To All MW'ers discussing the WAR
Davida Chazan - The Chocolate Lady
It won't even touch you.
So, SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY!
(It won't be *you* shitting in *your* pants as you try to put *your*
gas mask on, while trying to calm *your* kids, when the air raid
sirens go off.)
--
The Chocolate Lady (Davida Chazan)
<davida @ jdc . org . il>
~*~*~*~*~*~
"All that is best in the great poets of all countries is not
what is national in them, but what is universal."
- Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Kavanagh (ch. XX)
~*~*~*~*~*~
Links to my published poetry - http://davidachazan.homestead.com/
~*~*~*~*~*~
Erik Naggum
| What the FUCK do you all care?
|
| It won't even touch you.
|
| So, SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY!
|
| (It won't be *you* shitting in *your* pants as you try to put *your*
| gas mask on, while trying to calm *your* kids, when the air raid
| sirens go off.)
I nominate that article as the most egoistic to misc.writing yet.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Ejucaided Redneck
>
> What the FUCK do you all care?
>
> It won't even touch you.
>
> So, SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY!
>
> (It won't be *you* shitting in *your* pants as you try to put *your*
> gas mask on, while trying to calm *your* kids, when the air raid
> sirens go off.)
I printed this off for my wife to carry to the construction site where
she's working, because it does cut to the heart of what this is _really_
about.
But what "discussion?" The "war threads," when I've looked at them,
have been entirely lacking in anything like that. It's just the
proverbial sound and fury, a meaningless exchange of mostly silliness.
I wish it were different.
I wish the "turn Iraq" into a parking lot crowd would consider the sort
of thing you describe above. Perhaps that would temper their unseemly
jingoistic glee.
One of the most lasting images for me, from Shrub Pere's crusade to make
the Middle East safe for despotic monarchs was carried live by CNN while
scuds fell on Israel. An attractive young mother whose husband was off
with the IDF struggled to put gas masks on two small jittery children
and at the same time fit what looked like a large plastic bag over a
screaming infant. That she could do this without screaming suggested,
to me, the sort of courage for which medals get issued in the wunnerful
world of uniforms.
War --no matter what the cause-- is a wretched thing. We don't get
that, perhaps because apart from some skirmishes along the Mexican
border ninety or so years ago, it's almost a century and a half since
Americans faced the stark horror of civilians caught in whatever
crossfire the generals set up. (And WTC is hardly the same thing. That
wasn't war, it was a criminal act, to which the word "war" ought not to
have ever been attached.)
For most of us Johnsonian-Nixonian adventurism was no more than pictures
on a tee vee set, and even those are ancient history. The War to Save
the Sheiks was too easy, too quick for anything like a real sense of
what happened to make an impression, too sanitized for us to realize the
farcical "victory parades" were preceded by the burial alive of
thousands of Iraqi conscripts by American tank driving teenagers led by
officers too young to be seriously considered for a home loan in their
home towns.
Some of us will be --or are-- touched by this thing already. I am
grateful me and mine are either old enough or married enough or veteran
enough I don't have to worry about common blood being squandered in this
madness. But there's a young man I keep thinking about, a quite, lanky,
sensitive kid of about 21, the son of a good friend.
Blake joined the Kentucky National Guard a couple years ago because KNG
members don't pay tuition at state schools, and he wanted to enroll at
the local yoo. The Guard turned him into a medic, and currently he's en
route "someplace," most likely Kuwait where his MP unit expects to guard
POWs.
That's the extent of my personal involvement in this thing, a fear and
concern the entirely nice kid who raised his hand for the Governor two
years ago is going to come home "different." He's gonna see some things
no kid ought to have to look at, and that vision changes young men.
Personally, I despise the current American government, am ashamed of
what's being done in the name of the American people to keep _our_ world
safe for SUVs. Nixon's assault on civil liberties, Johnson's head-long
rush into a land war even an old warhorse like Douglas MacArthur
counseled against decades before it happened were frightening, but not
even Nixon had the nerve for what's occurring in this country today,
while our citizens watch Ally McBeal or whatever's hot on the tube this
year and get "tired" of discussing politics, and don't care how narrow
the viewpoints are which come to them between sitcoms and "reality"
programs.
But even more than the government, more than the smirking smugness of
Rumsfeld, the incoherent mumblings of Shrub, the unprincipled Powell who
reminds me so much of McNamara, I hate how we simply do not face the
realities of what's about to happen.
Well hell, I'm ranting myself here, and all I really wanted to say was I
do hope you and yours stay safe, that somehow this nightmare will be
foreshortened, that you get to bar mitzvah your son without wearing gas
masks, that the firestorm around which the people running our government
dance with lighted matches never quite gets lit off.
But I don't think that's going to happen.
--
Dost thou love life? Then do not
squander time, for that's the stuff
life is made of.
--Ben Franklin
--
Fiction, poetry, essays
New: MP3 of the week
http://bobsloan.home.mindspring.com/
John Kulczycki
Davida Chazan - The Chocolate Lady wrote:
Please be clear on one thing. The last think on earth that I want to
happen is for the United States to invade Iraq.
I would like the UN to disarm Iraq.
Terje Johansen
"Erik Naggum" <en...@ifi.uio.no> wrote in message
news:32538638...@ifi.uio.no...
> * Davida Chazan
> | What the FUCK do you all care?
> |
> | It won't even touch you.
> |
> | So, SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY!
> |
> | (It won't be *you* shitting in *your* pants as you try to put *your*
> | gas mask on, while trying to calm *your* kids, when the air raid
> | sirens go off.)
>
> I nominate that article as the most egoistic to misc.writing yet.
Uh, taken into consideration that Davida is in Israel and WILL be putting on
gas masks on herself and her family Real Soon Now, egoism is not a word that
comes easily into my mind.
Take care, Davida.
- Terje
Davida Chazan - The Chocolate Lady
<briarh...@yall.com> wrote:
>Davida Chazan - The Chocolate Lady wrote:
>>
>> What the FUCK do you all care?
>>
>> It won't even touch you.
>>
>> So, SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY!
>>
>> (It won't be *you* shitting in *your* pants as you try to put *your*
>> gas mask on, while trying to calm *your* kids, when the air raid
>> sirens go off.)
>
>I printed this off for my wife to carry to the construction site where
>she's working, because it does cut to the heart of what this is _really_
>about.
Thanks. That's some tribute. I appreciate it.
>But what "discussion?" The "war threads," when I've looked at them,
>have been entirely lacking in anything like that. It's just the
>proverbial sound and fury, a meaningless exchange of mostly silliness.
>
>One of the most lasting images for me, from Shrub Pere's crusade to make
>the Middle East safe for despotic monarchs was carried live by CNN while
>scuds fell on Israel. An attractive young mother whose husband was off
>with the IDF struggled to put gas masks on two small jittery children
>and at the same time fit what looked like a large plastic bag over a
>screaming infant. That she could do this without screaming suggested,
>to me, the sort of courage for which medals get issued in the wunnerful
>world of uniforms.
It really is the first siren that scares you. You keep your composure
just long enough to get the damn things on everyone and then - wham!
I think I've mentioned it before that it was a good thing that my
oldest son had already been toilet trained by that time, and we still
had the portable potty to put in the "safe room". I did actually need
to use it after we were all masked (and the masks did more good by
keeping the... er... scent away from us until the all clear when I
could wash the damn thing out).
<snip - sorry>
>Some of us will be --or are-- touched by this thing already. I am
>grateful me and mine are either old enough or married enough or veteran
>enough I don't have to worry about common blood being squandered in this
>madness. But there's a young man I keep thinking about, a quite, lanky,
>sensitive kid of about 21, the son of a good friend.
>
>That's the extent of my personal involvement in this thing, a fear and
>concern the entirely nice kid who raised his hand for the Governor two
>years ago is going to come home "different." He's gonna see some things
>no kid ought to have to look at, and that vision changes young men.
Boy, do I know that feeling.
<More snip, but I've printed it all out>
>Well hell, I'm ranting myself here, and all I really wanted to say was I
>do hope you and yours stay safe, that somehow this nightmare will be
>foreshortened, that you get to bar mitzvah your son without wearing gas
>masks, that the firestorm around which the people running our government
>dance with lighted matches never quite gets lit off.
I've had the Bar Mitzvah already, actually. Thanks. What brought on
my brief rant was something else altogether, and has nothing to do
with my own safety, actually.
Right now my office is trying to get a very disabled (and brilliant)
young woman from Romania to Israel with for some much overdue
treatment and rehabilitation here. Her grandmother is supposed to
accompany her so that after the hospitalization when the out-patient
visits begin, the girl can have someone to help her get to and from
her appointments. The hotel that is on the site of the hospital has
been declared a "Wartime Emergency Housing Facility". So, if Israel
is attacked because of this stupidity, her grandmother will have
nowhere to stay and the nearest other facility has no elevators and
because of renovations, would be a two flight walk up to the room.
While her grandmother could do this, after the hospitalization is
over, I can't imagine what will happen. Even a strong, young man
would have a hard time climbing two flights of stairs with a girl in a
wheelchair! The next nearest hotel is several miles away and triple
the price (not even considering the taxis or special ambulances that
they'd need for the transportation to and from the hospital).
So I'm frustrated and infuriated.
(But I'll not apologize. I meant every word and I still do.)
Joshua P. Hill
<briarh...@yall.com> wrote:
> (And WTC is hardly the same thing. That
>wasn't war, it was a criminal act, to which the word "war" ought not to
>have ever been attached.)
3000 dead, 100,000 jobs lost, $100 billion damage to the local
economy, with a real threat of more to come -- who the hell cares
where it sits in the dictionary?
Josh
John Kulczycki
"Joshua P. Hill" wrote:
Has this now been sufficiently documented that you can post the definitive
and immidiate source of the threat?
Davida Chazan - The Chocolate Lady
Thanks, Terje. See my other post to this thread for the real reason
for my flash-rant.
(But yes, I really *don't* feel like going through _that_ particular
scenario again.)
Chris McLaughlin
> | What the FUCK do you all care?
> |
> | It won't even touch you.
> |
> | So, SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY!
> |
> | (It won't be *you* shitting in *your* pants as you try to put *your*
> | gas mask on, while trying to calm *your* kids, when the air raid
> | sirens go off.)
>
> I nominate that article as the most egoistic to misc.writing yet.
Yes. All those people who are are in war-torn areas should just shut
up and get on with the dying, because after all, it's nothing
personal: it's about some
abstract, higher good. They are just casualties, not people. . .
Damn right it's egocentric. Damn right it should be. You suppose
Rumsfield is planning on providing any cannon fodder from his own gene
pool? No. It's easy to think in terms of numbers and strategies and
moving lines around on pieces of paper. But it's not a fucking
football game.
War is about two things: who dies and who gets the money, land, or
other goods. Since you dismiss the who dies part, shall we talk about
who gets the money part? Or is that unseemly, too? Talking about OTHER
people's money, that is, because it sure isn't you and me who are
going to benefit financially here.
Chris
John Kulczycki
Chris McLaughlin wrote:
Right on!
Shrub on a horse leading the US army ashore. I'd love to see that.
Powell beating the drum and Rumsfield carrying the flag.
Chris McLaughlin
> What the FUCK do you all care?
>
> It won't even touch you.
>
> So, SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY!
>
> (It won't be *you* shitting in *your* pants as you try to put *your*
> gas mask on, while trying to calm *your* kids, when the air raid
> sirens go off.)
