> > Bill Todd wrote:
> > <snip>
> > >If you saw Nightline last night, you got a chilling view of where
Dubya's
> > >Imperial America thinks it is heading. We know what's best for your
country
> > >and the world and will do whatever we think is necessary to make it
happen
> > >(all of course from the best of motives), because we're America and you
> > >can't do a damn thing to stop us.
>
> Well thank God it's the USA that has all the power. I can think of 100
> other countries which would not wield it as morally as we do.
An irrelevant observation even assuming that it's true: the fact that it
might be hard to find a country which would wield comparable power any
better in no way justifies *our* abuse of it.
>
> >
> > If there is a world war 3, I'm pretty sure this is what it'll be about.
> > America trying to impose its idea of "freedom" on the world. I wish more
> > average Americans traveled and actually lived in other places for a
> > while (vacations aren't long enough), it'd give them more respect for
> > other ways of life and viewpoints. They don't even realise how much of
> > what they think of as basic truths are actually American cultural
> > opinions. You wouldn't /believe/ some of the conversations I've had over
> > here. This insular, closed minded attitude so prevalent among the
> > American masses is a large part of why the attacks happened. Now, after
> > the attacks, it's getting worse.
> >
> > Shane
>
> How is it then that we are BY FAR the most diverse country on earth.
It is because ethnic diversity in no way guarantees breadth of viewpoint.
In part this is because new immigrants are proud to be here and make active
efforts to adopt what seem to be existing norms: they may retain large
elements of their *ethnic* identity, and even of the *personal cultural
identity* of their countries of origin, but that doesn't mean they retain
the foreign *attitudes*, because they don't want to consider themselves
'foreign' after moving here, they want to be Americans.
Shane's phrase ('American cultural opinions') may not have been ideal:
while there is to some degree an 'American culture', I agree that it's
increasingly hard to pin down due to increasing diversity - even Dubya's
attempts to evoke memories of 'the law of the West' don't resonate with a
large portion of our population, though of course still with a significant
percentage compared to anywhere else in the world.
Nonetheless, there's *enormous* pressure to conform to, or at least not
dispute, certain very parochial attitudes ("My country, right or wrong"
being quite high on the list). Even I feel it, and I had multiple
identifiable ancestors who arrived here on the Mayflower (and I don't
believe any who arrived later than the mid 19th century).
Our
> cultural inputs have been from, and continue to be from, every nation.
> I've been to Asia and Europe myself several times and I appreciate all
> the cultures I've come in contact with. My children were even raised in
> a French school system, setup here in the states to accommodate
> transient expatriates (diplomats, etc.), so I've know many people who
> were French speaking. And the one thing I've noticed about virtually ALL
> of the non-US-citizens I've met is how much they appreciate the US.
I suspect that this appreciation may have taken a significant dive over the
past two years, at least with respect to our government (there's still a
great deal of goodwill toward the American people - why, is not clear, since
we are after all *responsible* for our government).
> The closed mindedness you attribute to the "American masses" is found
> everywhere else in the world too. The close-minded and un-traveled are
> often myopic in their world view, but that IN NO WAY is limited to those
> in the US.
Of course it isn't. But that in no way refutes Shane's observation that
*we* are incredibly myopic, and while it may make that more understandable
the obvious comment to be made is that if we're no better in this respect
than the rest of the world, we shouldn't expect to exercise any unusual
degree of leadership or control.
If anything, "our masses" are exposed to other cultures far
> more than those in the rest of the world.
Debatable. There's a major difference between being exposed to
partially-assimilated immigrants (to the degree that such exposure occurs at
all: until they're fairly well-assimilated, such immigrants tend to keep to
their own enclaves, at least as far as exposing others to their culture is
concerned) and constantly rubbing elbows with those who are *still living*
in their other cultures as happens constantly in, say, central Europe.
>
> I hate to label anyone,
But don't seem to have made any real effort to analyse what Shane said
before doing so.
> but you sound like a typical Leftist;
Because he decried the parochial nature of the American viewpoint, which
your statements above even seem to agree with (all you advanced in rebuttal
was "everyone's just as bad")?
spouting
> from the "Red Book of the Politically Correct", subtitled "Hate America:
> It's the Right Thing to Do".
People hate America not because we're parochial but because we have, and
use, the power we have to affect *them*. If we just minded our own internal
business our parochialism wouldn't matter.
- bill
Don Sykes
Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>
> Don Sykes wrote:
> > If anything, "our masses" are exposed to other cultures far
> > more than those in the rest of the world.
>
> Are you sure about that ?
Yes, but the difference is other cultures come to us - on their own
accord I might add.
Of course nowadays Europe has had a migration too, but they're still way
behind in terms of the immigrant influx.
>
> How large a percentage of americans has been outside
> the US ?
While I might agree that a smaller % of Americans has been outside of
the US, than say the Swiss, I'd say the Swiss don't have far to go to
get outside. Indeed anywhere in Europe is close. If however your
comparing our travels to the vast world population, I'd say a lot of us
have journeyed to other countries. How many of the 1B Chineese or 1B
Indians have traveled outside their countries. Or, how many Iraqi's
have?
>
> How large a percentage of americans speak a foreign
> language ?
About 30%. Mostly Spanish, but most other languages are well
represented. I know here in San Francisco, the voting ballots are in
about 7 languages. My children speak 3. I speak 1+1/2 plus C, Java,
Cobol, etc.
Shane Smith
of Americans are not first or second generation immigrants. They're the
product of growing up in this society. You are obviously one of the more
traveled Americans, good for you. And praise is due for giving your
children the same opportunity. The proportion of blinkered minds here
is, by my observation, more widespread than anywhere else I've been. I
even get asked what state England is in.
Did I say I hate America? I don't. I like Americans, although there are
elements to American group psychology that bugs me. Look around, see
how the rest of the world sees you. The first word most non-Americans
use to describe Americans is arrogant. I don't think this is right, I
think it's a side effect of the cultural ignorance most American
tourists exhibit abroad. Yes, this is personal observation, and it's the
butt of countless comedy sketches. Even here. And America is not exposed
to other cultures as much as other cultures are exposed to yours.
Hollywood, anyone? You probably don't even know how much you're shielded
from other countries' influences. For example, I constantly marvel at
the number of Discovery channel programs that are BBC produced, then
voiced over with American accents. They don't even bother to change the
narrators' names on the credits: I assure you, Dennis Waterman does not
come from Dallas.
Someone asked for an example. Here's one I tease the closed minded with
frequently. The age of consent. All the insular Americans I meet here in
CA think that 18 is the absolute right age for the age of consent. It's
so ingrained, they don't think about it, and they think any country that
doesn't abide by it is somehow uncivilized. So I ask them if England is
civilized. The answer is yes. But our age of consent is 16. Then I throw
Holland's 14 at them. They are scandalized. They can't see that it's a
choice a society makes, 18 is Just Plain Right, because they grew up
with it. They either end up somewhat shaken, or refuse to consider it,
or call me a liar. Every time.
That's it. I'm dropping out of this thread. I didn't want to start
another branch.
Shane
-----Original Message-----
From: Don Sykes [mailto:alp...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 2:18 PM
To: Info...@Mvb.Saic.Com
Subject: Re: OT Re: National Moratorium to Appease Tyrants
Shane Smith wrote:
>
> Bill Todd wrote:
> <snip>
> >If you saw Nightline last night, you got a chilling view of where Dubya's
> >Imperial America thinks it is heading. We know what's best for your
country
> >and the world and will do whatever we think is necessary to make it happen
> >(all of course from the best of motives), because we're America and you
> >can't do a damn thing to stop us.
Well thank God it's the USA that has all the power. I can think of 100
other countries which would not wield it as morally as we do.
>
> If there is a world war 3, I'm pretty sure this is what it'll be about.
> America trying to impose its idea of "freedom" on the world. I wish more
> average Americans traveled and actually lived in other places for a
> while (vacations aren't long enough), it'd give them more respect for
> other ways of life and viewpoints. They don't even realise how much of
> what they think of as basic truths are actually American cultural
> opinions. You wouldn't /believe/ some of the conversations I've had over
> here. This insular, closed minded attitude so prevalent among the
> American masses is a large part of why the attacks happened. Now, after
> the attacks, it's getting worse.
>
> Shane
How is it then that we are BY FAR the most diverse country on earth. Our
cultural inputs have been from, and continue to be from, every nation.
I've been to Asia and Europe myself several times and I appreciate all
the cultures I've come in contact with. My children were even raised in
a French school system, setup here in the states to accommodate
transient expatriates (diplomats, etc.), so I've know many people who
were French speaking. And the one thing I've noticed about virtually ALL
of the non-US-citizens I've met is how much they appreciate the US.
The closed mindedness you attribute to the "American masses" is found
everywhere else in the world too. The close-minded and un-traveled are
often myopic in their world view, but that IN NO WAY is limited to those
in the US. If anything, "our masses" are exposed to other cultures far
more than those in the rest of the world.
