Did The Chinese Violate Any Treaties?
Rand Simberg
remains unsettled in the Liability Convention, due to an inability to
agree on a definition of the word "debris." Any space lawyers out
there more up to date?
I'd think that, at a minimum, if any of the bits strike someone's
satellite, or ISS, that the Chinese could be held liable under the
OST. If it could be proven that it resulted from this event, that is
(probably a difficult thing to do).
Ed Kyle
They wouldn't be any more liable than the U.S. for the two Delta
stages that fragmented and created clouds of debris in LEO last
year. Or Japan for its H-2A upper stage that blew up last year.
Or Russia, which blew up a Kosmos satellite in LEO late last
year.
I don't see a treaty issue, unless it was China trying to get the
U.S. to agree to negotiate a no-arms-in-space treaty with it and
Russia as it has called for in the past.
- Ed Kyle
Rand Simberg
<edky...@hotmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
>Rand Simberg wrote:
>> On not making messes in space? My dim understanding is that this
>> remains unsettled in the Liability Convention, due to an inability to
>> agree on a definition of the word "debris." Any space lawyers out
>> there more up to date?
>>
>> I'd think that, at a minimum, if any of the bits strike someone's
>> satellite, or ISS, that the Chinese could be held liable under the
>> OST. If it could be proven that it resulted from this event, that is
>> (probably a difficult thing to do).
>
>They wouldn't be any more liable than the U.S. for the two Delta
>stages that fragmented and created clouds of debris in LEO last
>year. Or Japan for its H-2A upper stage that blew up last year.
>Or Russia, which blew up a Kosmos satellite in LEO late last
>year.
It's interesting that there's no distinction made between accidents
and a deliberate act.
Rand Simberg
<edky...@hotmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
>Rand Simberg wrote:
>> On not making messes in space? My dim understanding is that this
>> remains unsettled in the Liability Convention, due to an inability to
>> agree on a definition of the word "debris." Any space lawyers out
>> there more up to date?
>>
>> I'd think that, at a minimum, if any of the bits strike someone's
>> satellite, or ISS, that the Chinese could be held liable under the
>> OST. If it could be proven that it resulted from this event, that is
>> (probably a difficult thing to do).
>
>They wouldn't be any more liable than the U.S. for the two Delta
>stages that fragmented and created clouds of debris in LEO last
>year. Or Japan for its H-2A upper stage that blew up last year.
>Or Russia, which blew up a Kosmos satellite in LEO late last
>year.
Did any of those incidents result in damage to a third party?
Ed Kyle
I think the liability would be the same either way.
- Ed Kyle
Ed Kyle
Not yet, but then neither has the broken up Chinese satellite.
- Ed Kyle
Rand Simberg
>> >They wouldn't be any more liable than the U.S. for the two Delta
>> >stages that fragmented and created clouds of debris in LEO last
>> >year. Or Japan for its H-2A upper stage that blew up last year.
>> >Or Russia, which blew up a Kosmos satellite in LEO late last
>> >year.
>>
>> It's interesting that there's no distinction made between accidents
>> and a deliberate act.
>
>I think the liability would be the same either way.
Yes, but as I said, it's interesting. In a civil case, a deliberate
act would carry a higher penalty, perhaps with punitive damages.
Rand Simberg
That's why I wrote "if any of the bits strike someone's satellite, or
ISS." We know that's not going to occur with any of the other cases
you mentioned. It still may for this one.
Herb Schaltegger
(in article <45c83a73....@news.giganews.com>):
Don't play lawyer, Rand. In civil cases, the factors to be considered in
awarding punitive damages vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and the
intent of the actor is but one factor to consider.
--
You can run on for a long time,
Sooner or later, God'll cut you down.
~Johnny Cash
Rand Simberg
Schaltegger <herb.sch...@gmail.com.INVALID> made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>>>> It's interesting that there's no distinction made between accidents
>>>> and a deliberate act.
>>>
>>> I think the liability would be the same either way.
>>
>> Yes, but as I said, it's interesting. In a civil case, a deliberate
>> act would carry a higher penalty, perhaps with punitive damages.
>
>Don't play lawyer, Rand. In civil cases, the factors to be considered in
>awarding punitive damages vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and the
>intent of the actor is but one factor to consider.
<rolling eyes>
OK, make "would," "could."
Talk about "playing lawyer."
Anyway, I thought I was in your killfile.
Herb Schaltegger
(in article <45ca3cd3....@news.giganews.com>):
You silly ass-clown, you know better than to accuse me of "playing" at being
a lawyer. I certainly still hold a license to practice law in my state, just
as you certainly still hold a license to practice knee-jerk
ideologically-bankrupt stupidity.
> Anyway, I thought I was in your killfile.
My upgrade this week from a Powerbook G4 to a MacBook Pro Core2Duo and
reinstallation of my apps released you.
Temporarily, it seems.
<PLONK>
Rand Simberg
Schaltegger <herb.sch...@gmail.com.INVALID> made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>>>> Yes, but as I said, it's interesting. In a civil case, a deliberate
>>>> act would carry a higher penalty, perhaps with punitive damages.