Dear Davida,
Of course you are right.
But the reason we talk about it is that we *fear* it will touch us,
and it is beginning to touch us in ways we can see but don't talk
about because we don't want to admit it ever might touch us hard
enough to hurt.
Somewhere deep in our minds we have images of what war means, the
shitting in the pants and running for cover and seeing a bus full of
children, your own children, blowing up, a body we love bloated and
floating down the river with a score of others like pale soft logs.
But we put that aside, and we comfort ourselves with debate about
strategies and philosophies, speculations slanted to enforce whatever
viewpoint we hold.
We hope it will never be us. That's behind most of the support for
preemptory war. All we can think about is let it not be us.
But don't think it doesn't touch us. The fear has transformed our
society in ways we don't understand. It's punched a hole in the
economy, and the hole is getting bigger and bigger. People are out of
work, lots of them. More every day. We're gutting our education
systems to find money for the war effort. Instead of shoring up the
whole public health system, we're pouring money into emergency
disaster plans. Democracy and freedom are too uncertain so we're
jettisoning those, too.
We're not shitting our pants yet. But maybe we should be.
Take care, dear.
Chris
PJ
: | What the FUCK do you all care?
: |
: | It won't even touch you.
: |
: | So, SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY!
: |
: | (It won't be *you* shitting in *your* pants as you try to put
: *your* gas mask on, while trying to calm *your* kids, when the
: air raid sirens go off.)
:
: I nominate that article as the most egoistic to misc.writing yet.
And perhaps this post from you is the most myopic.
Many Americans--including a handful on this newsgroup--do have a grand
old time discussing the merits of war. "He's a bastard, let's get
'im!!" seems to be the motto of the fucking millennium, along with
"And once we've got 'im, we'll go after the next bastard too, and the
one after that, and the one after that!"
Jesus. Open your eyes. Perhaps more than anyone else here, Davida
knows first-hand what is likely to happen in the very near future,
where she lives and all over the Middle East. She's anything but
egocentric. Realistic would perhaps be a better word.
PJ
--
fundoc
"Ejucaided Redneck" <briarh...@yall.com> wrote in message
news:3E4786FE...@yall.com...
> Davida Chazan - The Chocolate Lady wrote:
> >
> > What the FUCK do you all care?
> >
> > It won't even touch you.
> >
> > So, SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY!
> >
> > (It won't be *you* shitting in *your* pants as you try to put *your*
> > gas mask on, while trying to calm *your* kids, when the air raid
> > sirens go off.)
>
> I printed this off for my wife to carry to the construction site where
> she's working, because it does cut to the heart of what this is _really_
> about.
>
> But what "discussion?" The "war threads," when I've looked at them,
> have been entirely lacking in anything like that. It's just the
> proverbial sound and fury, a meaningless exchange of mostly silliness.
>
> I wish it were different.
Clearly: you prefer mostly sanctimony.
Ejucaided Redneck
I do, because the things running this government are using a criminal
act as an excuse to turn their greedy senseless vision into a nightmare
for the rest of the world.
If Shrub wants a war the Constitution mandates he go to the Congress and
ask for a declaration.
--
And the seasons, they go round and round,
And the painted ponies go up and down.
We're captive on the carousel of time.
We can't return, we can only look
Behind from where we came,
And go round and round and round in the circle game.
-- Joni Mitchell ("The Circle Game")
fundoc
"John Kulczycki" <john.ku...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3E479EE0...@sympatico.ca...
> The last think on earth that I want
Paging Jacques Derrida
John Kulczycki
Joshua P. Hill
<briarh...@yall.com> wrote:
>Joshua P. Hill wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 06:03:26 -0500, Ejucaided Redneck
>> <briarh...@yall.com> wrote:
>>
>> > (And WTC is hardly the same thing. That
>> >wasn't war, it was a criminal act, to which the word "war" ought not to
>> >have ever been attached.)
>>
>> 3000 dead, 100,000 jobs lost, $100 billion damage to the local
>> economy, with a real threat of more to come -- who the hell cares
>> where it sits in the dictionary?
>
>I do, because the things running this government are using a criminal
>act as an excuse to turn their greedy senseless vision into a nightmare
>for the rest of the world.
I think there's some truth in that, but then, I think we're stuck with
that: people are going to react to what threatens them most.
>If Shrub wants a war the Constitution mandates he go to the Congress and
>ask for a declaration.
He already did -- got pretty much got a blank slate, too.
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
Al Qaeda and allied organizations have made these threats repeatedly
both in public and in conversations picked up by intelligence
services. Any number of plots have been stopped, some of them with the
potential for mass casualties -- the cyanide plot in Rome, the traces
of Ricin and the chemical warfare suits in London -- if indeed that
one has been stopped, since they haven't been able to find the Ricin
itself.
Josh
Ejucaided Redneck
>
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 09:53:20 -0500, Ejucaided Redneck
> <briarh...@yall.com> wrote:
>
> >Joshua P. Hill wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 06:03:26 -0500, Ejucaided Redneck
> >> <briarh...@yall.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > (And WTC is hardly the same thing. That
> >> >wasn't war, it was a criminal act, to which the word "war" ought not to
> >> >have ever been attached.)
> >>
> >> 3000 dead, 100,000 jobs lost, $100 billion damage to the local
> >> economy, with a real threat of more to come -- who the hell cares
> >> where it sits in the dictionary?
> >
> >I do, because the things running this government are using a criminal
> >act as an excuse to turn their greedy senseless vision into a nightmare
> >for the rest of the world.
>
> I think there's some truth in that, but then, I think we're stuck with
> that: people are going to react to what threatens them most.
There's a world of difference between unilaterally declaring a "war on
terrorism" --about as winnable as the "war on drugs" or the "war on
pverty"-- and pursuing criminals.
> >If Shrub wants a war the Constitution mandates he go to the Congress and
> >ask for a declaration.
>
> He already did -- got pretty much got a blank slate, too.
No
President in my lifetime, in the heady excitement of rattling sabers and
dispatching troop and carriers has ever had the courage to go to
Congress and ask for a declaration of war.
--
We lost Davey in the Korean War
Still don't know what for.
Doesn't matter any more.
--- John Prine ("Hello in There")
Joshua P. Hill
<briarh...@yall.com> wrote:
>Joshua P. Hill wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 09:53:20 -0500, Ejucaided Redneck
>> <briarh...@yall.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Joshua P. Hill wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 06:03:26 -0500, Ejucaided Redneck
>> >> <briarh...@yall.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > (And WTC is hardly the same thing. That
>> >> >wasn't war, it was a criminal act, to which the word "war" ought not to
>> >> >have ever been attached.)
>> >>
>> >> 3000 dead, 100,000 jobs lost, $100 billion damage to the local
>> >> economy, with a real threat of more to come -- who the hell cares
>> >> where it sits in the dictionary?
>> >
>> >I do, because the things running this government are using a criminal
>> >act as an excuse to turn their greedy senseless vision into a nightmare
>> >for the rest of the world.
>>
>> I think there's some truth in that, but then, I think we're stuck with
>> that: people are going to react to what threatens them most.
>
>There's a world of difference between unilaterally declaring a "war on
>terrorism" --about as winnable as the "war on drugs" or the "war on
>pverty"-- and pursuing criminals.
It wasn't so unilateral: Bin Laden declared "war" on us. And anyway, I
don't think the declaration mattered: we knew we were at war with
/someone/ the moment those buildings blew up, the question was only
(and to some extent still is) with whom.
>> >If Shrub wants a war the Constitution mandates he go to the Congress and
>> >ask for a declaration.
>>
>> He already did -- got pretty much got a blank slate, too.
>
>No
>President in my lifetime, in the heady excitement of rattling sabers and
>dispatching troop and carriers has ever had the courage to go to
>Congress and ask for a declaration of war.
That's true, and it's equally obvious that the intent of the framers
has to some extent been subverted. Unfortunately, having written the
thing 200 years ago in a time of mostly formal, declared conflicts,
they didn't do a very good job of dealing with conflicts that weren't
necessarily full-fledged wars, or that required an immediate response.
Still, at least they've gone to Congress before each major conflict
for enabling legislation, albeit Johnson came equipped with lies.
Josh
Kurt Ullman
josh...@snet.net.REMOVE.THIS wrote:
>That's true, and it's equally obvious that the intent of the framers
>has to some extent been subverted. Unfortunately, having written the
>thing 200 years ago in a time of mostly formal, declared conflicts,
>they didn't do a very good job of dealing with conflicts that weren't
>necessarily full-fledged wars, or that required an immediate response.
>Still, at least they've gone to Congress before each major conflict
>for enabling legislation, albeit Johnson came equipped with lies.
>
Maybe not. Para 18 of the Powers of Congress section specifically
states that the Congress has the power to "make all laws which shall be
necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers..."
Including the right to declare wars. The War Powers Act (which is basically
what the Pres asked for and got permission to do what he is doing) certainly
could be construed to fall under that rubric.
-----------------------------------
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the bastards."-- Claire Wolfe
Jacqui
> the traces of Ricin and the chemical warfare suits in
> London -- if indeed that one has been stopped, since they haven't
> been able to find the Ricin itself.
A quantity of ricin was found in North London in mid-January, and
overall a dozen or so arrests have been made which relate to that
particular stash. Whether there's more... who can say?
Jac
Rick and Sue Deschene
If that were the real reason this war is to be waged, I would understand
your point. But it's not. Oil and a strategic military position in the
Middle East are the primary motivations. Terrorism is just an excuse.
As ER noted, that's insufficient reason to put Davida, her family and
countless others through this kind of terror.
Sue
Kurt Ullman
<rdeschene@nospam_ripnet.com> wrote:
>
>If that were the real reason this war is to be waged, I would understand
>your point. But it's not. Oil and a strategic military position in the
>Middle East are the primary motivations. Terrorism is just an excuse.
Oil is beside the point, except in our worries about SH doing something
nasty to other's oil (which he did in Kuwait). The Iraqi oil concessions are
owned/run by French concerns (which puts a little different spin on this,
huh?) If it was about oil all we would need to do is say Yep he dood it, lets
pull off the sanctions and get pumping.
Zero
kurtu...@yahoo.com (Kurt Ullman) wrote:
>Oil is beside the point, except in our worries about SH doing
>something nasty to other's oil (which he did in Kuwait). The
>Iraqi oil concessions are owned/run by French concerns (which
>puts a little different spin on this, huh?) If it was about
>oil all we would need to do is say Yep he dood it, lets pull
>off the sanctions and get pumping.
are you really this naiive? yikes.
whether or not is specifically about the commodity of "oil" is
completely irrelevent. saying it's about "oil" is just symbolic.
it's about money. nothing else. duh. wake up.
it's not about compassion for the poor oppressed Iraqi people,
or anything else even remotely noble.
during his presidential election "bid", Bush campaigned that
he was going to dramatically increase war spending, and he did.
that's no coincidence.
duh. it's about money. money money money.
it's NOT about righteousness, nor God, nor even defending America.
it's about making a few dishonorable fucks wealthier than they
even remotely deserve to be, because they have absolutely nothing
of value to offer in exchange for their padded invoices.
and before you claim it, Death and Destruction is not valuable.
rather, it is the least valuable commodity on earth. particularly
because it's such a natural catalyst for itself.
<glad i could clear that up for you... disregrad as usual>
"blessed are the war-mongers..."
-- Jesus Christ?
[um... nope.]