I hate to label anyone, but you sound like a typical Leftist; spouting
from the "Red Book of the Politically Correct", subtitled "Hate America:
It's the Right Thing to Do".
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
>
>Someone asked for an example. Here's one I tease the closed minded with
>frequently. The age of consent. All the insular Americans I meet here in
>CA think that 18 is the absolute right age for the age of consent. It's
>so ingrained, they don't think about it, and they think any country that
>doesn't abide by it is somehow uncivilized. So I ask them if England is
>civilized. The answer is yes. But our age of consent is 16. Then I throw
>Holland's 14 at them. They are scandalized. They can't see that it's a
>choice a society makes, 18 is Just Plain Right, because they grew up
>with it. They either end up somewhat shaken, or refuse to consider it,
>or call me a liar. Every time.
That's darned insular of the Californians, considering that the age of consent
varies -by state- within the US.
-- Alan (a Californian)
Don Sykes
Bill Todd wrote:
>
> "Don Sykes" <alp...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:3E691A7F...@pacbell.net...
> >
> >
> > Shane Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > Bill Todd wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > >If you saw Nightline last night, you got a chilling view of where
> Dubya's
> > > >Imperial America thinks it is heading. We know what's best for your
> country
> > > >and the world and will do whatever we think is necessary to make it
> happen
> > > >(all of course from the best of motives), because we're America and you
> > > >can't do a damn thing to stop us.
> >
> > Well thank God it's the USA that has all the power. I can think of 100
> > other countries which would not wield it as morally as we do.
>
> An irrelevant observation even assuming that it's true: the fact that it
> might be hard to find a country which would wield comparable power any
> better in no way justifies *our* abuse of it.
Irrelevant reply :)
Of course abuse of power is wrong. But having power and failing to use
it can also be wrong.
>
> >
> > >
> > > If there is a world war 3, I'm pretty sure this is what it'll be about.
> > > America trying to impose its idea of "freedom" on the world. I wish more
> > > average Americans traveled and actually lived in other places for a
> > > while (vacations aren't long enough), it'd give them more respect for
> > > other ways of life and viewpoints. They don't even realise how much of
> > > what they think of as basic truths are actually American cultural
> > > opinions. You wouldn't /believe/ some of the conversations I've had over
> > > here. This insular, closed minded attitude so prevalent among the
> > > American masses is a large part of why the attacks happened. Now, after
> > > the attacks, it's getting worse.
> > >
> > > Shane
> >
> > How is it then that we are BY FAR the most diverse country on earth.
>
> It is because ethnic diversity in no way guarantees breadth of viewpoint.
> In part this is because new immigrants are proud to be here and make active
> efforts to adopt what seem to be existing norms: they may retain large
> elements of their *ethnic* identity, and even of the *personal cultural
> identity* of their countries of origin, but that doesn't mean they retain
> the foreign *attitudes*, because they don't want to consider themselves
> 'foreign' after moving here, they want to be Americans.
What's your point? I simply said, we're more diverse than anyone else.
>
> Shane's phrase ('American cultural opinions') may not have been ideal:
> while there is to some degree an 'American culture', I agree that it's
> increasingly hard to pin down due to increasing diversity - even Dubya's
> attempts to evoke memories of 'the law of the West' don't resonate with a
> large portion of our population, though of course still with a significant
> percentage compared to anywhere else in the world.
>
> Nonetheless, there's *enormous* pressure to conform to, or at least not
> dispute, certain very parochial attitudes ("My country, right or wrong"
> being quite high on the list). Even I feel it, and I had multiple
> identifiable ancestors who arrived here on the Mayflower (and I don't
> believe any who arrived later than the mid 19th century).
I don't believe "My country, right or wrong", although I'd certainly
give the benefit of the doubt to my country. My point is, in this case,
I believe my country *is* right.
And I too come from Mayflowers, as well as late 19th century immigrants.
>
> Our
> > cultural inputs have been from, and continue to be from, every nation.
> > I've been to Asia and Europe myself several times and I appreciate all
> > the cultures I've come in contact with. My children were even raised in
> > a French school system, setup here in the states to accommodate
> > transient expatriates (diplomats, etc.), so I've know many people who
> > were French speaking. And the one thing I've noticed about virtually ALL
> > of the non-US-citizens I've met is how much they appreciate the US.
>
> I suspect that this appreciation may have taken a significant dive over the
> past two years, at least with respect to our government (there's still a
> great deal of goodwill toward the American people - why, is not clear, since
> we are after all *responsible* for our government).
>
> > The closed mindedness you attribute to the "American masses" is found
> > everywhere else in the world too. The close-minded and un-traveled are
> > often myopic in their world view, but that IN NO WAY is limited to those
> > in the US.
>
> Of course it isn't. But that in no way refutes Shane's observation that
> *we* are incredibly myopic,
Then why are there so many Americans that think like you? I think we are
less myopic than most and the proof is in this very exchange between two
Americans!
> and while it may make that more understandable
> the obvious comment to be made is that if we're no better in this respect
> than the rest of the world, we shouldn't expect to exercise any unusual
> degree of leadership or control.
So who should? France? Russia? Iraq?
I know you will say the UN, but we are part of that forum too. As are
the Brits. And of all the countries in that body, I for one, think we're
pretty on target in keeping with its principles.
>
> If anything, "our masses" are exposed to other cultures far
> > more than those in the rest of the world.
>
> Debatable. There's a major difference between being exposed to
> partially-assimilated immigrants (to the degree that such exposure occurs at
> all: until they're fairly well-assimilated, such immigrants tend to keep to
> their own enclaves, at least as far as exposing others to their culture is
> concerned) and constantly rubbing elbows with those who are *still living*
> in their other cultures as happens constantly in, say, central Europe.
How much rubbing of elbows really occurs? In central Europe, I'd guess
it's pretty much limited to other central Europeans. No. You won't
convince me the rest of the world is enlightened compared to us. If
pressed, I would take the alternative view, although I really believe
enlightened and unenlightened are pretty much spread evenly around.
>
> >
> > I hate to label anyone,
>
> But don't seem to have made any real effort to analyse what Shane said
> before doing so.
I think I addressed his warmed-over rhetoric quite well.
>
> > but you sound like a typical Leftist;
>
> Because he decried the parochial nature of the American viewpoint, which
> your statements above even seem to agree with (all you advanced in rebuttal
> was "everyone's just as bad")?
Not true. Let me put it another way, his arguments are politically
correct tripe.
>
> spouting
> > from the "Red Book of the Politically Correct", subtitled "Hate America:
> > It's the Right Thing to Do".
>
> People hate America not because we're parochial but because we have, and
> use, the power we have to affect *them*. If we just minded our own internal
> business our parochialism wouldn't matter.
>
Seems like you're proposing isolationism. I suppose we should have left
the Yugoslavian mess all to the Europeans. They seemed to be doing such
a good job stopping that holocaust.
I wonder what would happen if we really *did* mind our own business?
Let's see... Iraq would take over the mid east and blackmail Europe. The
Chinese would rule Asia. The North Koreans would take over South Korea.
The Indians and Pakistani's would have a small nuclear war and France
would once again dominate world diplomacy.
Ok. You've convinced me.
Don Sykes
Shane Smith wrote:
>
> The inputs are very diverse, and there are subgroups, but the majority
> of Americans are not first or second generation immigrants. They're the
> product of growing up in this society. You are obviously one of the more
> traveled Americans, good for you. And praise is due for giving your
> children the same opportunity. The proportion of blinkered minds here
> is, by my observation, more widespread than anywhere else I've been. I
> even get asked what state England is in.
I hear that from others too. And if I were to take seriously the Jay
Walking segment on the Tonight Show, I might even believe it. But that's
just for show. My observation is most people are intelligent and
thoughtful if you talk to them 1-on-1. I haven't had the experience of
talking to Americans who don't know where England is.
>
> Did I say I hate America? I don't. I like Americans, although there are
> elements to American group psychology that bugs me. Look around, see
> how the rest of the world sees you.
> The first word most non-Americans
> use to describe Americans is arrogant.
Why is it up to *me* to own the feelings of other peoples? If they see
us as arrogant that's their problem. I don't believe we are arrogant.
Now the French...
>I don't think this is right, I
> think it's a side effect of the cultural ignorance most American
> tourists exhibit abroad. Yes, this is personal observation, and it's the
> butt of countless comedy sketches.
So what? Is it so bad that some Americans don't know what a bidet is
for? I'm sure peoples visiting here for the first time might seem pretty
ignorant too.
> Even here. And America is not exposed
> to other cultures as much as other cultures are exposed to yours.