>>>
>>> Don't play lawyer, Rand. In civil cases, the factors to be considered in
>>> awarding punitive damages vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and the
>>> intent of the actor is but one factor to consider.
>>
>> <rolling eyes>
>>
>> OK, make "would," "could."
>>
>> Talk about "playing lawyer."
>
>You silly ass-clown, you know better than to accuse me of "playing" at being
>a lawyer. I certainly still hold a license to practice law in my state, just
>as you certainly still hold a license to practice knee-jerk
>ideologically-bankrupt stupidity.
Actually, I don't hold such a license. Fortunately, I don't need one,
since I don't engage in that practice.
You may be a lawyer in real life, but you play one on Usenet.
Pat Flannery
Considering that peeling paint off of upper stages has impacted other
spacecraft, trying to track down exactly what did it would be a problem
(however, if a Shuttle shows up with grains of rice stuck in it...) ;-)
Talking about space debris, this, in retrospect, was a very dumb
experiment: http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~cdhall/Space/archives/000289.html
If they had gone ahead with that to full deployment, they would have
basically made an entire orbital inclination at a particular altitude
into a shooting gallery.
Pat
Pat Flannery
Rand Simberg wrote:
> Yes, but as I said, it's interesting. In a civil case, a deliberate
> act would carry a higher penalty, perhaps with punitive damages.
>
Again though... how do you prove it?
One of your satellites suddenly stops transmitting while heading through
the debris cloud, and you can say the ASAT's debris is the most likely
candidate for what caused it to malfunction, but without going up and
getting it to look at the damage, how do you know it was not just a
malfunction, a meteor strike, or collision with some other piece of
unrelated space debris?
Even if it has a hole in it that was made by a piece of metal hitting
it, unless you can get detailed info on the exact alloys the Chinese
used in their satellite and ASAT, that won't work.
That having been said, the Chinese were mighty sloppy and inconsiderate
in doing this in this manner.
They have created a space debris problem, either through intention, or
simply because they didn't give a damn (and I suspect the former).
It's rather like your neighbor burning garbage whenever he notes that
the wind is blowing in your direction.
Pat
Rand Simberg
Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>Considering that peeling paint off of upper stages has impacted other
>spacecraft, trying to track down exactly what did it would be a problem
>(however, if a Shuttle shows up with grains of rice stuck in it...) ;-)
>Talking about space debris, this, in retrospect, was a very dumb
>experiment: http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~cdhall/Space/archives/000289.html
>If they had gone ahead with that to full deployment, they would have
>basically made an entire orbital inclination at a particular altitude
>into a shooting gallery.
I don't know what the inclination was, but it makes *every inclination
below* its altitude a "shooting gallery" until the pieces decay.
I'll have a piece at TCSDaily on this on Monday.
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca
> On not making messes in space? My dim understanding is that this
> remains unsettled in the Liability Convention, due to an inability to
> agree on a definition of the word "debris." Any space lawyers out
> there more up to date?
A long time ago, as the news reports noted, both Russia and the U.S.
conducted ASAT tests.
It may be that China signed some new treaties with Russia and the U.S.
that weren't in force back then.
In any case, the real concern with this is how China is a menace to
world peace. Even if we accept the verdict of the optimists, that the
only country China might commit aggression against is Taiwan, why
should the U.S. tolerate the enslavement of free men anywhere?
China wants to be close enough to military parity with the U.S. that
the U.S. would not dare to interfere with it when it attacks Taiwan.
That will not work.
But the U.S. could do more to prevent such a crisis from emerging.
Right now, it would be in an awkward position in defending Taiwan,
because Red China is a U.N. member, protected by the U.N. Charter, and
Taiwan is not. The United States should insist that this be rectified.
Actually, the U.N. should be replaced by an organization that only
includes democratic nations - as far as security issues are concerned.
International development and education may be appropriate concerns for
a body representing all governments, but when it comes to keeping the
peace, the foxes are not the ones to guard the henhouse.
John Savard
Jonathan
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
news:45c523e1...@news.giganews.com...
Considering America's middle name these days is 'unilateral'
especially with militarizing space, it's rather silly to count
on some treaty in this case.
Y'all better begin paying attention to where the action
really is, two of our carriers and most of our army is
near or heading towards Iran as we speak.
And the Iranians are expecting us.
China will have to wait.
s
Pat Flannery
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
>
> In any case, the real concern with this is how China is a menace to
> world peace. Even if we accept the verdict of the optimists, that the
> only country China might commit aggression against is Taiwan, why
> should the U.S. tolerate the enslavement of free men anywhere?
>
We tried that stunt.
It was called Iraq.
They gave up dictatorship for a genocidal war between Shia and Sunnis.
They're fucked.
Stay far away from them.
When they really want democracy, they'll do it all on their own.
Pat
Henry Spencer
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>Actually, the U.N. should be replaced by an organization that only
>includes democratic nations - as far as security issues are concerned.
There was one -- NATO. Well, except for the embarrassing fact that it
included Portugal, and that certain other countries remained members in
good standing despite an occasional military dictatorship... But they
were *our* dictators, so that was all fine, right? :-(
>...when it comes to keeping the
>peace, the foxes are not the ones to guard the henhouse.