"blessed are the peacemakers..."
-- Jesus Christ et al
[articulating the greatest, most
important commandment of all]
"Love God!
(and your neighbors...)"
-- Jesus
Matthew 22:35-40
Luke 10:25-28
Mark 12:29-31
Deuteronomy 6:5-9
Exodus 20:1-7
I'll pay you cash money to write about
BEING ASTOUNDED THAT WAR IS POSSIBLE BETWEEN ANY TWO NATIONS
THAT HAVE TRAFFIC LIGHTS. IF THEIR POPULATIONS ARE SMART
ENOUGH TO PASS A ROAD TEST, HOW CAN THEY BE DUMB ENOUGH TO
LISTEN TO INSANE LEADERS WHO ARE ORDERING THEM TO GO SPEEDING
INTO CROWDED INTERSECTIONS?
...
Kirk: "must... promote... sales..."
as of: 9 Feb 2003 at 03:17, there have been no more than 24 "visits."
MAKE INTERNET HISTORY!
Be the 25th visitor EVER to click on this strangely lonely site:
http://users.aol.com/shakubukutime/0/shirts/
Barbara Lake
> | What the FUCK do you all care?
> |
> | It won't even touch you.
> |
> | So, SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY!
> |
> | (It won't be *you* shitting in *your* pants as you try to put *your*
> | gas mask on, while trying to calm *your* kids, when the air raid
> | sirens go off.)
>
> I nominate that article as the most egoistic to misc.writing yet.
>
> --
> Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
No. It is the outlook of a mother living in Israel who has gone through
this before and, with Shrub's insistence on starting another war, fears more
of the same. It is an article by a mother terrified for her children. How,
in your imagination does this twist into egoism?
Barbara
fundoc
"Barbara Lake" <bgl...@accessbee.com> wrote in message
news:b28rs1$1a82la$1...@ID-84921.news.dfncis.de...
> No. It is the outlook of a mother living in Israel who has gone through
> this before and, with Shrub's insistence on starting another war, fears more
> of the same.
Yeah, because absent US foreign policy bombs never explode in Israel.
Admittedly, there's a high rate of spontaneous combustion among Palestinean
commuters, but what do you expect: it's the fucking desert (innit).
fundoc
No, the other one, fuckskull.
John Kulczycki
fundoc wrote:
> "John Kulczycki" <john.ku...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3E47C2E6...@sympatico.ca...
> >
> >
> > fundoc wrote:
> >
> > > "John Kulczycki" <john.ku...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > > news:3E479EE0...@sympatico.ca...
> > >
> > > > The last think on earth that I want
> > >
> > > Paging Jacques Derrida
> >
> > You mean this guy?
> > http://sun3.lib.uci.edu/indiv/scctr/Wellek/jacques.html
>
> No, the other one, fuckskull.
Hey, it was an honest question because I have no idea of what you are
writing about.
Something like "no I mean this fellow" and then providing a link would
have been at least civilized.
Oh well.
fundoc
Er, sorry. Civilized isn't my strong suit. I was in fact referrng to that
Derrida, the (more or less) father of deconstructionism. Derrida was an absolute
loon, his thesis being that what writer's write on paper is less important than
what they don't. Obviously, if Derrida is correct, his theory is less important
than his non-theory, which isn't on paper.
Your "the last think ...I want" (as opposed to thing I want) struck me as
something of a Freudian slip, as your postings on US foreign policy and the
legal rules of evidence demonstrate what an absolute fucking ignoramous you are.
So I made a little joke.
HTH
John Kulczycki
fundoc wrote:
Actually then, it is the same guy.
Bryna
>
> No
> President in my lifetime, in the heady excitement of rattling sabers and
> dispatching troop and carriers has ever had the courage to go to
> Congress and ask for a declaration of war.
>
What about Roosevelt, or maybe that was before your time. It was
strange growing up with Roosevelt as always President. I even got to
vote for him once.
>
Bryna
Joshua P. Hill
Is that so? I keep reading they just found traces, but I haven't
followed the story all that closely so could well have missed
something. For the sake of somebody or other, I sure hope they found
it all.
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
<rdeschene@nospam_ripnet.com> wrote:
>Joshua P. Hill wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 06:03:26 -0500, Ejucaided Redneck
>> <briarh...@yall.com> wrote:
>>
>> 3000 dead, 100,000 jobs lost, $100 billion damage to the local
>> economy, with a real threat of more to come -- who the hell cares
>> where it sits in the dictionary?
>
>If that were the real reason this war is to be waged, I would understand
>your point. But it's not. Oil and a strategic military position in the
>Middle East are the primary motivations. Terrorism is just an excuse.
In all the time I've heard people making that accusation, I've seen no
one provide any /evidence/ for it. Even worse, it makes no sense
whatsoever: it would be absolutely senseless to spend $150 billion to
take over a country so the US could buy the same oil it could buy now
by pressing the UN to lift the embargo on Iraq.
Conversely, one doesn't have to look very hard for evidence of
September 11th.
Josh
Scott OQ Elyard
[...]
> If that were the real reason this war is to be waged, I would understand
> your point. But it's not. Oil and a strategic military position in the
> Middle East are the primary motivations. Terrorism is just an excuse.
This, apparently, is false. SH's many years poor management have made
oil pretty much a moot concern. There's no infrastructure, for one,
that would make a war about oil worth fighting. I've seen estimates
for getting it up to 6 million barrels/day in the $40 billion USD and
at least a decade, if not longer.
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1550934
http://www.economist.com/countries/Iraq/
> As ER noted, that's insufficient reason to put Davida, her family and
> countless others through this kind of terror.
I'd agree, if that were the reason.
----
Scott Elyard
www.archosaur.org
Rick and Sue Deschene
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:40:08 -0500, Rick and Sue Deschene
> <rdeschene@nospam_ripnet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Joshua P. Hill wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 06:03:26 -0500, Ejucaided Redneck
>>><briarh...@yall.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>3000 dead, 100,000 jobs lost, $100 billion damage to the local
>>>economy, with a real threat of more to come -- who the hell cares
>>>where it sits in the dictionary?
>>
>>If that were the real reason this war is to be waged, I would understand
>>your point. But it's not. Oil and a strategic military position in the
>>Middle East are the primary motivations. Terrorism is just an excuse.
>
>
> In all the time I've heard people making that accusation, I've seen no
> one provide any /evidence/ for it.
<snip>
By the same token, I still haven't heard an overwhelmingly persuasive
case made--with irrefutable evidence--to justify attacking Iraq. So it's
easy to see why people search for alternative rationales.
For some reason, the focus seems to be only on the "oil" portion. Notice
that I mentioned "strategic military position," as well. The combination
of the two, not just one or the other, forms the basis for some of the
more pursuasive arguments I've heard and read.
Sue
Scott OQ Elyard
[...]
> (But I'll not apologize. I meant every word and I still do.)
Nor should you.
----
Scott Elyard
But I also meant every word and still do. And I won't apologize either.
www.archosaur.org
Robert McClelland
Scott OQ Elyard <stonebu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:26c62f36.03021...@posting.google.com...
> Rick and Sue Deschene <rdeschene@nospam_ripnet.com> wrote in message
news:<vX2dnencQ73...@b2b2c.ca>...
>
> [...]
> > If that were the real reason this war is to be waged, I would understand
> > your point. But it's not. Oil and a strategic military position in the
> > Middle East are the primary motivations. Terrorism is just an excuse.
>
>
> This, apparently, is false. SH's many years poor management have made
> oil pretty much a moot concern. There's no infrastructure, for one,
> that would make a war about oil worth fighting. I've seen estimates
> for getting it up to 6 million barrels/day in the $40 billion USD and
> at least a decade, if not longer.
>
Iraq output averages about 2.5 million barrels per day. They have production
capacity to produce up to 3.5 million barrels per day. Only the US and Saudi
Arabia can outproduce Iraq. Their infrastructure is just fine.
As for what would make a war for oil worth fighting, consider that Iraq has
11% of the world's proven oil reserves--second only to Saudi Arabia--while
the US has only 2% of the world's proven oil reserves.
Joshua P. Hill
<rdeschene@nospam_ripnet.com> wrote:
But the very nature of the threat is such that /irrefutable/ evidence
is unlikely. That's the problem: this isn't the old, comfortable world
of two years ago, when an attack could be deterred with a retaliatory
response. And a lot of people don't yet realize that.
Josh
Hugh Watkins
"Davida Chazan - The Chocolate Lady" <7zcm...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message news:l4pe4vo6rv9hef3he...@4ax.com...
> What the FUCK do you all care?
>
> It won't even touch you.
>
> So, SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY!
>
> (It won't be *you* shitting in *your* pants as you try to put *your*
> gas mask on, while trying to calm *your* kids, when the air raid
> sirens go off.)
don't panic
above all keep cool
and survive
I survived WWII
my father, an uncle and an aunty did not
I had a gasmask and was most upset I had the grown up sort - black, not the red mickey mouse one with ears
I heard the blitz on Coventry and Birmingham
and stepped over the firehoses damping down bombed out buildings in New Street in the centre of Brum on the way to my first trip to
the zoo.
The sound of air raid sirens still gives me goose pimples 60 years on
The nearest miss was about 600 yards away and when I woke up I heard the the falling debris but not the bang.
My mother hoarded tin cans of food, just in case.
you are not alone
the people of europe are against the war - it is only the politicians who kiss Bush's arse - we Euros have experienced war
personally for many generations in a way USAians can hardly deam of . . the NATO split is about the defence of Turkey
Sadam tried gassing the Kurds, the Israelites might be next
none of us will stand for that but we Euros would rather play a waiting game and give more time to the Weapons Inspectors.
Bush is in the shit over his tax and economic policy and like any Argentinian dictator trying to distract the peoples attention from
his big mistakes by creating a war at a safe distance and so getting a second term. Meanwhgile USA is heading for an increased
national debt . . double figure inflation even ???
400 of your own economicexperts are panic stricken.
Blair is going to have to go against Bush at some point if he is to survive politically. The the socalled "special relationship" wil
be the price of his ambitions
Interesting times
Hugh W
Joshua P. Hill
<hugh_w...@net.dialog.dk> wrote:
>Blair is going to have to go against Bush at some point if he is to survive politically. The the socalled "special relationship" wil
>be the price of his ambitions.
I think Blair will be fine once the war is past. I also think that the
attitude of the European on the street will change big time once the
first major Al Qaeda attacks get through. That's what happened here;
it's amazing how quickly people forget minor squabbles when something
big and toothy comes down the road.
Josh
Ray Haddad
and "Robert McClelland" <robert.m...@sympatico.ca> instead
replied:
>Iraq output averages about 2.5 million barrels per day. They have production
>capacity to produce up to 3.5 million barrels per day. Only the US and Saudi
>Arabia can outproduce Iraq. Their infrastructure is just fine.
>
>As for what would make a war for oil worth fighting, consider that Iraq has
>11% of the world's proven oil reserves--second only to Saudi Arabia--while
>the US has only 2% of the world's proven oil reserves.
So, Robert the McClelland, this "conjecture" on your part is supposed
to have merit while anyone else making "conjecture" about weapons is
to be dismissed?
Conjecture, by your own demands, cannot be heralded as evidence.
Go ahead and swear at me now. You're due for your usual ad hominem
attack when someone catches you in pure hypocrisy.
Ray
Robert McClelland
Ray Haddad <rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote in message
news:m0mg4v8lmdhqq7mkn...@4ax.com...