> Hollywood, anyone? You probably don't even know how much you're shielded
> from other countries' influences. For example, I constantly marvel at
> the number of Discovery channel programs that are BBC produced, then
> voiced over with American accents. They don't even bother to change the
> narrators' names on the credits: I assure you, Dennis Waterman does not
> come from Dallas.
I will agree with you on the point that it would be nice, and
advantageous, to get more international viewpoints on a regular basis
from our TV, but I don't see how redbuubing English for the American ear
is of any importance.
>
> Someone asked for an example. Here's one I tease the closed minded with
> frequently. The age of consent. All the insular Americans I meet here in
> CA think that 18 is the absolute right age for the age of consent. It's
> so ingrained, they don't think about it, and they think any country that
> doesn't abide by it is somehow uncivilized. So I ask them if England is
> civilized. The answer is yes. But our age of consent is 16. Then I throw
> Holland's 14 at them. They are scandalized. They can't see that it's a
> choice a society makes, 18 is Just Plain Right, because they grew up
> with it. They either end up somewhat shaken, or refuse to consider it,
> or call me a liar. Every time.
I don't know with whom you speak, but as I said eariler, ignorance is
not an American monopoly.
JF Mezei
> > other countries which would not wield it as morally as we do.
The policeman may be the one with all the power, the gun, and the terminal in
his car to check your license and obtain information. But the policemen can
ONLY apply EXISTING laws. He cannot set his own laws and implement them as he
wishes. If he does that, it is called abuse of power.
Iraq has yet to fully complete the process set out post Gulf War Part 1.0. All
the resolutions only point to the fact that the process isn't complete. It is
a UN process. Not a USA process.
If the UN says that the process has once again begun to move forwards and that
they are satisfied that it is moving forwards and refuse military action,
then the USA has no right to invade Iraq and install a USA friendly govermnent.
This is like a cop arresting you because he doesn't like the colour of your
car and sends you to jail for whatever concucted reason he can think of.
Iraq is no immediate threath to the USA. The USA has absolutely no
justification to invade it. Certaintly not self defense since Iraq isn't
anywhere near capable of attacking the USA.
When Bush Jr is kicked out, how much will it cost the USa in money, pride and
priciples to repair the international damage to the USA's image that Bush Jr
is/has caused ?
Bill Todd
>
>
> Bill Todd wrote:
> >
> > "Don Sykes" <alp...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > news:3E691A7F...@pacbell.net...
> > >
> > >
> > > Shane Smith wrote:
...
No. By asking "How is it then..." you clearly suggested that this somehow
refuted Shane's observations about our insularity. My point was that it did
not (and given that, it's not clear what the relevance of your statement was
supposed to be - unless you indeed mistakenly felt that it constituted a
refutation).
...
> > > The closed mindedness you attribute to the "American masses" is found
> > > everywhere else in the world too. The close-minded and un-traveled are
> > > often myopic in their world view, but that IN NO WAY is limited to
those
> > > in the US.
> >
> > Of course it isn't. But that in no way refutes Shane's observation that
> > *we* are incredibly myopic,
>
> Then why are there so many Americans that think like you?
Because out of nearly 300,000,000 people here it would be surprising if
there were not. On average, however, we're indeed incredibly myopic: the
proof is in the politicians we elect.
I think we are
> less myopic than most and the proof is in this very exchange between two
> Americans!
Two out of close to 300,000,000 hardly constitutes proof. Even 20,000,000
out of nearly 300,000,000 wouldn't.
>
> > and while it may make that more understandable
> > the obvious comment to be made is that if we're no better in this
respect
> > than the rest of the world, we shouldn't expect to exercise any unusual
> > degree of leadership or control.
>
> So who should? France? Russia? Iraq?
No one, of course - not unless they would do so a lot more responsibly than
we're doing these days.
> I know you will say the UN, but we are part of that forum too.
Exactly. And working *as part of that forum* is what we should be doing.
As are
> the Brits. And of all the countries in that body, I for one, think we're
> pretty on target in keeping with its principles.
Not when we tell it that we're going our own way regardless of what the
world community thinks. As was observed on the floor of the Security
Council today, that body *itself* functions as a democracy (a democracy of
nations) with an established body of laws, and stepping outside those laws,
as we are proposing to do, is incompatible with a true commitment to
democracy.
...
> > > I hate to label anyone,
> >
> > But don't seem to have made any real effort to analyse what Shane said
> > before doing so.
>
> I think I addressed his warmed-over rhetoric quite well.
And I think you give yourself far too much credit, since in fact you
advanced *nothing* to refute it (the closest you came was the "everyone else
is just as bad" non-argument).
>
> >
> > > but you sound like a typical Leftist;
> >
> > Because he decried the parochial nature of the American viewpoint, which
> > your statements above even seem to agree with (all you advanced in
rebuttal
> > was "everyone's just as bad")?
>
> Not true.
Would you care to point out any portion of your response that cannot
properly be summed up as I did above, then?
Let me put it another way, his arguments are politically
> correct tripe.
The truth that appears to be emerging is that you're something of a bigot,
without much of a clue about analyzing content rather than jerking your
knee. But perhaps it's just a momentary lapse.
>
> >
> > spouting
> > > from the "Red Book of the Politically Correct", subtitled "Hate
America:
> > > It's the Right Thing to Do".
> >
> > People hate America not because we're parochial but because we have, and
> > use, the power we have to affect *them*. If we just minded our own
internal
> > business our parochialism wouldn't matter.
> >
>
> Seems like you're proposing isolationism.
Not at all: I'm just proposing that we *either* act responsibly *or* keep
our actions within our borders. I (and my guess is most of the rest of the
world) would prefer the former, but even the latter would likely be more
acceptable to the world than what we're doing now.
I suppose we should have left
> the Yugoslavian mess all to the Europeans. They seemed to be doing such
> a good job stopping that holocaust.
We acted responsibly there, IMO - so no problem arose.
> I wonder what would happen if we really *did* mind our own business?
> Let's see... Iraq would take over the mid east and blackmail Europe. The
> Chinese would rule Asia. The North Koreans would take over South Korea.
> The Indians and Pakistani's would have a small nuclear war and France
> would once again dominate world diplomacy.
Possibly some or even all of those things would happen, which is why I
believe that most of the rest of the world would prefer that we be a
responsible and even leading world citizen rather than retreat to within our
shores. We could even threaten the other countries of the world with such
dire visions and say "It's either that, or let us have our own way!" - but
the point is that *such a decision (whether we're worth accommodating)
should be theirs to make*, and that we should not feel free to make it for
them (by taking any action our power allows us to when they oppose us and
rationalizing our right to by the possible good that our continuing
engagement with the world may also produce).
> Ok. You've convinced me.
You're starting to strike me as someone whose mind is already made up.
- bill
JF Mezei
> butt of countless comedy sketches. Even here. And America is not exposed
> to other cultures as much as other cultures are exposed to yours.
Why can't teh USa actually show original films ?
La Totale --> True Lies
Trois hommes et un couffin --> three men and a baby
La Cage aux Folles --> (oops, forgot the american knockoff) (Birdcage ?)
There is a long list.
Has any american ever heard Céline Dion sing in French ?
Remember 99-luft-balons ? In the USA, it was 99 red balloons.
Why did Chris Carter have to spend so much money to make Vancouver look like
"anytown USA" ? Because he know that his X-files would never catch on in the
USA if they used Vancouver as the real city where the stories are set. So,
whenever they shoot a scene, they drop all canadian flags, hide postal boxes,
licence plates etc, and put up fake US equivalents.
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
>Shane Smith wrote:
>> butt of countless comedy sketches. Even here. And America is not exposed
>> to other cultures as much as other cultures are exposed to yours.
>
>Why can't teh USa actually show original films ?
> La Totale --> True Lies
> Trois hommes et un couffin --> three men and a baby
> La Cage aux Folles --> (oops, forgot the american knockoff) (Birdcage ?)
Because we're illiterates who don't speak French and who can't read subtitles.
>
>There is a long list.
>
>Has any american ever heard Céline Dion sing in French ?
>Remember 99-luft-balons ? In the USA, it was 99 red balloons.
>
>Why did Chris Carter have to spend so much money to make Vancouver look like
>"anytown USA" ? Because he know that his X-files would never catch on in the
>USA if they used Vancouver as the real city where the stories are set. So,
>whenever they shoot a scene, they drop all canadian flags, hide postal boxes,
>licence plates etc, and put up fake US equivalents.
What would the FBI be doing in Vancouver?
-- Alan
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
>In article <3E693A7E...@vl.videotron.ca>, JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vl.videotron.ca> writes:
>>Shane Smith wrote:
>>> butt of countless comedy sketches. Even here. And America is not exposed
>>> to other cultures as much as other cultures are exposed to yours.
>>
>>Why can't teh USa actually show original films ?
>> La Totale --> True Lies
>> Trois hommes et un couffin --> three men and a baby
>> La Cage aux Folles --> (oops, forgot the american knockoff) (Birdcage ?)