The idea that dictators are always warlike and democracies peaceful is...
naive. There's a bias that way, but also a good supply of exceptions. To
say nothing of the way a number of warlike dictators -- notably Hitler and
Mussolini -- first achieved high office by winning elections. (Not always
the most honest elections, but people who use Diebold voting machines
shouldn't throw stones. :-))
There's also a slippery issue of defining just who's "democratic" and who
isn't. The USSR had elections. Maybe one-party systems shouldn't count,
but then, two-party systems invite some of the same abuses, as witness
some of the roadblocks that US third-party presidential candidates have
encountered. Pre-WW2 Japan had elections -- they just didn't *matter*
very much, because the elected Diet had very little power. And if memory
serves, there were so-called elections in South Vietnam...
To say nothing of superficially-clean democracies where one politician
seems to have a remarkably tenacious grip on the top job. Is he another
FDR, or another Mussolini? (Not forgetting that Mussolini, in his early
years, was a brilliant politician who genuinely had quite a bit of popular
support.)
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | he...@spsystems.net
Henry Spencer
Rand Simberg <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote:
>>> >They wouldn't be any more liable than the U.S. for the two Delta
>>> >stages that fragmented and created clouds of debris in LEO last
>>> >year. Or Japan for its H-2A upper stage that blew up last year.
>>> >Or Russia, which blew up a Kosmos satellite in LEO late last year.
>>> Did any of those incidents result in damage to a third party?
>>Not yet, but then neither has the broken up Chinese satellite.
>
>That's why I wrote "if any of the bits strike someone's satellite, or
>ISS." We know that's not going to occur with any of the other cases
>you mentioned.
Actually, we don't, given that the long-term effect of air drag in
particular on their orbits is somewhat unpredictable, and that we can't
track or catalog the smaller items of debris very well.
Rand Simberg
he...@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>In article <45c93aa0....@news.giganews.com>,
>Rand Simberg <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote:
>>>> >They wouldn't be any more liable than the U.S. for the two Delta
>>>> >stages that fragmented and created clouds of debris in LEO last
>>>> >year. Or Japan for its H-2A upper stage that blew up last year.
>>>> >Or Russia, which blew up a Kosmos satellite in LEO late last year.
>>>> Did any of those incidents result in damage to a third party?
>>>Not yet, but then neither has the broken up Chinese satellite.
>>
>>That's why I wrote "if any of the bits strike someone's satellite, or
>>ISS." We know that's not going to occur with any of the other cases
>>you mentioned.
>
>Actually, we don't, given that the long-term effect of air drag in
>particular on their orbits is somewhat unpredictable, and that we can't
>track or catalog the smaller items of debris very well.
Well, we know that it's not going to occur with any certainty that it
can be traced to any particular event. Of course, that's true with
this one as well, unless it's one of the thirty-odd pieces large
enough to be tracked.
Rand Simberg
Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>
>
>jsa...@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
>>
>> In any case, the real concern with this is how China is a menace to
>> world peace. Even if we accept the verdict of the optimists, that the
>> only country China might commit aggression against is Taiwan, why
>> should the U.S. tolerate the enslavement of free men anywhere?
>>
>
>We tried that stunt.
>It was called Iraq.
>They gave up dictatorship for a genocidal war between Shia and Sunnis.
A "genocidal war"?
They're all Arabs.
OM
Simberg) wrote:
>A "genocidal war"?
...There's some minor argument in Pat's favor, as Shias and Sunnis
generally haven't intermarried and/or bred between each other for
centuries. This tends to separate bloodlines into sub-special
classifications, and hence "genocide" becomes somewhat of a valid
term. However, as the diversification is not as great as, say, that of
the Lebanese/Jordanian/Syrians and the core stock
Hebrew/Judean/Israelites of non-European descent, "religicide" or
"sectaricide" is probably more accurate.
>They're all Arabs.
...Not exactly. Those closer to Iran are more Persian than Arab, and
believe you me, they'll be the first to tell you there *is* a
difference. Persians revel in the fact that they have the blood of
Alexander and/or his troops in their family lines, Arabs will revel in
the fact that they do *not". As a result, calling a Persian an Arab is
akin to calling a Confederate a Yankee; they may look the same, but
they're not.
OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
Rand Simberg
<om@dale_is_a_thug_loving_putz.com> made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>>They're all Arabs.
>
>...Not exactly. Those closer to Iran are more Persian than Arab, and
>believe you me, they'll be the first to tell you there *is* a
>difference.
Yes, I know there's a difference between Persians and Arabs. But most
Iraqis, of whatever religion, other than the Kurds, are Arabs
(including the Chaldeans).
I was mainly complaining about yet another instance of misappopriate
use of the word "genocide," which many simpletons seem to think simply
means "kill lots of people" or even "be mean to lots of people," or
even "not think that George Bush is Hitler."
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca
> A "genocidal war"?
> They're all Arabs.
Exterminating a minority identified by religious faith is also included
in the U. N. genocide convention. Surely you knew that.