Who is conjecturing Ray? A country that holds 11% of the world's proven oil
reserves would be worth going to war over. If you note the question that you
conveniently snipped, that is what was asked. Of course, you are so blinded
that you seem to think I'm saying that is the reason the US is going to war,
which I'm not. Do try to keep up Ray.
Looney
"Davida Chazan - The Chocolate Lady" <7zcm...@sneakemail.com>
wrote in message
news:l4pe4vo6rv9hef3he...@4ax.com...
> What the FUCK do you all care?
>
> It won't even touch you.
>
> So, SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY!
>
> (It won't be *you* shitting in *your* pants as you try to put
*your*
> gas mask on, while trying to calm *your* kids, when the air
raid
> sirens go off.)
Davida, the plight of Israel is rough, but, you know, fuck you.
This is our country about to go to war. The effect of any event
is never spread proportionally to all involved. Life is like
that. If you don't like it, fuck off.
Damn, and I've been trying to stop cussing...
--
Looney
--------------------------------------------
"You tell lie after lie till you get to the truth."
- Connie Willis
Ray Haddad
and "Hugh Watkins" <hugh_w...@net.dialog.dk> instead replied:
>the people of europe are against the war - it is only the politicians who kiss Bush's arse - we Euros have experienced war
>personally for many generations in a way USAians can hardly deam of . . the NATO split is about the defence of Turkey
Hugh,
The people of the United States of America are against war. They want
Saddam to disarm in compliance with his agreement to do so. He is a
threat to his neighbors and to the world because of this adamant
refusal.
The United States of America has fought wars in a way you Euros can
hardly dream of. We went to the trenches in World War I in a foriegn
land and fought for the freedom of others as well as ourselves. We
went to the fields and oceans of World War II to fight for the
freedoms of others and ourselves. We went to Korea and Vietnam to
fight once more for the freedoms of others as well as ourselves. We
did it in the gulf region for the freedom of Kuwait and the safety of
other nations in the region. We stand ready to do it again even if you
and others persist in demonizing the United States of America.
The next time a crisis emerges, I hope that the world remembers how
many men and women from the United States of America have again
volunteered to fight on foreign soil for the freedom of others as well
as ourselves.
NATO has spit in the eye of the nation that will always be there for
those who ask for help and those who treasure freedom. We won't forget
it but I guarantee we will get past it if ever there is a plea for
help.
Ray
Ray Haddad
Robert,
I can hardly believe you didn't proof read this one reply you just
made. Stating that Iraq holds 11% of the world's oil and then stating
that is worth going to war over is making a conjectured assumption.
Don't you see the irony in your own posts?
If the United States of America wanted any of that oil, it doesn't
have to go to war for it. All that has to be done is for the United
States of America to convince the United Nations that the country of
Iraq should have sanctions lifted immediately.
After that, the United States of America could pump all the Iraqi oil
it could ever use into an endless stream of tankers bound for the
United States of America and Canada. Yes, you get a fair portion of
your oil from the United States of America.
I believe you think that oil is the reason for the threat of war. If
that were the case, we should just go for another country that has
more than Iraq and far less of a military threat.
Saddam is making his own trouble here, Robert. Comply, comply, comply
is all anyone is asking of him. Had he done that 12 years ago, there
would be no renewed threat of a resumption of those hostilities which
have been halted since 1991. You really ought to direct your energy
towards convincing Saddam to comply.
What? Can't do that? Well, then, maybe you should jump up and down and
call the United States of America names.
Ray
Looney
"PJ" <P...@wherever.com> wrote in message
news:N0P1a.63561$Ec4....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
> "Erik Naggum" <en...@ifi.uio.no> wrote
>
> : | What the FUCK do you all care?
> : |
> : | It won't even touch you.
> : |
> : | So, SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY!
> : |
> : | (It won't be *you* shitting in *your* pants as you try to
put
> : *your* gas mask on, while trying to calm *your* kids, when
the
> : air raid sirens go off.)
> : I nominate that article as the most egoistic to
misc.writing yet.
>
> And perhaps this post from you is the most myopic.
>
> Many Americans--including a handful on this newsgroup--do have
a grand
> old time discussing the merits of war. "He's a bastard, let's
get
> 'im!!" seems to be the motto of the fucking millennium, along
with
> "And once we've got 'im, we'll go after the next bastard too,
and the
> one after that, and the one after that!"
>
> Jesus. Open your eyes. Perhaps more than anyone else here,
Davida
> knows first-hand what is likely to happen in the very near
future,
> where she lives and all over the Middle East. She's anything
but
> egocentric. Realistic would perhaps be a better word.
Well and good, Peej, but that doesn't give her a right to stomp
into the room, throw a tantrum, and demand that everyone only
talk about the goody-goody items on her list. If we want to
talk about the war, we will.
I appreciate her predicament, and I cannot properly empathize
with it, because I have never been in any such situation, and I
hope I never will. Yet it is my country beating the war drums,
and if I, or any other person here (regardless of nationality,
for that matter) wish to discuss it ad infinitum, it is our
right to do so. It is her right to ignore it, to killfile it,
to shout her opinions from the rooftops.
It is not her right to demand we stop discussing it just because
it's in her backyard. It's a small world, sad to say.
Hugh Watkins
"Joshua P. Hill" <josh...@snet.net.REMOVE.THIS> wrote in message news:r8rg4vo1no88snekv...@4ax.com...
Josh
in Europe we have bombs and terrorists like you have traffic cops
part of everyday life with exagerated patriotism and local nationalism or ethnicity
we don't have waste bins on railway stations or in shopping malls in UK
because that is where the USA funded IRA used to drop their ticking nail bombs
The Palestinians who blew themselves up yesterday
did what the more hamfisted Irish nationalists have been doing for years
well Josh I do exagerate
but a suspicious parcel can stop the traffic anywhere in Europe
we live with that shit
first Third Reich bombs, then a 4 minute warning of Russian atom bombs, then the IRA -- or ETA if you are on holiday in Spain
the Kurds blowing up tourists in Turkey, I turned down a really good offer of a holiday staying with friend s in Cairo because of my
fear of fundementalists like those who shot up the tourists by the great Pyramid
Lately we have had nutters from UK nationalists bombing a gay bar or two in London
there is no end to human folly
Hugh W
Hugh Watkins
"Ray Haddad" <rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote in message news:233h4v0861b7aqjqf...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 03:05:54 -0000, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
> and "Hugh Watkins" <hugh_w...@net.dialog.dk> instead replied:
>
> >the people of europe are against the war - it is only the politicians who kiss Bush's arse - we Euros have experienced war
> >personally for many generations in a way USAians can hardly deam of . . the NATO split is about the defence of Turkey
>
> Hugh,
>
> The people of the United States of America are against war. They want
> Saddam to disarm in compliance with his agreement to do so. He is a
> threat to his neighbors and to the world because of this adamant
> refusal.
>
> The United States of America has fought wars in a way you Euros can
> hardly dream of. We went to the trenches in World War I in a foriegn
> land and fought for the freedom of others as well as ourselves.
My family lost three sons in those trenches
you are arrogant in your ignorance
what sacrifices have your family made for freedom ?
Horace Holmes Watkins died October 21, 1914
Vivian Holmes Watkins died February 20, 1915
Mervyn Holmes Watkins died September 18, 1918
four other brothers survived their army service
and others served from the english side of the family in WWI
snip
>
> NATO has spit in the eye of the nation that will always be there for
> those who ask for help and those who treasure freedom. We won't forget
> it but I guarantee we will get past it if ever there is a plea for
> help.
NATO is about preventing war
in ways you can hardly deam of
Hugh W
Robert McClelland
Hugh Watkins <hugh_w...@net.dialog.dk> wrote in message
news:b2a5b5$1ad7fb$1...@ID-71976.news.dfncis.de...
But Hugh. You are not American so it doesn't count. You have to understand,
that to many of the Americans like Josh, terrorism never occured anywhere
before 9/11 and then it only happened to America. Just look at Ray Haddad's
answer to you in this thread. He seems to think that only Americans have
ever gone to war in a foreign land to defend freedom and that Europeans
never have. You are dealing with self absorbed idiots.
Robert McClelland
No it isn't Ray. Iraq has proven reserves of 113 billion barrels of oil.
Taking a conservative price of $25/barrel that tranlates to 2.8 trillion
dollars worth of oil. That's a hell of a lot of money and countries have
gone to war for far less.
> If the United States of America wanted any of that oil, it doesn't
> have to go to war for it. All that has to be done is for the United
> States of America to convince the United Nations that the country of
> Iraq should have sanctions lifted immediately.
>
First of all, nobody but you brought the US into the discussion between you
and me. All I was saying is that the Iraqi oil reserves indeed is worth
fighting a war over.
As to your mis informed opinion above, even if the sanctions were lifted,
all the US could do at this point is buy the oil. They could not control the
oil.
<snip the rest of Ray's Pavlovian response>
Ray, not every discussion is confined to the same tired old subject. Now if
you have reason to believe that 2.8 trillion dollars is not worth fighting a
war over, then I'd like to hear it. Otherwise, if you are just going to spin
us around in the same tired old circles, then this will be the last exchange
between us in MW. Consider that a <plonk across the bow>.
Scott OQ Elyard
> By the same token, I still haven't heard an overwhelmingly persuasive
> case made--with irrefutable evidence--to justify attacking Iraq.
For some people, there's no doubt no such case will ever exist. I've
noticed that whenever people trot out the phrase "irrefutable
evidence" in certain contexts, they're really saying they're simply
not willing to be convinced--no matter what.
> So it's
> easy to see why people search for alternative rationales.
Sure, it's easy to see. I see politics and ego. Those are pretty
obvious.
> For some reason, the focus seems to be only on the "oil" portion. Notice
> that I mentioned "strategic military position," as well. The combination
> of the two, not just one or the other, forms the basis for some of the
> more pursuasive arguments I've heard and read.
Most of the demonstrators I've talked to in person similarly downplay
the oil angle, chiefly because I don't think anyone with any
intelligence actually believes it. As Josh already pointed out,
there's no evidence to support it.
Contrary to what anyone may have heard from certain less than unbiased
sources (like right wingers), most demonstrators are actually
reasonable, intelligent people.
Those few that do don't make any real effort to support it. They
simply trot out a few figures that really don't demonstrate it one way
or another, then flatly state that it must be about oil. This is like
suggesting that the US, which spends less time in the sun than many
other countries, should go to war for the precious sunlight these
other nations receive to feed the solar power needs of the US.
So, oil? No. I think that's a fiction.
If Iraq happens to be stragetically beneficial militarily, I think
that's rather beside the point--it's a weak and unconvincing reason to
wage war over, especially with a military as well-equipped as ours.
It also downplays the role the UN is supposed to hold in all this.
So what are we left with? Well, one scenario which hasn't yet seemed
to make the rounds is that Iraq is hiding something, and that Colin
Powell has already presented evidence that leads us to that
conclusion.
Since Iraq is bound by treaty to cough up and destroy all of their
unconventional weapons, there's no reason to not proceed. They've
refused admission of inspectors to sensitive areas, and obstructed the
very process they've agreed to. During all this, Saddam Hussein has
grown more defiant of the UN and that includes the US. He could have
ended it months ago. Hell, he could have ended it years ago, simply
by not being stupid/petty.
Now I have said elsewhere that I am open to alternate explanations,
but there must be evidence--I don't take opinions on the matter. The
oil angle might have been valid, but there's nothing to support it.