>
>Because we're illiterates who don't speak French and who can't read subtitles.
On second thought, I'll be fair. La Cage aux Folles ran in art theatres in the
US for a long, long time, in French, with subtitles. Probably hundreds of
thousands of Americans saw it. (It was then adapted into an Broadway musical
in English, set in France. And then it was adapted into a silly American film
set in Miami.)
>>There is a long list.
>>
>>Has any american ever heard Céline Dion sing in French ?
Is it any less painful?
JF Mezei
> Well thank God it's the USA that has all the power. I can think of 100
> other countries which would not wield it as morally as we do.
You can wield your powers as you wish inside your borders. But you cannot
abuse your powers outside your borders. Using your military without UN
sanction is abuse of power.
Bribing countries to support your war wishes isn't very ethical either in the
context of getting permission to destroy a country. If the actions that the
USA intends to do were right, there wouldn't be such an opposition to it, and
the USA wouldn't have to bribe other countries for support.
And if the USA truly beleived in democracy, it would respect the wishes of the
UN and not invade Iraq without UN approval.
Right now, the rest of the world understands that Bush is a moron, totally
without international experience and with a very loud bark. He has to be
respected because the idiot has his finger on the button and can obliterate
anyone he doesn't like. So far, I think that the damage done by Bush Jr
hasn't permanently been tagged to the USA. Folks hope Bush Jr is a temporary
glitch in history and that the USA will return to normal in 2 years.
However, there is a real danger that Bush Jr's attitudes may stick to the USA,
and that his successor will have a hell of a job undoing all the damage Bush
Jr will have done by the time he leaves.
David J. Dachtera
>
> "David J. Dachtera" wrote:
> >
> > John Vottero wrote:
> > >
> > > "Barry Treahy, Jr." <Tre...@MMaz.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3E67C23...@MMaz.com...
> > > >
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > You know, if the planes had crashed into the Louvre, the Eiffel Tower,
> > > > Munich, Moscow, there would be a lot less of this 'bleeding heart'
> > > > crap! The fact that for over ten years, Saddam's atrocities have
> > > > continued, these whiners would have us wait another ten years at which
> > > > point, who knows when a nuke or biological will be detonated on domestic
> > > > soil.
> > > >
> > > > Look back at history, WW I and WW II, it was us Yanks that saved the
> > > > Euro-ass from oppression and conquer. Funny how what was good for one
> > > > generation, country, and time period is no longer the right thing to do
> > > > today, HA! That's one thing about "Lib's," always a double standard
> > > > because their standards (if you call it that) are never based on a
> > > > foundation or morality and unchanging principles...
> > > >
> > >
> > > "based on a foundation [of] morality and unchanging principles"???? What
> > > the hell are you talking about? In the 80's Ronald Reagan sold weapons of
> > > mass destruction to Saddam! You call that "unchanging principles"?? When
> > > Saddam used poison gas on his own people, Reagan virtually ignored the
> > > atrocity, you call that moral?
> >
> > Reagan was nothing more than the White House's version of Charlie
> > McCarthy (or Pinoccio): a puppet who danced as his handlers pulled the
> > strings.
> >
>
> I wonder who his handlers were??
> But it does bring up a few questions, like why now??
You mean why does this come up now? This came out years ago, during his
presidency, in fact. It's nothing new.
> It makes one wonder what the real story is. I doubt the
> newsmedia version.
Indeed, and since the old boy is lost to Alzheimer's, the world will
never know, and there's likely no "Zapruder(sp?) film" to debate.
--
David J. Dachtera
dba DJE Systems
http://www.djesys.com/
Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/
David J. Dachtera
>
> "Phillip Helbig" <HEL...@sysdev.deutsche-boerse.com> wrote in message
> news:01KT8IWKI...@sysdev.deutsche-boerse.com...
> > > disagree. You want to stop being a target for terrorism?
> > > sure the terrorists pay a price that excruciatingly painful.
> > > come back and do it again? Make the pain even more painful.
> > > get clued in eventually.
> >
> > I fail to see how this logic applies to a suicide terrorist (such as
> > those who attacked the WTC, the suicide bombers in Palestine etc).
>
> Let's just call them what they are....murderers who don't care if they
> die in the process.
That's why I call them homicide bombers.
David J. Dachtera
>
> Phillip Helbig wrote:
> >>disagree. You want to stop being a target for terrorism?
> >>sure the terrorists pay a price that excruciatingly painful.
> >>come back and do it again? Make the pain even more painful.
> >>get clued in eventually.
> >
> >
> > I fail to see how this logic applies to a suicide terrorist (such as
> > those who attacked the WTC, the suicide bombers in Palestine etc).
>
>
> Probably old, but one of these "bumper-sticker" things: Why did the
> Japanese Kamikase pilots wear crash helmets?
I don't think those were "crash" helmets as much as simply intended to
make flying those airborne coffins possible.
JF Mezei
> >Why can't teh USa actually show original films ?
> > La Totale --> True Lies
> > Trois hommes et un couffin --> three men and a baby
> > La Cage aux Folles --> (oops, forgot the american knockoff) (Birdcage ?)
>
> Because we're illiterates who don't speak French and who can't read subtitles.
You'd be surprised how dubbing works. In Québec, the government forced the big
movie distributors to release the french version of movies at the same time as
english originals. The distributors cried foul. But guess what, ? Since then,
they've been able to release both version "on-time" at the sime time as the
rest of north america.
I have seen a few dubbed movies such as Star Wars etc with my nephew whose
english isn't up to snuff yet and I was pleasantly surprised with the quality.
> What would the FBI be doing in Vancouver?
It could have been set in Vancouve with the RCMP doing the investigations of
the "X-files". But as Chris Carter noted in an interview, it wouldn't have
worked in the USA, their target market because the USA expect all TV to appear
to originate from the USA.
Bill Todd
"JF Mezei" <jfmezei...@vl.videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:3E695504...@vl.videotron.ca...
> Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr wrote:
...
> > What would the FBI be doing in Vancouver?
>
> It could have been set in Vancouve with the RCMP doing the investigations
of
> the "X-files". But as Chris Carter noted in an interview, it wouldn't have
> worked in the USA, their target market because the USA expect all TV to
appear
> to originate from the USA.
You're really stretching on this one. The show is aimed at the U.S.
audience, and is therefore about the FBI rather than the RCMP. The only
reasons it's shot in Vancouver are presumably economic: using a U.S. motif
is entirely natural. And there's no secret about where it's shot: the
intent is not to make the show appear to *originate* in the U.S., but for
its action to appear to *take place* in the U.S.
- bill
Bill Todd
>
>
> Bill Todd wrote:
> >
> > "Don Sykes" <alp...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > news:3E69119D...@pacbell.net...
...
> > So it's not just this
> > > administration that ignores important parts of the Constitution, but
> > > every administration - Demo & Rep alike - for some 50 years.
> >
> > Leaving aside the *other* critical portions of the Constitution that
this
> > Administration has been ignoring with relish, as I noted above there are
> > signifant areas of grey in the majority of examples you provided which
do
> > not pertain to the proposed invasion of Iraq.
>
> Nor do those *other* critical portions of the Constitution you mention
> pertain to the proposed invasion of Iraq.
You opened the door to generalization about 'important parts of the
Constitution' - I just observed that somewhat more of that document appears
to be under siege by the current Administration than by others.
But I say again your arguments
> are all basically semantical and contrived by those who never wanted to
> face a declaration of war vote.
Only to varying degrees. I'm not sure that Somalia qualified in *any*
manner, for example. But I wouldn't take issue with a stance that required
Congressional support for most of the others.
...
> > Are you advocating that the Constitution be changed, or just followed?
>
> Big, big question. A few years back (6-7) I wrote a sweeping
> constitutional amendment that addresses just that (see
> http://alphase.com/newusa/newusa.html).
I'm afraid that what I admit is a cursory examination of your proposed
alternative only gives me greater respect for the original. And I
emphatically disagree with your contention that it has become seriously
dated in any significant manner (I do have some doubts about whether any
right to bear arms would have been included had a standing army been assumed
to exist, but don't consider that a major problem).
- bill
Bill Todd
"Alan E. Feldman" <spamsi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b096a4ee.03030...@posting.google.com...news:<a5idnRM8Dsz...@metrocast.net>...
> > "Alan E. Feldman" <spamsi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:b096a4ee.03030...@posting.google.com...> > news:<3E678A39...@vl.videotron.ca>...
...
> > > At this pace, it'll take centuries to achieve democracy.
> >
> > If it does, that's their business, not ours - though fostering the
> > development of democracy through peaceful and ethical means is certainly
> > acceptable.
>
> They are not a free people and therefore they cannot make it their own
> business.
That does not, however, make it *our* business - at least beyond any
non-invasive encouragement we may choose to offer.