John Savard
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca
> We tried that stunt.
> It was called Iraq.
> They gave up dictatorship for a genocidal war between Shia and Sunnis.
> When they really want democracy, they'll do it all on their own.
The U.S. invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein was playing games with
U.N. weapons inspectors.
Those were dangerous games, because the prospect of al-Qaeda getting
its hands on weapons of mass destruction was *absolutely intolerable*.
Unfortunately, as it turned out, Saddam Hussein was just playing a game
to save face, and didn't really have much in the way of WMDs. So, yes,
G. W. Bush made a mistake. Because he made the right choice - to err on
the safe side, rather than risk an error with fatal consequences.
But the terrorist attacks on the Shi'ite majority in Iraq - and the
revenge attacks on innocent Sunnis by Shi'a warlords who are anti-US,
being supporters of Iran and Hezbollah - are a terrible suffering
endured by the Iraqi people which has, unfortunately, been triggered by
a U.S. intervention in its own national interest.
The U.S. must solve the problem of the Iraqi people, and let them live
in peace and safety, because it triggered the problem, even though it
is not truly to blame. If it does not, their sufferings will be twisted
by enemies of the U.S. in both the Sunni and Shi'a portions of the
Islamic world to promote hatred of the U.S. and increase terrorism.
If multiplying the number of U.S. soldiers in Iraq by three will, as
many military experts such as generals in the U.S. army suggest, only
give the enemy more targets to shoot at, then what to do? The common
sense that suggests that undesired activity in Iraq is the result of
insufficient U.S. manpower to suppress it conclusively is not wrong -
either.
The problem is that the Democrat-controlled Congress will refuse
(although would a Republican-controlled Congress do any different?)
what is really needed. Draft and train Americans so as to send a
contingent into Iraq the size of what was sent out to fight in the
Second World War. Then, once we have suppressed the violence, Iraqis
can stand in line to join the Iraqi army without getting blown up or
kidnapped and tortured by terrorists, and Iraq under our protection can
build up its own forces to defend itself, and then the American boys
can come home.
And, if differences between the Sunni and Shi'a Iraqis prove
intractable, with all those troops in the area, we *could* divide the
new Iraq between Iran and Syria. Except, of course, it would be divided
between the new Iran and the new Syria - not the current old ones that
are anti-U.S..
But maybe things will just fall apart anyways. If so: if Kim Jong Il
can prevent resistance movements in North Korea from engaging in
terrorist activities to overthrow his rule, surely we can pacify the
Islamic world to the same extent if we put our minds to it. Perhaps 200
years down the road, we can safely end the occupation.
Osama bin Laden wants a clash of civilizations, it is said. We are
currently trying to prevent it, because most Muslims are not
terrorists, even if the terrorists are hiding among them. But if we
can't avoid him getting what he wants, we should at least be prepared
to see that he doesn't like it when he gets it.
John Savard
Rand Simberg
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:
>Rand Simberg wrote:
I didn't, but if so, it's just one more example of watering down the
meaning of the word (hint: where does the "gen" part come from?). And
no minority is being exterminated in Iraq. Even if all the Sunnis or
Shia there were killed (unlikely), there'd be millions of others
elsewhere.
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca
> The idea that dictators are always warlike and democracies peaceful is...
> naive. There's a bias that way, but also a good supply of exceptions. To
> say nothing of the way a number of warlike dictators -- notably Hitler and
> Mussolini -- first achieved high office by winning elections.
Basically, I am somewhat nostalgic for the world order that existed in
the nineteenth century. Here, there was peace between all the advanced
democracies, and instead of the Third World being under cruel local
dictatorships, it was under the enlightened colonial tutelage of the
advanced democracies.
Well, if you don't count the Belgian Congo... and, of course, there
wasn't peace _within_ one particular advanced democracy in all of that
century.
Presumably, in a world where all the nations sing the praises of the
glorious United States of America, we would spend less money on
armaments, and we would work more effectively to solve problems of
international development. Every penny donated to charities working
overseas would be spent well, not a cent taken by any corrupt
government, nothing destroyed later by a civil war or anything like
that.
But my vision of world justice is not hegemony by anyone. Once the
Basque people were cleansed of the ETA infestation, they would become a
sovereign state. So would the Hawaiian people. And the Inuit. And the
speakers of Southern Min, and Hakka, and Wu, and so on. And the Coptic
Christians of Egypt and the Maronite Christians of Lebanon too. Nobody
but an immigrant would ever be *forced* to learn a foreign language
just to go to University or become the President or Prime Minister of
his native land.
In this way, the question of minorities being persecuted would not
exist. Everybody would be a member of the majority in the country he
lives in. Well, maybe a *little* ethnic rearrangement would take place,
but it would be done in a humane and orderly fashion, not even hasty,
let alone brutal.
And all the nations of the world would live side by side in peace and
mutual respect.
They would have enough to feed themselves, because first thorium
breeder reactors, and then later fusion power, when and if that is
perfected, would supply abundant energy resources. So production of
abundant food and housing, and reasonable quantities of luxuries, for
everyone would be possible.