Right now, all the evidence that's been laid out in front of us
strongly supports the above situation.
It's not "irrefutable" by any means, but I think the alternative,
namely, a nuke-happy Saddam Hussein, is far less desirable (and there
is interview evidence that suggests he's been working on just that).
In that case, there would be no other diplomatic means of dealing with
him other than doing whatever he says.
The Clinton and GWBush administrations have both already screwed up
North Korea--Bush more than Clinton, I think. I think that's an
excellent mistake to not repeat.
----
Scott Elyard
www.archosaur.org
Davida Chazan - The Chocolate Lady
wrote:
>
>"Barbara Lake" <bgl...@accessbee.com> wrote in message
>news:b28rs1$1a82la$1...@ID-84921.news.dfncis.de...
>
>> No. It is the outlook of a mother living in Israel who has gone through
>> this before and, with Shrub's insistence on starting another war, fears more
>> of the same.
>
>Yeah, because absent US foreign policy bombs never explode in Israel.
>Admittedly, there's a high rate of spontaneous combustion among Palestinean
>commuters, but what do you expect: it's the fucking desert (innit).
I suggest, among other things, you learn some geography.
--
The Chocolate Lady (Davida Chazan)
<davida @ jdc . org . il>
~*~*~*~*~*~
"All that is best in the great poets of all countries is not
what is national in them, but what is universal."
- Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Kavanagh (ch. XX)
~*~*~*~*~*~
Links to my published poetry - http://davidachazan.homestead.com/
~*~*~*~*~*~
Davida Chazan - The Chocolate Lady
>
>"Davida Chazan - The Chocolate Lady" <7zcm...@sneakemail.com>
>wrote in message
>news:l4pe4vo6rv9hef3he...@4ax.com...
>> What the FUCK do you all care?
>>
>> It won't even touch you.
>>
>> So, SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY!
>>
>> (It won't be *you* shitting in *your* pants as you try to put
>*your*
>> gas mask on, while trying to calm *your* kids, when the air
>raid
>> sirens go off.)
>
>Davida, the plight of Israel is rough, but, you know, fuck you.
>This is our country about to go to war. The effect of any event
>is never spread proportionally to all involved. Life is like
>that. If you don't like it, fuck off.
Fine.
Fight it on YOUR continent, then.
>Damn, and I've been trying to stop cussing...
As if...
Alan Hope
>So I made a little joke.
[snip 800 lines explaining "little" joke]
--
AH
Alan Hope
>But the reason we talk about it is that [snip]
The reason we talk about it is because we have few other ways to go.
We're in Usenet, and people talk about things. Expecting anything else
from them here is just stupid.
Some people will be doing other things, I imagine. But actions are not
the concern of a text-based medium.
This is what you get when people start taking the coffee-lounge
analogy too literally. We're not buddies and people here. We're words
on a screen. I can't imagine why anyone would want to shut that up.
--
AH
Ray Haddad
>Ray, not every discussion is confined to the same tired old subject. Now if
>you have reason to believe that 2.8 trillion dollars is not worth fighting a
>war over, then I'd like to hear it. Otherwise, if you are just going to spin
>us around in the same tired old circles, then this will be the last exchange
>between us in MW. Consider that a <plonk across the bow>.
I truly wish you WOULD killfile me, Robert the McClelland.
I will dignify your request above for a minute or two and answer your
questions as best as I can. Unlike you, I feel that a question should
be answered if only to educate you (and me).
The United States of America can and will buy any oil it needs without
conquering a country for that oil. The proof? Look at Afghanistan or
Iraq. Yes, Iraq. Had the cease fire agreements not been signed in
1991, we would have continued on to Bagdhad and mopped up the rest of
the Hussein government. Then, just as in Afghanistan, control would
have been returned to the Iraqi people. If they chose to elect another
petty dictator, so be it. I suspect they would not allow another
Saddam to take office.
I know that this is also a promise being made to the United Nations by
the United States of America. Promises of protecting, not stealing,
the oil reserves of Iraq are being made and you surely must have read
about that. If Saddam refuses to follow the agreements he made to
disarm, he will suffer war on behalf of his country. Even you have
said that on many occasions.
Your question about whether or not oil is grounds for war is a good
one but it's not over money per se. It's over allowing the free flow
of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. If Iraq has grand plans at all,
it's to control that entry to the Persian Gulf. I personally believe
that was the real reason for the Iran/Iraq conflict that went on a few
decades ago.
I also believe that the reason Iraq took Kuwait in 1990 was to expand
its access to the Persian Gulf, not to gain additional oil fields.
Saddam wanted to be able to ship more oil and put military ships into
the Persian Gulf and control the flow of oil.
Have a look at the region and see what I mean.
http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/reference/gulfregion.html
http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/reference/middleeast.html
The United States of America actualizes oil into dollars far beyond
the value of crude. We buy the oil, refine it, use most of the by
products and add value in each and every step of the process. We even
add value to the use of it by car manufacturers making more and more
cars that use petroleum products. Plastics, fertilizers and lubricants
are all more profit to be made from crude oil. We don't want to steal
the people of Iraq's oil. We only want to buy oil from the oil
producing nations of the world and make a profit from it.
Each billion spent on crude oil drives the economy of the United
States by a factor of probably 6 to 1 (and maybe more) creating jobs
and products along the path to the consumer. Why do we want to
administer to a country that doesn't want us to take over? The Iraqi
people will eventually be very grateful for their oil being sold on
the open market again.
No one, particularly me, has ever stated that oil wasn't important. I
will state that it is NOT the reason for warring with Iraq. It never
was or we would never have offered the cease fire agreement to Saddam
back in 1991. We would have mopped up the mess and annexed the entire
country. That's evidence of a non imperialistic nation doing something
distasteful but necessary.
Ray
Ray Haddad
and "Hugh Watkins" <hugh_w...@net.dialog.dk> instead replied:
>"Ray Haddad" <rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote in message news:233h4v0861b7aqjqf...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 03:05:54 -0000, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
>> and "Hugh Watkins" <hugh_w...@net.dialog.dk> instead replied:
>>
>> >the people of europe are against the war - it is only the politicians who kiss Bush's arse - we Euros have experienced war
>> >personally for many generations in a way USAians can hardly deam of . . the NATO split is about the defence of Turkey
>>
>> Hugh,
>>
>> The people of the United States of America are against war. They want
>> Saddam to disarm in compliance with his agreement to do so. He is a
>> threat to his neighbors and to the world because of this adamant
>> refusal.
>>
>> The United States of America has fought wars in a way you Euros can
>> hardly dream of. We went to the trenches in World War I in a foriegn
>> land and fought for the freedom of others as well as ourselves.
>
>
>My family lost three sons in those trenches
>you are arrogant in your ignorance
Hugh,
Arrogance? Hardly. Truth is more like it. The military of the United
States of America travels to lands where they fight wars where some
die thousands of miles away on behalf of those who need our help and
you call that arrogance? I'd say that I was being humble.
>what sacrifices have your family made for freedom ?
I will tell you by e-mail, my friend. I harbor no ill will for your
challenge but don't desire to go head to head with you over this
issue.
>Horace Holmes Watkins died October 21, 1914
>Vivian Holmes Watkins died February 20, 1915
>Mervyn Holmes Watkins died September 18, 1918
>
>four other brothers survived their army service
They all have my deepest gratitude for a job well done.
>and others served from the english side of the family in WWI
Once more, I can't tell you how much their sacrifices mean to me as a
freedom loving human being.
>
>snip
>
>>
>> NATO has spit in the eye of the nation that will always be there for
>> those who ask for help and those who treasure freedom. We won't forget
>> it but I guarantee we will get past it if ever there is a plea for
>> help.
>
>
>NATO is about preventing war
>
>in ways you can hardly deam of
NATO was formed as an alliance of nations who have pledged to defend
each other. Preventing war is hardly a concern. Winning them is a
prime concern. When nations back out of the agreements made, they look
as if they are voting to disband.
Ray
Ray Haddad
and Davida Chazan - The Chocolate Lady <7zcm...@sneakemail.com>
instead replied:
>Fine.
>
>Fight it on YOUR continent, then.
Fine. Make Saddam comply with the cease fire yourself.
Ejucaided Redneck
> The United States of America has fought wars in a way you Euros can
> hardly dream of. We went to the trenches in World War I in a foriegn
> land and fought for the freedom of others as well as ourselves. We
> went to the fields and oceans of World War II to fight for the
> freedoms of others and ourselves. We went to Korea and Vietnam to
> fight once more for the freedoms of others as well as ourselves. We
> did it in the gulf region for the freedom of Kuwait and the safety of
> other nations in the region. We stand ready to do it again even if you
> and others persist in demonizing the United States of America.
You need to learn some history a bit broader than what you were fed in
high school.
--
I wasn't mad at nobody."
--Huey Long's explanation of
why he refused to participate
in WW I
--
Fiction, poetry, essays
New: MP3 of the week
http://bobsloan.home.mindspring.com/
Ray Haddad
and Ejucaided Redneck <briarh...@yall.com> instead replied:
>> The United States of America has fought wars in a way you Euros can
>> hardly dream of. We went to the trenches in World War I in a foriegn
>> land and fought for the freedom of others as well as ourselves. We
>> went to the fields and oceans of World War II to fight for the
>> freedoms of others and ourselves. We went to Korea and Vietnam to
>> fight once more for the freedoms of others as well as ourselves. We
>> did it in the gulf region for the freedom of Kuwait and the safety of
>> other nations in the region. We stand ready to do it again even if you
>> and others persist in demonizing the United States of America.
>
>You need to learn some history a bit broader than what you were fed in
>high school.
I lived a goodly portion of that and learned the rest from people who
were there.
Ejucaided Redneck
>
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 06:13:11 -0500, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
> and Ejucaided Redneck <briarh...@yall.com> instead replied:
>
> >> The United States of America has fought wars in a way you Euros can
> >> hardly dream of.
<snippage>
> >You need to learn some history a bit broader than what you were fed in
> >high school.
>
> I lived a goodly portion of that and learned the rest from people who
> were there.
I lived some of it myself, and was "there" because there was a time a
kid out of high school either went to college or, if he couldn't afford
that, raised his right hand for a recruiter or waited for SS to remember
his name.
My father has vivid memories of manning a five inch gun while the oiler
he was stationed in --full of aviation fuel-- was under frequent attack
by kamikazes at Okinawa. He was "there" at seventeen because the Navy
seemed a better deal than the inevitable Army would be in another year.
The uncle who was a Marine scout at Tarawa and Iwo Jima told me when
there was another war there were two people who wouldn't be in it: him
and the guy trying to put him back in a uniform. He was a draftee.
The typical "dough boy" was a draftee.
The typical Korean War dog-face was a draftee.
WW II's Joe and Willie were draftees.
That Americans have volunteered in sufficient numbers to support all
this freedom-fighting is only the most obvious of the historical
fallacies you buy into.
--
And the sons become the fathers,
And the daughers will be wives.
As the torch is passed from hand to hand,
As we struggle through our lives.
Though the generations wander,
The lineage survivies.
And all of us,
>From dust to dust,
We all become forefathers,
By and by.
--- Dan Fogelberg, "Forefathers"
Joshua P. Hill
<hugh_w...@net.dialog.dk> wrote:
But what some in Europe don't seem to get is that we've lived with
just as much terrorism over the years as they have. Hijackings, planes
destroyed, embassies blown up, the marine barracks in Beirut, the
Federal Building in Waco, the weather underground of the sixties, not
to mention the first World Trade Center bombing. And we shrugged it
all off, as you did.