> > > > The USA may be bragging about having been in touch with plenty of
> > opposition
> > > > in Iraq who would be ready to take power once Saddam is removed.
HINT:
> > these
> > > > may just be worse than Saddam.
> > >
> > > Could be. Could be better, too.
> >
> > Not our business in either case: any such concerns are the province of
the
> > U.N., if it decides they need to be addressed.
>
> The U.N. is a joke.
So is Dubya. Unfortunately, that does not make him irrelevant.
Fortunately, he's not in a position to make the U.N. irrelevant either
(though he clearly thinks he is, and unwillingness to work *with* the U.N.
does help make it seem a joke to insular Americans).
...
> > Also, the Afgahns didn't rebel when the U.S.
> > > defeated the Taliban.
> >
> > Nor did they solidify into a nation. And the tentative government that
we
> > installed is now criticizing us for not following through on our
promises of
> > continued involvement for the second time: just as we dropped
Afghanistan
> > like a hot potato after helping what later became the Taliban kick out
the
> > Soviets, we're 'way shy of the kind of support we promised the current
> > government, and they're specifically suggesting that if we do the same
thing
> > in Iraq (as Bush now seems to be suggesting in response to queries about
how
> > much all this will cost) there'll be major problems there.
>
> They're lucky we helped them at all.
You have a reasonably broad poll to that effect? They, after all, are the
ones who get to decide whether our net effect was beneficial (i.e., whether
they were 'lucky'), not us: in the absence of reliable input from their
side, your statement sounds rather arrogant (and, regrettably, typically
American).
> > > > Iraqis should decide, not americans or anyone else. We, as
foreigners
> > to
> > > > Iraq, can only complain about Iraq acting outside its own borders,
or
> > using
> > > > banned weapons or torture against his own people. On the other hand,
the
> > USA,
> > > > with the death penalty, is really in no position to argue that
Saddam
> > has no
> > > > right to kill what his country defines as a criminal.
> > >
> > > Iraqis can't decide as long as Saddam is in power.
> >
> > Yet again, the U.N. is the sole body responsible for deciding whether
any
> > intervention to change this is appropriate.
>
> The U.N. is a joke.
You know, your opinion of the U.N. really isn't as important as you seem to
think it is. Even America's opinion as a whole isn't as important as the
rest of the world's. So you'd better get used to that 'joke' playing an
important role in world affairs.
> > > > Don't do onto others what you don't want done onto yourself. How
would
> > the USA
> > > > have reacted if, during the 2000 slection/selection debacle, other
> > countries
> > > > would not have recognised the nomination of Bush Jr as president of
the
> > USA
> > > > and requested the election considered failed with a new election
held ?
> > >
> > > Saddam wasn't elected, unless you believe that 100% krap.
> >
> > Leaving aside the question of whether Dubya was in fact elected, the
fact
> > remains that who runs Iraq is *none of our business* (any more than who
runs
> > the U.S. is anyone else's business, which was JF's point).
>
> That depends on what that leader does.
No, it does not - unless he presents a dire and imminent direct threat to
the U.S. itself, to his own neighbors (and they ask us for help), or to his
own people (at the level of genocide). Intervention about anything not
rising to that level is the sole responsibility of the U.N.
...
> > > > And while the USA media may have focused on the work that the UN
> > inspectors
> > > > hadn,t completed by 1998, they unfortunatly never focus on the
amount of
> > work
> > > > that they had succesfully done prior to 1998. Note that for all its
> > might, the
> > > > USA intelligence had been unaware of the Iraq nuclear efforts until
> > after the
> > > > war when inspectors came in.
> > >
> > > Some argue that in favor of getting him now before he makes nukes, or
> > > more nukes.
> >
> > That argument ignores the increasing evidence that he has no remaining
> > active nuclear program whatsoever - something which the inspectors feel
> > they'll be in a position to state with reasonable certainty before long,
> > even if the issues of chemical and biological weapons may be less
> > immediately verifiable.
>
> The West has consistently underestimated the status of Saddam's
> nuclear program.
That's what inspections are designed to correct. And their findings do not
support your concerns.
...
> > > That's not enough?
> >
> > No, it's not. Not after decades of supporting regimes that oppress
their
> > citizenry (because doing so suits our own interests) and propping up
>
> So you're saying that the 9/11 attacks were justified?
I'm saying they were understandable: there were causes for them, and those
causes would not have existed had our behavior been more considerate.
Whether they were justified is a subjective judgement and much more subject
to debate.
Are you for
> real?
Indeed I am. And the terrorists are even more real: despising them won't
make them go away, but understanding their motives and eliminating, to the
degree we can reasonably do so, the causes for them would at least help.
>
> > Israel's occupation and, worse, settlement activities for three decades
> > despite the condemnation of the world community.
>
> It was the Arabs fault that there even is an occupation.
Really? Their fault for attempting to retake the land that was taken from
them in 1948? I'm afraid you have a bit of a blind spot there.
And it is the
> Palestinians' fault that they don't have their own country.
They had had what they needed: why would they care about getting lines on a
map in exchange?
They could
> have had one in 1948, but they went to war instead.
Funny how some people get upset when you grab the land they were living on.
From 1948 to 1967
> they didn't care that they didn't have their own country.
See above: they just wanted their land.
If the Arabs
> hadn't forced Israel into a war in 1967, there'd be no occupation.
And if Israel hadn't been carved out of land that the donors were not free
to give, there'd be no problem.
>
> If the Palestinians had made as good an offer to Israel as Israel
> under Ehud made to them, and if Israel responded with the equivalent
> of an intifada, wouldn't you be pretty angry with Israel?
Not in the slightest: it's the roles and their history that are
significant, not the specifics of who occupies them.
Hmmm? Oh,
> but turn the tables and somehow you still find Israel to be at fault.
Funny how you assume the issue is about ethnicity rather than issues. But
it does give some insight into Israeli hard-line thinking (or what passes
for it).
>
> Yeah, there were complaints about the offer Ehud made to them. But it
> is controversial just what these problems were. Even so, had the
> Palestinians accepted it it would have been the best thing to happen
> to them in decades.
And that's a *good* thing? Rather, it's a sad commentary on what they've
had to put up with for those decades.
And to respond to even a slightly flawed offer
> with suicide bombers?
Well, Israel *did* have the opportunity to fix the flaws, but wasn't
inclined to.
> This is to be commended or overlooked?
Mostly, it's important that it be *understood*: how it's judged really
isn't very relevant.
What it
> does is show what the Palestinians really are.
Yup: unwilling to be pushed beyond a certain point, regardless of the cost.
They want to destroy
> Israel. It still says so in the PLO's charter. IT SAYS SO!
Well, at least it used to. The PLO has stated repeatedly that it would give
up that goal if Israel would give up its occupation, which is in fact a
*major* concession (i.e., they're finally willing to relinquish their claim
to the land taken in 1948, as long as they get back the land taken later).
For some reason, Israel just hasn't quite managed to agree to that (though
it was coming close under Rabin, which is why a right-wing Israeli
assassinated him - and instead of responding with appropriate outrage and
the determination to continue his work, the country turned hard right, just
as the assassin had hoped it would).
>
> I have lost all sympathy for the Palestinians,
They really couldn't care less about your sympathy (though they'd likely
welcome it if offered): they just want their freedom back.
though I have little
> for the "settlers" who obviously don't help matters. I understand how
> people are not happy with the settlements. But it seems to me the
> Palestinians are much more at fault.
Other viewpoints differ.
>
> Aid to Israel helps preserve the only democracy in the Middle East.
Democracy is nice, all other things being equal. In this case, however,
other things are far from equal: supporting Israel is without question a
liability for American foreign policy, but of great domestic political
importance. But even large portions of the American Jewish population (and
for that matter many liberal Israelis) are torn between loyalty to the idea
of a Jewish state and horror at some of the things that state is doing.
- bill
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
>Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr wrote:
>> >Why can't teh USa actually show original films ?
>> > La Totale --> True Lies
>> > Trois hommes et un couffin --> three men and a baby
>> > La Cage aux Folles --> (oops, forgot the american knockoff) (Birdcage ?)
>>
>> Because we're illiterates who don't speak French and who can't read subtitles.
>
>You'd be surprised how dubbing works. In Québec, the government forced the big
>movie distributors to release the french version of movies at the same time as
>english originals. The distributors cried foul. But guess what, ? Since then,
>they've been able to release both version "on-time" at the sime time as the
>rest of north america.
I've seen a lot of really annoyingly-badly-dubbed movies, and I much prefer
subtitles. (On the other hand, my girlfriend - who was an English major -
says if she wanted to read she'd have stayed home with a book, and hates
subtitles.) Decent-quality dubbing is acceptable with animation, though; the
lips never lined up that tightly to start with.
>
>> What would the FBI be doing in Vancouver?