We will need a cure for cancer, though. Because to cure old age
involves turning off telomere loss, and that eliminates one mechanism
of defence against cancer. The people who grew old during the age of
misery and war ought to have the time to rebuild their lives once this
is abolished.
And, as well, even with abundant energy, the population cannot increase
indefinitely. How, then, can we achieve the contentment that the rising
population of the leading edge of the baby boom brought, when people at
a given age were outnumbered by the people two years younger (the
average age gap for marriage)?
With a cure for cancer, we can release PCBs into the environment,
adjusting the human sex ratio, so as to eliminate the tensions and
frustrations that might lead nations into rivalry and war once again!
John Savard
Rand Simberg
>Osama bin Laden wants a clash of civilizations, it is said.
Yes, a misnomer. It's a clash of cultures, certainly, but radical
Islam hardly represents a "civilization." It's more of a clash
between civilization and barbarity.
Booted Cat
buying Hennessy XO wine from Chinese black market :=)
Booted Cat
Pat Flannery
Rand Simberg wrote:
> A "genocidal war"?
>
> They're all Arabs.
>
Which is rather like saying "they're all Europeans". We're dealing with
three different ethnic groups in modern Iraq, which was a country
artificially assembled by Britain and France in 1920.
Its history is very complex: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Iraq
Pat
Pat Flannery
OM wrote:
> ...Not exactly. Those closer to Iran are more Persian than Arab, and
> believe you me, they'll be the first to tell you there *is* a
> difference. Persians revel in the fact that they have the blood of
> Alexander and/or his troops in their family lines, Arabs will revel in
> the fact that they do *not". As a result, calling a Persian an Arab is
> akin to calling a Confederate a Yankee; they may look the same, but
> they're not.
>
The more esoteric Kurdish religious sects are the really odd ones, which
are oddly similar to Southern snake-handling cults.
Some of their rituals include pouring sulphuric acid on each other, and
eating lightbulbs.* I image Uncle Fester is considered some sort of a
prophet among them.
Every time I see our troops caught in the middle of that f*cked-up
country, I keep thinking of those two baffled Roman soldiers in "Life of
Brian" looking at each other and just quietly shaking their heads...
"What the hades is _wrong_ with these people?"
* Not whole, they chew them up. And no, I don't know why they choose
lightbulbs. Maybe their doctors told them they should eat more lite meals.
Pat
Rand Simberg
>
>
>Rand Simberg wrote:
>> A "genocidal war"?
>>
>> They're all Arabs.
>>
>
>Which is rather like saying "they're all Europeans".
Nope.
Pat Flannery
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
>
> Those were dangerous games, because the prospect of al-Qaeda getting
> its hands on weapons of mass destruction was *absolutely intolerable*.
>
And he wouldn't be the person to give them to al-Qaeda, as he had a
secular, not Islamic, form of government.
He gave them nukes, and they might well use them on him.
> The U.S. must solve the problem of the Iraqi people, and let them live
> in peace and safety, because it triggered the problem, even though it
> is not truly to blame.
The U.S. is not to blame, George W. Bush and his little pack of neocon
wackos are to blame.
I was against this war from square one, and I'm not going to take one
iota of blame for it, any more than all Russians should take blame for
Stalin's mass murders.
If we had any sense at all, we'd amend the constitution to severely
limit the President's war-making powers.
He wouldn't be able to send one troop anywhere without the 2/3rds
consent of Congress.
If it was a matter of national emergency, they would easily get a 2/3rds
majority; but pea-brained adventures like Iraq would never get that many
votes if the Congress knew that their political futures were on the
line, rather than just giving the President carte blanche to do whatever
he wanted as was done in the case of Iraq.
> If it does not, their sufferings will be twisted
> by enemies of the U.S. in both the Sunni and Shi'a portions of the
> Islamic world to promote hatred of the U.S. and increase terrorism.
>
Since they apparently intend to have a bloody civil war, just get out of
the way and let them have it; maybe if their leaders are all concerned
that they are going to be killed, they will actually decide that they
can live together somehow.
> If multiplying the number of U.S. soldiers in Iraq by three will, as
> many military experts such as generals in the U.S. army suggest, only
> give the enemy more targets to shoot at, then what to do? The common
> sense that suggests that undesired activity in Iraq is the result of
> insufficient U.S. manpower to suppress it conclusively is not wrong -
> either.
>
> The problem is that the Democrat-controlled Congress will refuse
> (although would a Republican-controlled Congress do any different?)
> what is really needed. Draft and train Americans so as to send a
> contingent into Iraq the size of what was sent out to fight in the
> Second World War.
>
You start a draft when your country is under attack, not when you decide
to invade another country.
We frankly can't afford this war in a monetary sense; our tanks,
Humvees, and helicopters are worn out, our National Guard and Reserve
troops have had their lives torn apart with no good reason, and if the
President tries to start a draft, he's going to impeached inside of 48
hours...and rightfully so.
If he had had one shred of decency, he would have resigned as soon as no
WMDs were found, and then Cheney would have appointed someone respected
of very moderate views as the new VP (I would have said McCain, but he's
lost all contact with reality also, so probably Collin Powell) and
resigned himself... after removing the troops from Iraq.