September 11th was substantially different. And I don't think that's
something one can understand from the other side of the pond. That's
not intended as a criticism -- we were the same way ourselves before
the 11th. We knew /intellectually/ that terrorism on that scale was
possible, even likely -- the original World Trade Center bombers said
they had hoped to kill 250,000 people -- but emotionally, knowing that
something can happen and feeling its actual impact are very different
things.
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
<briarh...@yall.com> wrote:
>I wasn't mad at nobody."
> --Huey Long's explanation of
> why he refused to participate
> in WW I
Well, fuck that -- the Germans deserved to die for their hat design
alone, and I bet if he'd gone his would have been the shot that hit
Corporal Hitler.
Josh
fundoc
"Alan Hope" <ah...@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:q6bh4vsmtan0029ba...@4ax.com...
> fundoc goes:
>
> >So I made a little joke.
>
> [snip 800 lines explaining "little" joke]
Gasbag. Kettle. Black.
[And it was 8 lines, and only because he asked]
John Kulczycki
Canada will start parachuting beaver into the USA as a form of biological
warfare next week.
Rick and Sue Deschene
> The United States of America has fought wars in a way you Euros can
> hardly dream of. We went to the trenches in World War I in a foriegn
> land and fought for the freedom of others as well as ourselves.
<snip>
Um . . . surely you know that U.S. troops weren't the only ones fighting
in those trenches, and that we weren't even the first ones there. And we
weren't the only ones traveling thousands of miles to do so. And we
weren't the only ones fighting for the freedom of others.
To insist that Europeans know nothing of any of this is . . . well,
mind-boggling.
Sue
PJ
: parachuting beaver
Lord, the mental picture I just got.
Lord.
PJ
--
Scott OQ Elyard
>
> >So I made a little joke.
>
> [snip 800 lines explaining "little" joke]
Gah! Fix the margins in your newsreader. It's not supposed to look like poetry.
----
Scott Elyard
www.archosaur.org
Erik Naggum
| Yes. All those people who are are in war-torn areas should just shut
| up and get on with the dying, because after all, it's nothing
| personal: it's about some
| abstract, higher good. They are just casualties, not people. . .
How about /nobody/ be asked or forced to shut up because somebody
else feels strongly about something? A novel concept to Americans
these days, I know, but you /could/ try it out before chiding it.
In my opinion, somebody's intelligence is best judged at the height
of their emotions, because that is when they will need it the most.
Fair-weather intelligence is worthless.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Erik Naggum
| Jesus. Open your eyes. Perhaps more than anyone else here, Davida
| knows first-hand what is likely to happen in the very near future,
| where she lives and all over the Middle East. She's anything but
| egocentric. Realistic would perhaps be a better word.
Some people are able to recognize that forcing /anybody/ to shut up
because someone else feels too much is a contributing the reason
why the world is now at the brink of another devastating war.
Myopic, indeed. Perhaps you did not even see the "you should all
shut up because I can't take it anymore" angle that I saw.
Kurt Ullman
<john.ku...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Canada will start parachuting beaver into the USA as a form of biological
>warfare next week.
>
In addition to Celine Dion and Shania Twain???
-----------------------------------
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the bastards."-- Claire Wolfe
John Kulczycki
PJ wrote:
You see, our mind control system is already working.
John Kulczycki
Kurt Ullman wrote:
No. No beaver in Vegas. No trees!
Hugh Watkins
"Ray Haddad" <rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote
>
> NATO was formed as an alliance of nations who have pledged to defend
> each other. Preventing war is hardly a concern. Winning them is a
> prime concern. When nations back out of the agreements made, they look
> as if they are voting to disband.
Defend each other
not attack or invade a third realm
exactly
Hugh W
Robert McClelland
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 01:55:41 -0500, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
> and "Robert McClelland" <robert.m...@sympatico.ca> instead
> replied:
>
> >Ray, not every discussion is confined to the same tired old subject. Now
if
> >you have reason to believe that 2.8 trillion dollars is not worth
fighting a
> >war over, then I'd like to hear it. Otherwise, if you are just going to
spin
> >us around in the same tired old circles, then this will be the last
exchange
> >between us in MW. Consider that a <plonk across the bow>.
>
> I truly wish you WOULD killfile me, Robert the McClelland.
>
> I will dignify your request above for a minute or two and answer your
> questions as best as I can. Unlike you, I feel that a question should
> be answered if only to educate you (and me).
<snip pavlovian response>
Ray, I don't buy the "it's about oil excuse" either. The evidence presented
by those who do is just as flimsy and contains as much conjecturing as I
think Powell's presentation to the UN did. So continuously harping on about
it to me means nothing. I can de-bunk the theory far better than you can.
For instance, the theory claims that it's because American companies are
shut out of the Iraqi oilfields. That is simple enough to fix without war.
In business it's called an aquisition. American oil company A buys French
oil company B and voila, American oil companies now have access to Iraq oil
via French companies that are now controlled by American ones. And if that
doesn't work, there are at least a dozen other tricks that can accomplish
the same thing without war.
Your theory however, starts off from a false premise to begin with. You keep
saying that if America wanted to buy Iraq's oil they could. Who cares about
that. Nobody on this planet is talking about buying oil. And of course
America can buy Iraq's oil. There is nothing to prevent it. In fact, even
for the past ten years, America has been buying Iraq's oil. There isn't even
a need to lift sanctions for it to happen. Iraq has been producing about 2.5
million barrels per day under the food for oil program and America can buy
it all if they want. Furthermore, there is currently more than enough oil to
go around right now, so America can buy all the oil it wants to. So the
theory is about controlling oil, not about buying oil. Therefore, if you are
going to argue against the "it's about oil" theory, you have to show why
it's not about America wanting to CONTROL the oil.
And if that isn't clear, then imagine the following scenario. Burger King
and McDonalds both want to control the fast food market. So McDonalds
launches a hostile takeover of Burger King in order to gain a larger share
of the market. According to you, this would not be the reason for the
hostile takeover, since McDonalds could buy all the Whoppers they want to.
Glad I could clear that up for you.
Now back to my point. Is 2.8 trillion dollars worth fighting a war over--for
any country and not just America? If Belgium had 2.8 trillion dollars worth
of gold sitting in the town square, would it be worth if for Denmark to
invade just to get that gold? If you say yes, then I was right in my
original point. If you say no, then why not? Is it not enough money? Or is
there some other reason?
Robert McClelland
Scott OQ Elyard <stonebu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:26c62f36.03021...@posting.google.com...
> Rick and Sue Deschene <rdeschene@nospam_ripnet.com> wrote in message
news:<9MmdnfG_qrL...@b2b2c.ca>...
>
> > By the same token, I still haven't heard an overwhelmingly persuasive
> > case made--with irrefutable evidence--to justify attacking Iraq.
>
>
> For some people, there's no doubt no such case will ever exist. I've
> noticed that whenever people trot out the phrase "irrefutable
> evidence" in certain contexts, they're really saying they're simply
> not willing to be convinced--no matter what.
Not true. If a case is made based on fact that Iraq has WMDs then I would
believe it.
>
>
>
>
> > So it's
> > easy to see why people search for alternative rationales.
>
>
> Sure, it's easy to see. I see politics and ego. Those are pretty
> obvious.
>
>
>
> > For some reason, the focus seems to be only on the "oil" portion. Notice
> > that I mentioned "strategic military position," as well. The combination
> > of the two, not just one or the other, forms the basis for some of the
> > more pursuasive arguments I've heard and read.
>
>
> Most of the demonstrators I've talked to in person similarly downplay
> the oil angle, chiefly because I don't think anyone with any
> intelligence actually believes it. As Josh already pointed out,
> there's no evidence to support it.
There is plenty of evidence to support it. However, the evidence is as flaky
as Powell's was as it consists of facts like, Bush's pick-up truck was seen
parked outside of an Exxon-Mobil executive's house.
>
> Contrary to what anyone may have heard from certain less than unbiased
> sources (like right wingers), most demonstrators are actually
> reasonable, intelligent people.
>
Prove that there are any reasonable, intelligent people on either side of
this.
> Those few that do don't make any real effort to support it. They
> simply trot out a few figures that really don't demonstrate it one way
> or another, then flatly state that it must be about oil. This is like
> suggesting that the US, which spends less time in the sun than many
> other countries, should go to war for the precious sunlight these
> other nations receive to feed the solar power needs of the US.
>
> So, oil? No. I think that's a fiction.
>
I don't believe it's about oil either, but all you are saying to refute it
is because you don't think it is.
> If Iraq happens to be stragetically beneficial militarily, I think
> that's rather beside the point--it's a weak and unconvincing reason to
> wage war over, especially with a military as well-equipped as ours.
> It also downplays the role the UN is supposed to hold in all this.
>
Not true. If 200k troops are positioned in Iraq for the next few years, the
US can exert tremendous pressure on the neighbouring Arab nations without
all the whoopla of going through the UN to do it. The US would have a base
of operations to work with in the area, if for instance, Syria go uppity.
> So what are we left with? Well, one scenario which hasn't yet seemed
> to make the rounds is that Iraq is hiding something, and that Colin
> Powell has already presented evidence that leads us to that
> conclusion.
>
No, Powell presented evidence that concludes Iraq is acting suspiciously.
You can't dismiss the it's about oil motive for lack of evidence and because
it's built on conjecture and then accept Powell's conclusions when it's
built on conjecture. That is believing what suits your purpose.
> Since Iraq is bound by treaty to cough up and destroy all of their
> unconventional weapons, there's no reason to not proceed. They've
> refused admission of inspectors to sensitive areas, and obstructed the
> very process they've agreed to. During all this, Saddam Hussein has
> grown more defiant of the UN and that includes the US. He could have
> ended it months ago. Hell, he could have ended it years ago, simply
> by not being stupid/petty.
>
After the gulf war the Iraqis began dismantling the very weapons that they
were supposed to. Even the UN inspectors say that this is so. The process
takes years to accomplish and it is working despite Saddam's insistance on
acting like a petulant child during the process. Continued effort along this
line will lead to disarmament by Iraq.
> Now I have said elsewhere that I am open to alternate explanations,
> but there must be evidence--I don't take opinions on the matter. The
> oil angle might have been valid, but there's nothing to support it.
> Right now, all the evidence that's been laid out in front of us
> strongly supports the above situation.
>
> It's not "irrefutable" by any means, but I think the alternative,
> namely, a nuke-happy Saddam Hussein, is far less desirable (and there
> is interview evidence that suggests he's been working on just that).
> In that case, there would be no other diplomatic means of dealing with
> him other than doing whatever he says.
>
Contrary to the fear mongering position, the process is working.
http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,5902627,00.html
Try looking at what has been accomplished instead of what has not been
accomplished.
> The Clinton and GWBush administrations have both already screwed up
> North Korea--Bush more than Clinton, I think. I think that's an
> excellent mistake to not repeat.
Remember China. Prior to 9/11 China was a threat to the US according to your
government. China was stealing American secrets--we must deal with them.
China has our spy plane--we must deal with them. They are a threat--we must
deal with them. There was lots of sabre rattling towards China and lots of
talk about how the US must deal with them.