>
>It could have been set in Vancouve with the RCMP doing the investigations of
>the "X-files". But as Chris Carter noted in an interview, it wouldn't have
>worked in the USA, their target market because the USA expect all TV to appear
>to originate from the USA.
Indeed, when we - nowadays - have a TV series about a Mountie, it's set in
Chicago. (But we used to have "King of the Northwest Mounted" _and_ "Dudley
Do-Right".)
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
And in fact they moved shooting back to Los Angeles during Duchovny's
next-to-last season, and it was _still_ set largely on the East Coast.
Paddy O'Brien
Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy wrote:
A nice and, to my knowledge, reasonably accurate description of the
events that Andrew mentioned ... there were many others where (not to
put down US, but as a European they do try to tell everyone that they
won WWII unaided. My father's cynical remarks were that they travelled
around the liberated countries in trucks dishing out chocolate and
nylons for the obvious remuneration. He did add, not all, but most of
the allied forces had warred for about 6 years with little break.
> Actually thats historically inacurate. In WW II although the US entered
> the war in 1941 it only did so because of the Japanese attack on Pearl
> Harbour, public sentiment up to then was that it was pretty much a
> european conflict.
>
> Before Pearl Harbour the UK and its Colonial Allies and the Free
> French were the only people standing between Hitler and European
> domination. The defining battles which effectively ended Hitlers
> chances of doing this were Dunkirk which was effectively a defeat
> for the Allies but one where the UK managed to salvage the bulk
> of their army that would otherwise have been destroyed in France
> and the Battle of Britain where the RAF won.
>
Not a great lover of war films (inculcated by my father who was involved
and would never watch any war film -- Aussie, UK or US -- and
particularly the latter from his personal experiences), but I thought
that the old black and white movie of Dunkirk was one of the few with
real authenticity. Others were Kenneth More as Douglas Bader and the
odd one or two of "escape" films that were based on books written by the
participants.
> The Battle for the Atlantic where convoys of food etc (paid
> for by the UK and not given by the US) were shipped across
> the Atlantic under German UBoat attack had also largely been
> won.
>
> Two British inventions were key in both the Uboat war and
> the Battle of Britain, These were the Code Breaking program
> at Bletchley Park which broke the Enigma Code and Radar.
>
Alan Turing for one -- remind me of the other -- the bouncing bomb guy,
didn't he also contribute to Radar? And also I believe the author
Dennis Wheatley was an army Major at Bletchley.
> And the tide of the war changed largely due to two events the battle
> of El Alamein which the British 8th army won which then paved the way
> for the invasion of Italy and Hitler attacking Russia in June 1941.
>
My father was involved in El Alamein, and the first time I ever heard
him talk of it was when we had a farewell drink at a pub just before I
came to .au. I was nearly 40, and he just wanted me to know (possibly
the last time seeing him -- luckily not) of what he experienced and why
he could never watch war films.
> Many historians think that the latter and particualarly the
> battle of Stalingrad was the point at which Hitler effectively
> lost the war.
>
> And lets not forget the finacial motive here. In 1939 the Uk
> was the worlds super power financially. By the end of the war
> in 1945 the Uk was effectively broke, gold reserves gone etc
> most of this wealth flowed west to the US which was the
> only major economy to profit from WW II.
>
> Despite winning WW II the UK then suffered years of rationing
> of basic goods after 1945 to help pay for the war.
>
Yep, that's one of the tax burdens I used to share when I lived and
worked in UK. To me from the "aftermath" perspective, Germany and US
were the big time winners. (I'm only anti US in that they find it hard
to speak English, but I experience the same here :-)
And with the rationing -- sweets until, I think, about 1953, my only
cuddly toy was a sort of bedraggled cat knitted by my grandmother --
almost my only toy for the first several years of my life. (I was born
in 1945, so my father did get a break in 1944. Their furlough was to
assist the land army girls. A six month break (after 5 years) -- time
enough to marry my mother [and they'll get their 60 in next year] and
procreate me -- before he was sent back to fight. Some might see that
procreation as a disadvantage of a furlough.)
> Regards
> Andrew Harrison
Regards, Paddy
***********************************************************************
"This electronic message and any attachments may contain privileged
and confidential information intended only for the use of the
addressees named above. If you are not the intended recipient of
this email, please delete the message and any attachment and advise
the sender. You are hereby notified that any use, dissemination,
distribution, reproduction of this email is prohibited.
If you have received the email in error, please notify TransGrid
immediately. Any views expressed in this email are those of the
individual sender except where the sender expressly and with
authority states them to be the views of TransGrid. TransGrid uses
virus scanning software but excludes any liability for viruses
contained in any attachment.
Please note the email address for TransGrid personnel is now
firstname...@transgrid.com.au"
***********************************************************************
Arne Vajhøj
>>How large a percentage of americans has been outside
>>the US ?
>
> While I might agree that a smaller % of Americans has been outside of
> the US, than say the Swiss, I'd say the Swiss don't have far to go to
> get outside. Indeed anywhere in Europe is close.
Very true, but does not change tha fact that many more
europeans travel to other countries.
> If however your
> comparing our travels to the vast world population, I'd say a lot of us
> have journeyed to other countries. How many of the 1B Chineese or 1B
> Indians have traveled outside their countries. Or, how many Iraqi's
> have?
Also true, but again not very relevant. The influence the 1B chinese has
on China foreign policy is probably zero.
In Europe we usually assume that the people has some influende
on decisions.
>>How large a percentage of americans speak a foreign
>>language ?
>
> About 30%. Mostly Spanish, but most other languages are well
> represented. I know here in San Francisco, the voting ballots are in
> about 7 languages. My children speak 3. I speak 1+1/2 plus C, Java,
> Cobol, etc.
In Denmark everybody has to learn both english and german. Mandatory
in all schools.
Arne
John Smith
Those who frequent comp.os.vms are generally a different breed of
person than the US population at large - usually well educated,
usually well paid (although always not enough), intellectually
curious, often knowledgeable at a deep level of a wide range of
subjects.
Quick...
How many Americans know which country is the largest trading partner
with the US?
Which country is the largest single supplier of oil to the US?
http://www.ott.doe.gov/facts/archives/fotw246.shtml
How many know the answer to both questions is Canada.
How many know Canadians *can* choose their own doctors, see them when
they need to, and that *all* Canadians have health insurance from the
day they are born til the day they die?
Not too many given the selective nature in which the US media skews
accurate reporting of the truth in order to curry favor with the
Administration and their own political agendas.
There is a lot the average US citizen doesn't see in a balanced and
enlightened point of view. Quality publications like The Nation and
The Atlantic Monthly are pilloried by the right, tagged with the
epithet of 'liberal'. Broaden your horizons - challenge yourself to
pick a copy of each of these up and read them from cover to cover
sometime, just as 'liberals' should read 'The New Republic' from time
to time. If enough people took the time to educate themselves with the
facts rather than the spin, then perhaps there can be reasoned and
rational debate about important matters, and progressive solutions
that benefit all Americans. Until that happens, Americans will, sadly,
be led by the nose via 'sound bites'.
John Smith
"Bob Ceculski" <b...@instantwhip.com> wrote in message
news:d7791aa1.0303...@posting.google.com...
> "John Smith" <a...@nonymous.com> wrote in message
news:<kyT9a.61073$em1....@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...> > news:nH-dnQ7FXKL...@metrocast.net...
> >
> > Well said.
> >
> > There are some smaller percentage of the populace that will oppose
war
> > under any circumstance, but by and large the majority will be of
the
> > opinion:
> >
> > War if necessary, but not necessarily war.
> >
> > And the majority of world opinion, and dare I say US opinion, is
that
> > war is not called for, nor is it justifiable at this time.
>
> not called for ... Iraq was probably behind both the OK. city
> and NY attacks, are now working to arm terrorists with poisons
> and nuclear suitcases, and you say sit on our butts and wait
> to be nuked? We don't need the UN to weigh in when our
> natioanl security is at stake ... glad you aren't president!
I'm just glad I'm not you Bob.
I believe that the only country currently on record as to threatening
the US with attack is North Korea. When are you heading over the wire
of the DMZ?
Rob Young
>
> "Rob Young" <you...@encompasserve.org> wrote in message
> news:agQ$Jf59...@eisner.encompasserve.org...
>
> ...
>
>>
>> But what if Afghanistan decends into chaos
>
> If it does, it will be because we've abandoned the promises we made there
> yet again - which, given Dubya's attitude about how to cut expenses abroad
> (except when there's a war he wants to fight) seems increasingly likely.
>
Bill, if it does it won't be our fault. Afghanistan is
a tribal society. Watch any National Geographic specials?
They play polo chasing a rider dragging a slain goat. That's
a start. But historically it has always been a mess.
Rob
JF Mezei
> You're really stretching on this one. The show is aimed at the U.S.
> audience, and is therefore about the FBI rather than the RCMP.