I really liked the President's interview where he said that America now
had a scapegoat for the war, and he was it.
This says a lot about his world view; he considers himself as the
innocent scapegoat that's being blamed for the war, rather than the
architect of it. Which is probably true, because I seriously doubt he
has much to do with making national policy at all, but just serves as
meat puppet for the power-hungry bunch of crooks and liars that are his
friends and advisers.
I keep meaning to send him a little sign for his desk in the Oval Office
that says: "The Buck Passes Here."
The only good thing that's going to come out of this war is that it's
going to be a lot of years before we do something as stupid as this war
again. LBJ taught that lesson to the Democrats, now another Texan has
taught it to the Republicans.
Pat
Henry Spencer
Rand Simberg <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote:
>>Exterminating a minority identified by religious faith is also included
>>in the U. N. genocide convention. Surely you knew that.
>
>I didn't, but if so, it's just one more example of watering down the
>meaning of the word (hint: where does the "gen" part come from?).
Hint: the etymology of a word and its current meaning are not necessarily
at all related. "genocide, n: the deliberate and systematic destruction
of a racial, political, or cultural group" (Webster's New Collegiate, 1975).
>no minority is being exterminated in Iraq. Even if all the Sunnis or
>Shia there were killed (unlikely), there'd be millions of others
>elsewhere.
So because there were Jews elsewhere, the Holocaust doesn't count as
genocide? Such a narrow interpretation denies the word any useful meaning.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
Except in this case that's not what Pat meant and it was clear.
Pat's use of genocide here is appropriate.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
And even if all the Jews in Poland were killed there'd be millions
elsewhere.
You really are an idiot and an ass.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
Wow, you've got me convinced. What a resounding argument.
It's no surprise that fewer and fewer people pay attention to anything you
have to say.
OM
>Exterminating a minority identified by religious faith is also included
>in the U. N. genocide convention. Surely you knew that.
...Thanks. I had forgotten to point that out to Rand in my previous
reply.
OM
>Unfortunately, as it turned out, Saddam Hussein was just playing a game
>to save face, and didn't really have much in the way of WMDs. So, yes,
>G. W. Bush made a mistake. Because he made the right choice - to err on
>the safe side, rather than risk an error with fatal consequences.
...There's also two ways to look at this:
1) Saddam was actually telling the truth about possessing the WMDs,
but destroyed and/or successfully hid them somewhere in all those
deserts to make Bush look like an idiot for having believed his
threats.
2) The WMD's never existed, but when someone goes running around
acting like a screwball, claiming he's got a gun and is going to kill
everyone in sight, and he's already got a track record for pulling
deadly stunts, then if this were a cop dealing with a whack job with
what looked like a possibly loaded gun, the NAACP and the ACLU aside,
the cop was doing his job blowing the whack job's brains out to
protect the public from potential harm.
...While our current strategy may not be the effective one, the
initial conquest was justifiable and produced the initial results as
desired. The failure was in preventing the chaos from returning to the
previous status quo.
OM
Simberg) wrote:
>I didn't, but if so, it's just one more example of watering down the
>meaning of the word (hint: where does the "gen" part come from?). And
>no minority is being exterminated in Iraq. Even if all the Sunnis or
>Shia there were killed (unlikely), there'd be millions of others
>elsewhere.
...Rand, no. This time, you're grasping at limp spaghetti in an
attempt to keep yourself from sinking in your own quicksand. By trying
to avoid admitting you were wrong, you're going down the path that
ElfNazi's already beaten down.
Stop. Now. Before you totally ruin what integrity you have left.
Rand Simberg
he...@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>In article <45d58ef9....@news.giganews.com>,
>Rand Simberg <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote:
>>>Exterminating a minority identified by religious faith is also included
>>>in the U. N. genocide convention. Surely you knew that.
>>
>>I didn't, but if so, it's just one more example of watering down the
>>meaning of the word (hint: where does the "gen" part come from?).
>
>Hint: the etymology of a word and its current meaning are not necessarily
>at all related. "genocide, n: the deliberate and systematic destruction
>of a racial, political, or cultural group" (Webster's New Collegiate, 1975).
>
>>no minority is being exterminated in Iraq. Even if all the Sunnis or
>>Shia there were killed (unlikely), there'd be millions of others
>>elsewhere.
>
>So because there were Jews elsewhere, the Holocaust doesn't count as
>genocide?
No. The intent was to wipe out the Jews. If Hitler had achieved his
ultimate ambition of world domination he would have done so.
(That ignores the fact that Jews aren't a race, of course, but Hitler
believed they were.)
In any event, genocide remains a hyperbolic term for what's going on
in Iraq, as bad as it is.
Rand Simberg
Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_d...@greenms.com> made the phosphor
on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
>"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
>news:45d58ef9....@news.giganews.com...
>> On 20 Jan 2007 13:20:52 -0800, in a place far, far away,
>> jsa...@ecn.ab.ca made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
>> as to indicate that:
>>
>>>Rand Simberg wrote:
>>>
>>>> A "genocidal war"?