Then 9/11 happened and the sabre rattling against China ceased and China
became an ally in the war on terror. Did they suddenly become less of a
threat? Of course not, they were never a threat to begin with. Iraq is just
the target du jour that America is rattling it's sabre at. America has been
rattling it's sabre at some nation or other for so long that it can't help
but do it now. And that works out great for whoever sits in the whitehouse,
doesn't it?
Kurt Ullman
>> In addition to Celine Dion and Shania Twain???
>>
>No. No beaver in Vegas. No trees!
>
I have some friends in Vegas who have seen some the CD show
as it develops. They are already preparing the paperwork for Crimes Against
Humanity and Pollution Control Odor complaints.
Kurt Ullman
defend Turkey. France, Germany and Belgium are working over time to let SH
know he is as safe as they can make him. The timing of all this stinks.
PJ
:
: Some people are able to recognize that forcing /anybody/ to
: shut up because someone else feels too much is a contributing
: the reason why the world is now at the brink of another
: devastating war.
I have no idea what you just said.
PJ
--
Looney
Well, shoot, I tried to cancel that post. Too vitriolic, and
contained language I was trying to eradicate from my vocab. Got
my buttons pushed I guess... That cancelling thing never
works...
--
Looney
--------------------------------------------
"You tell lie after lie till you get to the truth."
- Connie Willis
John Kulczycki
Kurt Ullman wrote:
Just wait till she farts on stage.
Bill Oliver
Davida Chazan - The Chocolate Lady <dav...@jdc.org.il> wrote:
>What the FUCK do you all care?
>
>It won't even touch you.
Wrong, but thanks for playing.
Kurt Ullman
>
>
>Not true. If a case is made based on fact that Iraq has WMDs then I would
>believe it.
You haven't so far. Why start now? They had many when the inspectors
left and none now but no indication of where the stuff went. They should
be able to prove they got rid of it if they had. Otherwise the default has to
be that it is still there.
>There is plenty of evidence to support it. However, the evidence is as flaky
>as Powell's was as it consists of facts like, Bush's pick-up truck was seen
>parked outside of an Exxon-Mobil executive's house.
See.
>Prove that there are any reasonable, intelligent people on either side of
>this.
Nah. too easy....
>
>Not true. If 200k troops are positioned in Iraq for the next few years, the
>US can exert tremendous pressure on the neighbouring Arab nations without
>all the whoopla of going through the UN to do it. The US would have a base
>of operations to work with in the area, if for instance, Syria go uppity.
They already have three (well two since you don't know which way Saudi is
going to spin next big bases. Actually the bases in Qatar are about as big as
the ones in Riyhad. Kuwait has much of the preposistioned stuff.
I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see us pull out of Saudi in the next
couple of years. With the other bases, it may quickly become more trouble than
it is worth.
>No, Powell presented evidence that concludes Iraq is acting suspiciously.
>You can't dismiss the it's about oil motive for lack of evidence and because
>it's built on conjecture and then accept Powell's conclusions when it's
>built on conjecture. That is believing what suits your purpose.
Pot, this kettle. You're black. Powells stuff was built on recorded
intercepts, pictures, etc.
>After the gulf war the Iraqis began dismantling the very weapons that they
>were supposed to. Even the UN inspectors say that this is so. The process
>takes years to accomplish and it is working despite Saddam's insistance on
>acting like a petulant child during the process. Continued effort along this
>line will lead to disarmament by Iraq.
BEGAN. There is no evidence they have since the inspectors left and
fairly good evidence that they have been buying things since.
>Contrary to the fear mongering position, the process is working.
>http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,5902627,00.html
>Try looking at what has been accomplished instead of what has not been
>accomplished.
Only because we have kept up the pressure by threatening to go in
clear it out if the UN doesnt. You think the fact that the cooperation in Iraq
has gone up as the troop count did just another facinating coincidence?
>Remember China. Prior to 9/11 China was a threat to the US according to your
>government. China was stealing American secrets--we must deal with them.
>China has our spy plane--we must deal with them. They are a threat--we must
>deal with them. There was lots of sabre rattling towards China and lots of
>talk about how the US must deal with them.
ANd China backed off and all is well.
Ray Haddad
>Glad I could clear that up for you.
I've spent the better part of the past six months educating you on the
very things you just wrote back to me. Is this your final exam essay?
If so, well done.
>Now back to my point. Is 2.8 trillion dollars worth fighting a war over--for
>any country and not just America? If Belgium had 2.8 trillion dollars worth
>of gold sitting in the town square, would it be worth if for Denmark to
>invade just to get that gold? If you say yes, then I was right in my
>original point. If you say no, then why not? Is it not enough money? Or is
>there some other reason?
I say no.
Iraq may have that much oil (I really don't believe that number) but
it is unrealized value, not available as a prize of war. Even if one
could pump it out at 1000 times the rate of today, you couldn't sell
it for today's oil price because your flooding of the market would
bring crude down to a fraction of today's price per barrel.
The entity you refer to as a country would not likely do anything just
for the money. Think about that logically. Country A has 3 trillion
in assets that can be removed to anywhere in the world. Country B
demolishes Country A for that prize and moves it to its homeland. Now,
Country B is the prize for all other countries to seize after conquer.
The cycle then becomes about the prize and not what it can do if
earned normally instead of being stolen. Defenses are strengthened to
protect something that is far less precious than the life of one
citizen and becomes the focus of the country's entire existence.
The kind of questions you ask are questionable in their very nature.
You ask if 2.8 trillion is enough to tempt a country to go to war. As
I said in the post prior to this one, it is not about money, per se.
It's about the ability to earn money or create money by adding value
to that crude oil in the process of bringing it to the consumers who
want to use the products. The question reminds me of an old joke.
A man goes on a first date with a very attractive woman who he wants
to sleep with. He asks her, during the course of dinner, if she would
sleep with him for a million dollars.
She asks him if he is serious and after confirming it, she agrees.
During dessert, he asks if she will sleep with him for $50.00. She
angrily refuses asking, "What kind of woman do you think I am?"
He replies, "We've already established that. Now, we're haggling over
price."
So, if a country woudn't do it for 3 trillion, would they do it for 5
trillion? Or do we haggle over a lower priced deal? It's an amusing
exercise but pointless. If you believe that is enough money for the
United States of America to go to war, then that is what you believe.
Asking the question makes you appear to be trying to rally support for
your latest pet theory. Maybe that is your intent.
The free flow of goods in and out of the region is essential to the
goals of any capitalistic country. The freedom and safety of its
people is also important since that is the reason for becoming a
country with a common defense system. If the goal of keeping the
people under its care safe and an economically attractive result from
doing that happen to mesh, that makes it far easier to accept.
War with Iraq is not what most of the United States of America wants.
What they want is stability in the region where most of the energy of
the world is derived at present. The geography of the area means that
merchant ships must enter (what is often likened to a fishpond) the
Persian Gulf. Once inside, those ships are at the mercy of the
countries who control that body of water. Having a country like Iraq
there which has imperialistic goals makes the region unstable. During
the Kuwait occupation, all oil shipments in the region were disrupted
and US registry ships were advised not to enter the gulf. Most didn't.
If Saddam disarms as required by the cease fire accords, it's all over
in days. If not, he is bringing war upon his own house.
Ray
Ray Haddad
and "Hugh Watkins" <hugh_w...@net.dialog.dk> instead replied:
Hugh,
Then, they are breaking their own pledge to defend Turkey if attacked.
As such, they should withdraw from NATO immediately as they would
expect all members to defend them from attack, including Turkey. Their
view is incredibly myopic.
What you seem to be unaware of here is that NATO was not endorsing any
attack on anyone. The issue in question was the defense of Turkey
should that become necessary. France, Belgium and Germany all said
they would not defend Turkey if it came under attack. Making a formal
statement of not defending a contractually inclusive ally is
reprehensible.
If they don't withdraw from NATO and carry out their veto as
announced, I think NATO should give them the flick and allow them to
stand alone should France, Germany or Belgium come under attack.
Ray
Ray Haddad
and Ejucaided Redneck <briarh...@yall.com> instead replied:
>That Americans have volunteered in sufficient numbers to support all
>this freedom-fighting is only the most obvious of the historical
>fallacies you buy into.
Actually, I was referring to most of today's modern military in the
United States of America being an all volunteer force since 1974 (I
think that's the year). At present, all of those in service to the
cause of freedom are volunteers. There may be a few left from before
the draft went away but they all had to reenlist into volunteer
service more than once to still be on active duty.
During World War I and World War II, there were more volunteers than
draftees in service to their country and the world. Some may have been
motivated by thinking they could better save their own hides by
volunteering but most believed in the cause of world freedom. I have
seen film clips of volunteers lining up for city blocks in cities
across the United States of America during the days of World War II.
Ray
Ray Haddad
and Rick and Sue Deschene <rdeschene@nospam_ripnet.com> instead
replied:
Sue,
Sorry to boggle you so.
The reply I made was to remind one person who attempted to minimize
the contributions that the United States of America makes to world
peace and safety. Our never flagging contribution is not trivial and
never has been.
It's one thing to defend your own soil and take up arms as a volunteer
to save your homes and family. Doing it over on someone else's soil
has a motivation somewhere deeper inside than those who do it on
homeland. For some reason, the world just assumes that the United
States of America will come to the aid of freedom loving countries
when they are in danger. Guess what? They're correct and history
proves that.
In amost every case, from a completely US-centric view, the United
States of America had no real need to go away to other lands to help.
We could have simply defended our own borders and let Europe fight two
world wars alone. After all, the winners of that conflict would have
had a hard time traveling to the mainland of the United States of
America to continue that battle for world domination.
The policy of laisez-faire that America adopted in the 1800s was
supreceded by today's policy of direct involvement when necessary. Who
else was at such a state of military readiness to aid Kuwait?
Preparedness and volunteerism are two attributes that seem to be
dismissed out of hand when people state that America can't understand
what it is like to have to duck a bit now and again. I get quite tired
of reading people who make "me-centric" decisions while asking for the
United States of America to somehow solve all their problems.
Ray
Ray Haddad
and John Kulczycki <john.ku...@sympatico.ca> instead replied:
>Just wait till she farts on stage.
Will that make her little beaver tail flap?
Robert McClelland
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 14:12:42 -0500, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
> and "Robert McClelland" <robert.m...@sympatico.ca> instead
> replied:
>
> >Glad I could clear that up for you.
>
> I've spent the better part of the past six months educating you on the
> very things you just wrote back to me. Is this your final exam essay?
> If so, well done.
>
> >Now back to my point. Is 2.8 trillion dollars worth fighting a war
over--for
> >any country and not just America? If Belgium had 2.8 trillion dollars
worth
> >of gold sitting in the town square, would it be worth if for Denmark to
> >invade just to get that gold? If you say yes, then I was right in my
> >original point. If you say no, then why not? Is it not enough money? Or
is
> >there some other reason?
>
> I say no.
Pavlovian response Ray.
Robert McClelland
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 18:03:36 -0000, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
> and "Hugh Watkins" <hugh_w...@net.dialog.dk> instead replied:
>
> >
> >"Ray Haddad" <rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote
> >
> >>
> >> NATO was formed as an alliance of nations who have pledged to defend
> >> each other. Preventing war is hardly a concern. Winning them is a
> >> prime concern. When nations back out of the agreements made, they look
> >> as if they are voting to disband.
> >
> >Defend each other
> >
> >not attack or invade a third realm
> >
> >exactly
>
> Hugh,
>
> Then, they are breaking their own pledge to defend Turkey if attacked.