Which comes back to the original point that US audiences do not consume stuff
that originates from abroad in terms of TV/movies. They'll consume foreign
music as long as it is in english, with a few exceptions now and then.
Elsewhere in the world, folks have no problems consuming programming that is
set in various locations in the world. But the insular nature of the USA means
that a self-perpetuated "only in the USA" mentality exists, and because it
exists, the big media outlets don't risk putting on foreign shows and because
they don't take that risk, the insular nature strenghtens even more.
Did you know that many of the most popular shows in the USA actually
originated abroad (Three's company, Who wants to be a millionaire etc etc) but
the USA decided to make their own copy instead of buying the existing show (in
the above cases, from england) ?
JF Mezei
> Indeed, when we - nowadays - have a TV series about a Mountie, it's set in
> Chicago. (But we used to have "King of the Northwest Mounted" _and_ "Dudley
> Do-Right".)
Due North, cancelled a long time ago, was shot in Toronto Canada, but set in Chicago.
JF Mezei
> And in fact they moved shooting back to Los Angeles during Duchovny's
> next-to-last season, and it was _still_ set largely on the East Coast.
They didn't want to move back. They were blackmailed by Duchovny to move back
to LA so he could be with his girldfriend more hours per week. And by they
time they did that, the idiot decided for some reason that he could no longer
do the show for a while. They might as well have stayed in vancouver where the
setting was more "x-files" (with the fog and all).
I stopped watching when they move to LA.
Bill Todd
And "Sergeant Preston of the Yukon" was very likely shot in the U.S., but
set in - well, take a wild guess.
You're back out to lunch, JF.
- bill
JF Mezei
> I believe that the only country currently on record as to threatening
> the US with attack is North Korea. When are you heading over the wire
> of the DMZ?
Canada should threathen to throw snowballs over the border to attack the USA.
Everhart
have no problems simply annexing the whole area and allowing the Palestinians
to vote and participate in their society as citizens. Obviously the Israeli
government at least is unwilling to do this, since that would mean all those
Christians and Moslems would outnumber the Jews and the country would not any
longer be a religious state. (Never mind that genetically most of the aforementioned
Christians and Jews are probably much closer to the ancient Israelites than
the immigrant Jews (who got a raw deal also and were sold a bill of goods
by those who claimed Palestine was a 'land without a people')). Right of
descent, or even tracing rights back to Abraham, Moses, etc., if done honestly,
would probably favor the group now called Palestinians taking the whole
region over.
The Israeli government and some fraction of its citizens don't want the Palestinians
to be citizens but they do want evidently to control all the land. It is not
surprising that the Palestinians conclude the plan is for them to either
be forcibly ejected or to be killed en masse. The French during WWII might
have viewed the Germans in something like this light. What their partisans did
would have been called terrorism had the Allies lost.
The business of civilians getting blown up is lousy for both groups there, and
to my mind the US has business making funding of anyone there contingent on
it going to activities calculated to stop the provocation and to some solution
for the Palestinians other than diaspora or death. No military aid while
the settlements exist might be a suitable attention getter.
I am uneasy about attacking Iraq, though I have read reports they fund some
of the suicide bombs in Israel. The US intelligence community may have reports
of other activity, but we see very few bits of evidence that confirm these,
and lots of apparent hoaxes. I hope that a great, great deal more evidence
comes out, sooner the better, to indicate that some of this stuff is real
and not just more hoaxes and FUD from people with other agendas.
The President is trying to deal with scenarios of agents of mass destruction
cheap enough for a few cranks to handle, and how to protect against them.
However I might suggest that the notion of trying to keep them out of crank
hands is probably doomed, and it would I think be better to start thinking
about making sure everyone is armed as an alternative. A crank can threaten
masses if the masses can't have a few counter-cranks who will blow a threatener
to Kingdom come when they find him. Messy? Yeah, but maybe that way the messes
don't turn into governments or quasi-governments. Stuff like ricin is just way
too easy to make (tho perhaps harder to make and survive the making ;-) ).
Dave Weatherall
Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr") wrote:
> I never heard the claim that Iraq was behind the Oklahoma City attack, nor
> for that matter that the Oklahoma City attack _needed_ anyone to be behind
> it. Is Saddam supposed to have smuggled McVeigh the ingredients for a
> fertilizer bomb? Loaned him the deposit for the rental truck?
In a BBC documentary that I watched at Xmas, the claim was made that
an Iraqi led McVeigh into temptation. ISTR it was a woman from some
right-wing think-tank (the same on Rumsfeld was associated with?)
making the claim. McVeigh's defense team on the other hand, could
remember nothing from the evidence available to the time that came
anywhere near substantiating the claim. I was left with the impression
that a link between Iraq and McViegh was being manufactured for people
like bob.
--
Cheers - Dave.
Dave Weatherall
wrote:
> > > we have a nut in Iraq who wants to arm terrorists with
> > > nuclear suitcase bombs which would make 9/11 look like
> > > a picnic, and you are on this vms board promoting
> > > flower power? Didn't you learn anything from WWII Bill?
> > > 9/11 was another Pearl Harbor, but you're still wanting
> > > to appease murderers?
> >
> > Thank you, Bob, for making the quality of the opposing viewpoint clear.
> > Although those who agree with you might counter with the observation that
> > even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
> >
> > - bill
>
> yes, history does repeat itself for people like you Bill
> who don't learn a thing from it ...
I know this is a waste of time but... which history do you want to
avoid repeating bob? Arming Ho Chi Minh, arming Osama bin Laden,
bringing down/assisting in the murder of democratically elected
presidents, giving 'authoritarian' regimes (e.g. Iraq, Argentina and a
host of other central american countries) messages that only the fight
against communism counts and thus they can murder whoever they 'need'
to?
- Dave.
Don Sykes
Bill Todd wrote:
>
> "Don Sykes" <alp...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:3E69230B...@pacbell.net...
> >
> >
> > Bill Todd wrote:
> > >
> > > "Don Sykes" <alp...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3E69119D...@pacbell.net...
>
> ...
>
> > > So it's not just this
> > > > administration that ignores important parts of the Constitution, but
> > > > every administration - Demo & Rep alike - for some 50 years.
> > >
> > > Leaving aside the *other* critical portions of the Constitution that
> this
> > > Administration has been ignoring with relish, as I noted above there are
> > > signifant areas of grey in the majority of examples you provided which
> do
> > > not pertain to the proposed invasion of Iraq.
> >
> > Nor do those *other* critical portions of the Constitution you mention
> > pertain to the proposed invasion of Iraq.
>
> You opened the door to generalization about 'important parts of the
> Constitution' - I just observed that somewhat more of that document appears
> to be under siege by the current Administration than by others.
No, you opened that door with your last paragraph of the letter you sent
to your congressman. To wit:
"A major reason why we have three co-equal branches of government in
this
country is to provide checks when one of them starts to run amuck. The
decision to wage war is very specifically vested in the Congress by our
Constitution, a document that seems to be considered increasingly
irrelevant
by this Administration. It's time for the Congress to step up to the
plate
and do its duty, uncomfortable as that may be."
>
> But I say again your arguments
> > are all basically semantical and contrived by those who never wanted to
> > face a declaration of war vote.
>
> Only to varying degrees. I'm not sure that Somalia qualified in *any*
> manner, for example. But I wouldn't take issue with a stance that required
> Congressional support for most of the others.
>
Ok. We agree on that.
> ...
>
> > > Are you advocating that the Constitution be changed, or just followed?
> >
> > Big, big question. A few years back (6-7) I wrote a sweeping
> > constitutional amendment that addresses just that (see
> > http://alphase.com/newusa/newusa.html).
>
> I'm afraid that what I admit is a cursory examination of your proposed
> alternative only gives me greater respect for the original.
It's always easire to throw stones than to build anew. What I attempted
was to build anew.
> And I
> emphatically disagree with your contention that it has become seriously
> dated in any significant manner (I do have some doubts about whether any
> right to bear arms would have been included had a standing army been assumed
> to exist, but don't consider that a major problem).
As I said, this is really off-off topic and deserves a much larger
discussion than I prepared to do in this NG. Don't get me wrong. I would
love to debate every line of that document with you and others, but this
isn't the time or place.
--
Have VMS, Will Travel
Wire paladin, San Francisco
(paladinATalphaseDOTcom)
Don Sykes
Ah ha! A statement with which I fully agree. While I may disagree with
some, I respect the group's knowledge and sophistication.
> Quick...
> How many Americans know which country is the largest trading partner
> with the US?
> Which country is the largest single supplier of oil to the US?
> http://www.ott.doe.gov/facts/archives/fotw246.shtml
> How many know the answer to both questions is Canada.
> How many know Canadians *can* choose their own doctors, see them when
> they need to, and that *all* Canadians have health insurance from the
> day they are born til the day they die?