>>>
>>>> They're all Arabs.
>>>
>>>Exterminating a minority identified by religious faith is also included
>>>in the U. N. genocide convention. Surely you knew that.
>>
>> I didn't, but if so, it's just one more example of watering down the
>> meaning of the word (hint: where does the "gen" part come from?). And
>> no minority is being exterminated in Iraq. Even if all the Sunnis or
>> Shia there were killed (unlikely), there'd be millions of others
>> elsewhere.
>
>And even if all the Jews in Poland were killed there'd be millions
>elsewhere.
Jews were being killed from many other places than Poland. They were
being rounded up everywhere the Reich was in control.
>
>You really are an idiot and an ass.
Right back atcha.
Rand Simberg
Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_d...@greenms.com> made the phosphor
on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
>"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
>news:45d7b232....@news.giganews.com...
>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 17:16:41 -0600, in a place far, far away, Pat
>> Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
>> such a way as to indicate that:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Rand Simberg wrote:
>>>> A "genocidal war"?
>>>>
>>>> They're all Arabs.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Which is rather like saying "they're all Europeans".
>>
>> Nope.
>
>Wow, you've got me convinced. What a resounding argument.
It's as much of an "argument" as Pat put forth.
>It's no surprise that fewer and fewer people pay attention to anything you
>have to say.
What's your evidence for that?
Rand Simberg
<fr...@spamexpire-200701.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> made the
phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>In article <45d7b232....@news.giganews.com>
>Yep.
>
>Kurds aren't Arabs - they're Kurds.
>
>And Persians (also Shiites) aren't Arabs.
I never claimed that either Kurds or Persians are Arabs.
>Ignorance of these facts by Americans caused the current disaster in Iraq.
I'm not ignorant of those facts.
OM
wrote:
>The U.S. is not to blame, George W. Bush and his little pack of neocon
>wackos are to blame.
...No, as I've stated before, the war wasn't the problem. Saddam
needed to be removed from power. The problem was the follow-through
and cleanup. As pointed out before, instead of going in as friends and
liberators, we needed to go in as conquerors. We needed to separate
the country into four districts - Kurds, Sunis, Shiites, and a US
Protectorate consisting of the primary oil field region to be
administered by the Kuwaitis and *equally* distributed profit-wise to
all three districts, with the express understanding that if any one of
the three act up in any way, shape or form, we'll annihilate entire
villages. Other than that, no mass taxation or slave labor camps, or
anything you would have expected from a Nazi or Soviet takeover. If
they can live in peace, we'll help them rebuild and turn their
shitholes back into the proto-paradii that they were on the verge of
becoming before Saddam fucked things up. This is *exactly* how we
handled West Germany, and they turned out far more prosperous than
they were under Hitler.
...One other thing to consider is this: By separating the three
religious dogmas into separate parts of the country, and then telling
them the reason they aren't allowed to interact is that they can't get
along, and that if they do interact they'll get the shit kicked out of
them, odds are is that they'll violate the edicts peacefully just to
"prove their conquerers wrong" and score "moral victory points"
against their "oppressors". My few friends who grew up in Yugoslavia
before Tito died all claim this was how things worked over there, and
it wasn't until he died and the Soviets quit helping enforce the
"behave, stay separate, or DIE!" laws that people quit getting along
to spite their conquerors.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
>>It's no surprise that fewer and fewer people pay attention to anything you
>>have to say.
>
> What's your evidence for that?
You really are either blind or so egotistical it's not funny.
Look around. Look at what everyone around here has been saying about you
and your postings.
Brad Guth
There's no law or treaty that's against vaporising or essentially
shooting down your own stuff.. We took out TWA flight 800, so what's the
difference. They kill off one of their satellites, and we killed all
those onboard that departing flight. I'm not sure, but I think there's
a moral difference to behold that's in there somewhere.
"Christopher" <aue...@REMOVEdsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:ri75r21m9btq6kon0...@4ax.com
> > Translation: The US DoD has been planning to have sole US military
> > access to space to the exclusion of all other nations it doen't like,
> > and when China shows its not going to be pushed around the US DoD
> > cries foul.
> Rand Simberg: Utter nonsense.
> Translation: we're going to treat space exactly the way we treat
> the seas.
When exactly are we going to start doing that? (being honest and nice
that is)
BTW; there's all sorts of do-not-sail portions of our seas that are
currently fortified with our best DoD talent and resources. I don't
believe space is any different, especially the space that's directly or
near enough over American interest.
-
Chinese Shoot Down Satellite
http://us.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/01/18/china.missile/index.html
All nations (including the all-knowing USofA) have the right of
terminating known spy satellites that are operating over their realm of
whatever can be seen or otherwise monitored from such nearby LEO space.
What I hadn't previously realized is that a given missile's horizontal
range is an indication as to accomplishing half that amount of range in
vertical travel, which makes North Korea entirely capable of clearing
out those pesky spy satellites as having been taking such unauthorised
look-sees at whatever they're up to. I'm certain we'd do the same of
taking out a North Korean spy satellite, especially were it in a LEO
path that made it capable of monitoring our every move.