> As such, they should withdraw from NATO immediately as they would
> expect all members to defend them from attack, including Turkey. Their
> view is incredibly myopic.
>
The issue is that none of us want to be associated with Turkey until they
clean up their act, in regards to their treatment of the Kurds. Only the US
is willing to overlook that Turkey is scumbag nation that is not deserving
of being called an ally.
> What you seem to be unaware of here is that NATO was not endorsing any
> attack on anyone. The issue in question was the defense of Turkey
> should that become necessary. France, Belgium and Germany all said
> they would not defend Turkey if it came under attack. Making a formal
> statement of not defending a contractually inclusive ally is
> reprehensible.
>
> If they don't withdraw from NATO and carry out their veto as
> announced, I think NATO should give them the flick and allow them to
> stand alone should France, Germany or Belgium come under attack.
And once again it is clearly shown that if you don't do what the US tells
you to do, you are not a friend of the US. Bah. Turkey is not my friend and
if the US attacks Iraq, America is not a friend of mine either.
Alan Hope
>On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 03:05:54 -0000, "Hugh Watkins"
><hugh_w...@net.dialog.dk> wrote:
>>Blair is going to have to go against Bush at some point if he is to survive politically. The the socalled "special relationship" wil
>>be the price of his ambitions.
>I think Blair will be fine once the war is past.
Blair is fucked. He started out with all the goodwill of Europe,
leading the leaders as they went on a bicycle photo-op through the
streets of Amsterdam. Very symbolic, that. He came into office wanting
to put Britain at the heart of Europe. Now he's gone according to
type, and scuttled off to hide under America's skirts. The
Franco-German initiative on Iraq has cast him out into the cold. He's
burned his bridges with Europe. The only thing working in his favour
is the complete lack of any opposition in Britain's parliament. So
he'll have no trouble winning a third term by default, but I reckon
he'll step down asap having done that and let someone else take over.
Conventional wisdom says that has to be Gordon Brown, but there's many
a slip 'twixt cup and lip innit.
>I also think that the
>attitude of the European on the street will change big time once the
>first major Al Qaeda attacks get through. That's what happened here;
>it's amazing how quickly people forget minor squabbles when something
>big and toothy comes down the road.
Get fucked, you arrogant cunt. You're talking about people who have
lived through wars since the year fucking dot, and I don't mean wars
you watch on TV. The lady across the road from me here remembers when
foreign armies took over this country, and the one to the north, and
the one to the south, and she daily prayed her family wouldn't be
denounced by some shitty little collabo for being Jewish, because
they'd counted the deportees out, and hadn't counted any back.
People in Europe don't have that arrogant sense of their own
invulnerability, to which 9-11 was such a salutary slap. The British
heard the bombers flying over night after night, and stood next day by
the craters where they used to have neighbours, friends, family. They
fought on single-handed when you lot were still humming and hawing,
and saw their cities burn under a rain of bombs, day after day, world
without end.
And since then we've all had terrorist attacks. British train stations
and shopping centres lost their rubbish bins because of bombers. The
Parisians learned to use the Metro intelligently after GIA attacks.
Italy had trains blown up, Germany had politicians assassinated,
Britain nearly lost a government on two occasions, the Spanish are
still watching their politicians, magistrates and journalists die in
terror attacks.
You have nothing -- nothing -- to teach Europe about what it is to be
attacked. We've BTDT, dude. And without running around like headless
fucking chickens raining war and threats of war down upon the whole
planet, too. Europe has seen it all, and we don't scare easy. Which
makes me rather confident the target will be elsewhere, actually.
Americans give more buck for the bang. If I were a terrorist, I'd be
looking at a target that's more likely to be terrorised -- and I'm
looking at one right now.
--
AH
Alan Hope
>The United States of America has fought wars in a way you Euros can
>hardly dream of. We went to the trenches in World War I in a foriegn
>land and fought for the freedom of others as well as ourselves. We
>went to the fields and oceans of World War II to fight for the
>freedoms of others and ourselves. We went to Korea and Vietnam to
>fight once more for the freedoms of others as well as ourselves. We
>did it in the gulf region for the freedom of Kuwait and the safety of
>other nations in the region. We stand ready to do it again even if you
>and others persist in demonizing the United States of America.
Unbelievable. Presumably Ray thinks the US were fighting WWI with no
Europeans present. Maybe he thinks WWII started in 1941. I have people
here beside me who heard the sound of jackboots on the streets they're
walking now, and who know of plenty more who didn't need Band of
Brothers to get their war education.
I particularly like the line about "the freedom of Kuwait". Sums Ray
up. Ray is a masterclass in clueless.
But isn't his tarry pigtail just darling.
--
AH
Robert McClelland
On the contrary Ray. WWII proved that America will sit on its collective
butt until the problem bites them in the ass.
> In amost every case, from a completely US-centric view, the United
> States of America had no real need to go away to other lands to help.
> We could have simply defended our own borders and let Europe fight two
> world wars alone. After all, the winners of that conflict would have
> had a hard time traveling to the mainland of the United States of
> America to continue that battle for world domination.
>
> The policy of laisez-faire that America adopted in the 1800s was
> supreceded by today's policy of direct involvement when necessary. Who
> else was at such a state of military readiness to aid Kuwait?
>
Oh yes Kuwait. I bet you actually believe that the US went into Kuwait to
free the poor people of that country. The reality though, is that the US
went in to free the American oil companies that operate in Kuwait. The US
was protecting Exxon Mobil and Chevron, not Kuwaitis.
> Preparedness and volunteerism are two attributes that seem to be
> dismissed out of hand when people state that America can't understand
> what it is like to have to duck a bit now and again. I get quite tired
> of reading people who make "me-centric" decisions while asking for the
> United States of America to somehow solve all their problems.
The thing is Ray, that it's poor third world countries that are asking
America to solve all their problems and G7 countries that are bashing the US
here. The US isn't doing squat for Canada and we are not asking the US to do
squat for us.
Hugh Watkins
"Kurt Ullman" <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:pNc2a.11587$1q2.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> In article <b2bdt7$1a6utq$1...@ID-71976.news.dfncis.de>, "Hugh Watkins"
> <hugh_w...@net.dialog.dk> wrote:
> >
> >"Ray Haddad" <rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote
> >
> >>
> >> NATO was formed as an alliance of nations who have pledged to defend
> >> each other. Preventing war is hardly a concern. Winning them is a
> >> prime concern. When nations back out of the agreements made, they look
> >> as if they are voting to disband.
> >
> >Defend each other
> >
> >not attack or invade a third realm
> >
> >exactly
> They were only to defend Turkey. Actually it was only to plan how to
> defend Turkey. France, Germany and Belgium are working over time to let SH
> know he is as safe as they can make him. The timing of all this stinks.
France Germany Belgium have had their turf trampled in two world wars
and had to rebuild and know all about millions of civilian deaths
USA wants to go it alone like a banana republic in spite of world opinion which favours a slower appoach
Some international affairs take generations of diplomacy to solve
Hugh W
Hugh Watkins
"Ray Haddad" <rha...@iexpress.net.au> wrote
>
> Then, they are breaking their own pledge to defend Turkey if attacked.
> As such, they should withdraw from NATO immediately as they would
> expect all members to defend them from attack, including Turkey. Their
> view is incredibly myopic.
>
> What you seem to be unaware of here is that NATO was not endorsing any
> attack on anyone. The issue in question was the defense of Turkey
> should that become necessary. France, Belgium and Germany all said
> they would not defend Turkey if it came under attack. Making a formal
> statement of not defending a contractually inclusive ally is
> reprehensible.
>
> If they don't withdraw from NATO and carry out their veto as
> announced, I think NATO should give them the flick and allow them to
> stand alone should France, Germany or Belgium come under attack.
Nobody is attacking Turkey
Kurdistan is the real problem of that frontier area
many of the Kurds hate Iraq, Turkey and Britain equally
with due cause
Hugh W
gekko
misc.writing, saying ...
> "Erik Naggum" <en...@ifi.uio.no> wrote
>:
>: Some people are able to recognize that forcing /anybody/ to
>: shut up because someone else feels too much is a contributing
>: the reason why the world is now at the brink of another
>: devastating war.
>
> I have no idea what you just said.
The following is not an endorsement of whatever it is whoever this is
is saying. It is only a translation.
First, the context:
Davida said words that I took to effectively mean: "you guys are
talking out your asses. It's me and my kids, living here in
Jerusalem who are going to be in the front line, not you as you sit
in your cozy armchairs watching it all on the tube."
Then Elric said:
"I nominate that article as the most egoistic to misc.writing yet."
(personal aside: Elric hasn't been reading MW in any detail if he
actually believes that comment)
So then YOU said, to Elric:
"you're fucking myopic, you fucking myopic fucker! fuck off! you're
talking out your myopic ass, fuckwit. Do you have ANY idea what the
fuck you're fuckity fuckfucking fuckerooni boy? Huh? Do you?"
Or something like that.
So then ELRIC says:
"Davida's word choice makes me feel powerless. I feel forced to shut
up, and I don't like that. It's damned unamerican of her to tell ME
to shut up. How DARE she express an opinion that I dislike! How
DARE she cry out! How DARE she remind me that she lives in the
middle of it all and makes me uncomfortable! The bitch! It's
opinions like hers that contribute to this whole mess. After all,
we're going to war because Saddam won't let anyone on Usenet express
an opinion."
Glad I could clear that up for you.
--
gekko
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings, they did it by
killing all those who opposed them.
Robert McClelland
gekko <ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns931FB9A9D...@news.mbue.de...
That's pretty much how I saw it too.
Erik Naggum
| That's pretty much how I saw it too.
Good thing this is misc.writing and people have excellent command of
the language here. You were only several miles off target. So you
can probably imagine what would happen if someone less literate had
misunderstood it to a corresponding degree: I could have weapons
inspectors knocking on my door by now.
So let me try again. When you use your inability to cope with the
force of your emotions as an excuse to lash out at people who are
not "sensitive" to how you feel and demand that they stop hurting
you with their words, the very /acceptance/ of this psychologically
unhealthy condition has caused the United States to become the most
frightened nation on the planet. Reasonable people, those who do
not succumb to their emotions but manage to keep a level head during
most trying times, are told to shut up all over the place because it
has become acceptable to make how you feel somebody else's problem.
(Someone had to quip "please, not now" when Columbia exploded and
people wanted to discuss important matters about the shuttle program
-- I am so happy that NASA is not staffed with such sappy people.)
If you had been a more /adult/ people and had not allowed yourself
to wallow in dark emotions for /months/, you could have gotten over
it all by now and been able to react rationally and responsibly like
grown-ups to the non-threat that Iraq is, instead of entertaining
the childish, hurt moron you have for a leader, and thus you could
have avoided theatening the entire world with a new war. There is a
solid line from being hurt beyond one's coping capacity to turning
into a psychopath who has to destroy everything that keeps hurting,
and in between, you find individual people who try to make other
people shut up only because they have lost their marbles.
Since that probably failed, too, what I'm saying is this: "I feel so
bad right now, you people have to stop talking or I'll start crying"
is /not/ a valid argument in a public forum. It is a valid argument
in a circle of friends, in a private setting where people /already/
care about how you feel. Forcing your emotions on other people is
bad enough. Trying to limit their freedom of thought and expression
so you can be relieved of dealing with your emotional problems is
obscenely egoistic. Now, please note that the Bush administration
is even more guilty of this than our local wailing Israeli mother.
--
Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.