> Not too many given the selective nature in which the US media skews
> accurate reporting of the truth in order to curry favor with the
> Administration and their own political agendas.
I knew Canada was our largest trading partner, but I didn't know it was
the largest oil supplier, so I learned something new.
As far as the health care system, I think many US'ns (can't really call
us Americans vis-a-vis Canadians) were educated to that system a few
years back (93) when we almost had sweeping reforms here.
Note: when it comes to health care I am not a backer of the current
administration's ideas on the subject. I am one who believes we need
some big changes 'down here'.
But, I think this discussion is getting way off the mark. I don't see
how this supports the position of the myopic left on Iraq.
>
> There is a lot the average US citizen doesn't see in a balanced and
> enlightened point of view. Quality publications like The Nation and
> The Atlantic Monthly are pilloried by the right, tagged with the
> epithet of 'liberal'. Broaden your horizons - challenge yourself to
> pick a copy of each of these up and read them from cover to cover
> sometime, just as 'liberals' should read 'The New Republic' from time
> to time. If enough people took the time to educate themselves with the
> facts rather than the spin, then perhaps there can be reasoned and
> rational debate about important matters, and progressive solutions
> that benefit all Americans. Until that happens, Americans will, sadly,
> be led by the nose via 'sound bites'.
I don't really disagree here at all. Many Americans, indeed all peoples
of the world, need to listen and think more about important subjects and
not rely on single source information. I always try to listen to all
sides. In fact I find opposing views far more interesting in the sense
that they make me formulate my thoughts more clearly, all of which leads
me to the conclusion that the US, British, Spanish, Bulgarian position
is correct: i.e. Saddam and the Baath party must go now.
Don Sykes
Bill Todd wrote:
>
> "Don Sykes" <alp...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:3E693336...@pacbell.net...
> >
> >
> > Bill Todd wrote:
> > >
> > > "Don Sykes" <alp...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3E691A7F...@pacbell.net...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Shane Smith wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > > > If there is a world war 3, I'm pretty sure this is what it'll be
> about.
> > > > > America trying to impose its idea of "freedom" on the world. I wish
> more
> > > > > average Americans traveled and actually lived in other places for a
> > > > > while (vacations aren't long enough), it'd give them more respect
> for
> > > > > other ways of life and viewpoints. They don't even realise how much
> of
> > > > > what they think of as basic truths are actually American cultural
> > > > > opinions. You wouldn't /believe/ some of the conversations I've had
> over
> > > > > here. This insular, closed minded attitude so prevalent among the
> > > > > American masses is a large part of why the attacks happened. Now,
> after
> > > > > the attacks, it's getting worse.
> > > > >
> > > > > Shane
> > > >
> > > > How is it then that we are BY FAR the most diverse country on earth.
> > >
> > > It is because ethnic diversity in no way guarantees breadth of
> viewpoint.
> > > In part this is because new immigrants are proud to be here and make
> active
> > > efforts to adopt what seem to be existing norms: they may retain large
> > > elements of their *ethnic* identity, and even of the *personal cultural
> > > identity* of their countries of origin, but that doesn't mean they
> retain
> > > the foreign *attitudes*, because they don't want to consider themselves
> > > 'foreign' after moving here, they want to be Americans.
> >
> > What's your point? I simply said, we're more diverse than anyone else.
>
> No. By asking "How is it then..." you clearly suggested that this somehow
> refuted Shane's observations about our insularity.
That was a rhetorical question and did not call for a response.
> My point was that it did
> not (and given that, it's not clear what the relevance of your statement was
> supposed to be - unless you indeed mistakenly felt that it constituted a
> refutation).
*My* statement was irrelevant? I think you mean your statements about
ethnic, personal and foreign cultures were basically gibberish, but
unlike you, I often try to be polite and good natured in my debates. You
are often angry and insulting in your responses.
>
> ...
>
> > > > The closed mindedness you attribute to the "American masses" is found
> > > > everywhere else in the world too. The close-minded and un-traveled are
> > > > often myopic in their world view, but that IN NO WAY is limited to
> those
> > > > in the US.
> > >
> > > Of course it isn't. But that in no way refutes Shane's observation that
> > > *we* are incredibly myopic,
> >
> > Then why are there so many Americans that think like you?
>
> Because out of nearly 300,000,000 people here it would be surprising if
> there were not. On average, however, we're indeed incredibly myopic: the
> proof is in the politicians we elect.
You mean of course the Clinons & Kennedys, right?
>
> I think we are
> > less myopic than most and the proof is in this very exchange between two
> > Americans!
>
> Two out of close to 300,000,000 hardly constitutes proof. Even 20,000,000
> out of nearly 300,000,000 wouldn't.
>
> >
> > > and while it may make that more understandable
> > > the obvious comment to be made is that if we're no better in this
> respect
> > > than the rest of the world, we shouldn't expect to exercise any unusual
> > > degree of leadership or control.
> >
> > So who should? France? Russia? Iraq?
>
> No one, of course - not unless they would do so a lot more responsibly than
> we're doing these days.
>
> > I know you will say the UN, but we are part of that forum too.
>
> Exactly. And working *as part of that forum* is what we should be doing.
>
> As are
> > the Brits. And of all the countries in that body, I for one, think we're
> > pretty on target in keeping with its principles.
>
> Not when we tell it that we're going our own way regardless of what the
> world community thinks. As was observed on the floor of the Security
> Council today, that body *itself* functions as a democracy (a democracy of
> nations) with an established body of laws, and stepping outside those laws,
> as we are proposing to do, is incompatible with a true commitment to
> democracy.
>
> ...
>
> > > > I hate to label anyone,
> > >
> > > But don't seem to have made any real effort to analyse what Shane said
> > > before doing so.
> >
> > I think I addressed his warmed-over rhetoric quite well.
>
> And I think you give yourself far too much credit, since in fact you
> advanced *nothing* to refute it (the closest you came was the "everyone else
> is just as bad" non-argument).
Well I guess your just not listening. I've made a lot of points within
these sub-threads, but you don't want to hear them.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > but you sound like a typical Leftist;
> > >
> > > Because he decried the parochial nature of the American viewpoint, which
> > > your statements above even seem to agree with (all you advanced in
> rebuttal
> > > was "everyone's just as bad")?
> >
> > Not true.
>
> Would you care to point out any portion of your response that cannot
> properly be summed up as I did above, then?
>
> Let me put it another way, his arguments are politically
> > correct tripe.
>
> The truth that appears to be emerging is that you're something of a bigot,
> without much of a clue about analyzing content rather than jerking your
> knee. But perhaps it's just a momentary lapse.
Why must you respond with rudeness? Could it be you have no arguments
left worth anything? Sounds Berkeley'ish to me (if you shout epithets
loudly enough, your opponents will not be heard, and therefore be
refuted.).
>
> >
> > >
> > > spouting
> > > > from the "Red Book of the Politically Correct", subtitled "Hate
> America:
> > > > It's the Right Thing to Do".
> > >
> > > People hate America not because we're parochial but because we have, and
> > > use, the power we have to affect *them*. If we just minded our own
> internal
> > > business our parochialism wouldn't matter.
> > >
> >
> > Seems like you're proposing isolationism.
>
> Not at all: I'm just proposing that we *either* act responsibly *or* keep
> our actions within our borders. I (and my guess is most of the rest of the
> world) would prefer the former, but even the latter would likely be more
> acceptable to the world than what we're doing now.
A significant point of contention: I think we *are* acting responsibly.
The latter choice still sounds like isolationism to me.
>
> I suppose we should have left
> > the Yugoslavian mess all to the Europeans. They seemed to be doing such
> > a good job stopping that holocaust.
>
> We acted responsibly there, IMO - so no problem arose.
>
> > I wonder what would happen if we really *did* mind our own business?
> > Let's see... Iraq would take over the mid east and blackmail Europe. The
> > Chinese would rule Asia. The North Koreans would take over South Korea.
> > The Indians and Pakistani's would have a small nuclear war and France
> > would once again dominate world diplomacy.
>
> Possibly some or even all of those things would happen, which is why I
> believe that most of the rest of the world would prefer that we be a
> responsible and even leading world citizen rather than retreat to within our
> shores.
That's what we are doing. But you are not far sighted enough to see
that.
> We could even threaten the other countries of the world with such
> dire visions and say "It's either that, or let us have our own way!" - but
> the point is that *such a decision (whether we're worth accommodating)
> should be theirs to make*, and that we should not feel free to make it for
> them (by taking any action our power allows us to when they oppose us and
> rationalizing our right to by the possible good that our continuing
> engagement with the world may also produce).
I'm not sure if you mean "theirs" and "them" as France, Iraq or what,
but you will never convince me that in this case, and this case only,
(Iraq) that our actions to date are not responsible.
>
> > Ok. You've convinced me.
>
> You're starting to strike me as someone whose mind is already made up.
>
Not you though. You sound very open to your own views.