I do believe that many of our spy satellites have operated near the 200
km mark, thus as little as a 400 km tactical field missile (perhaps one
of 500 km for good measure) should to do the trick. However, tracking
and obviously timing down to something better than a millisecond is
required unless the amount of explosive payload is rather substantial if
not thermal nuclear.
>According to a spokesman for the National Security Council, the
>ground-based, medium-range ballistic missile knocked an old
>Chinese weather satellite from its orbit about 537 miles above
>Earth. The missile carried a "kill vehicle" and destroyed the
>satellite by ramming it.
This indicates that China has no apparent faults with their capably
tracking and essentially playing lethal touch tag with their own kind,
which obviously means they don't even require all that much explosive
energy, thereby making their efforts with less inert mass is certainly
fly-by-rocket efficient.
Actually, a retrograde impact would be rather impressive, though
extremely difficult to achieve.
I'm also fairly certain that quality SAR imaging via other than US spy
satellites has become doable by many of those capable of launching
scientific whatever missions. Their's may not be as good as ours, but
never the less, SAR imaging simply beats anything CCD optical by multi
fold, easpecially informative (nearly 3D) if obtained at 45 degrees.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Fred J. McCall
:On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 23:39:44 -0600, in a place far, far away, Pat
:Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
:such a way as to indicate that:
:>
:>They gave up dictatorship for a genocidal war between Shia and Sunnis.
:>
:
:A "genocidal war"?
:
:They're all Arabs.
So the Holocaust wasn't an attempt at genocide because everyone
involved was white?
--
"This philosophy of hate, of religious and racial intolerance,
with its passionate urge toward war, is loose in the world.
It is the enemy of democracy; it is the enemy of all the
fruitful and spiritual sides of life. It is our responsibility,
as individuals and organizations, to resist this."
-- Mary Heaton Vorse
Charles Buckley
I killfiled Rand a long time ago. Only see him when others
respond. He was cool back when he was sane. Now, he's essentially
the same as any terrorist out there.. Here's he's trying to argue
that killing an entire religious minority is not genocide..
sheesh..
Dale
<rijr...@friiSTOPSPAM.com> wrote:
>I killfiled Rand a long time ago. Only see him when others
>respond. He was cool back when he was sane. Now, he's essentially
>the same as any terrorist out there.. Here's he's trying to argue
>that killing an entire religious minority is not genocide..
>
>sheesh..
>
Yet he'll come up with some rationalization of his earlier "all Iraqis
are the same, so genocide is impossible" crap.
I'd long killfiled him as well. I guess I let him out because, well, I
can't remember. He and OM like each other, apparently. I'll do the
decent think and plonk Rand, so they can be together :)
Dale
Rand Simberg
Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_d...@greenms.com> made the phosphor
on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
*Everyone*?
I don't think so.
Rand Simberg
Buckley <rijr...@friiSTOPSPAM.com> made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
No one is killing an entire religious minority in Iraq. Pat's
statement remains hyperbolic.
Rand Simberg
<d...@oz.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to
indicate that:
>On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 02:17:51 -0700, Charles Buckley
><rijr...@friiSTOPSPAM.com> wrote:
>
>>I killfiled Rand a long time ago. Only see him when others
>>respond. He was cool back when he was sane. Now, he's essentially
>>the same as any terrorist out there.. Here's he's trying to argue
>>that killing an entire religious minority is not genocide..
>>
>>sheesh..
>>
>
>Yet he'll come up with some rationalization of his earlier "all Iraqis
>are the same, so genocide is impossible" crap.
I didn't say all Iraqis are the same.
Rand Simberg
Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>
>
>jsa...@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
>>
>> Those were dangerous games, because the prospect of al-Qaeda getting
>> its hands on weapons of mass destruction was *absolutely intolerable*.
>>
>
>And he wouldn't be the person to give them to al-Qaeda, as he had a
>secular, not Islamic, form of government.
I guess that would explain why he offered rewards to Islamic
terrorists in Israel.
Terrell Miller
news:1169329968.8...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Basically, I am somewhat nostalgic for the world order that existed in
> the nineteenth century. Here, there was peace between all the advanced
> democracies,
hmmm, notable events of the 19th century include:
War of 1812
Trail Of Tears and Manifest Destiny
Mexican-American War
Crimean War
U.S. Civil War
Russo-Turkish War
Franco-Prussian War
Sino-Japanese War
Spanish-American War
you could really add in the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-05 as well.
yep, it was a Golden Age of peace adn harmony all right
--
Terrell Miller
mill...@bellsouth.net
"Some of history's worst disasters have been brought about by taking a
solution that has worked successfully in one area, and trying to apply it in
another area where it isn't appropriate."
-James P. Hogan
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
Oh you're right. So sorry, it's not everything. I don't think Brad Guth
has had much to say about you.
OM
Simberg) wrote:
>>Look around. Look at what everyone around here has been saying about you
>>and your postings.
>
>*Everyone*?
>
>I don't think so.
...Cite one person who's sided with you, Rand.
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca
> Since they apparently intend to have a bloody civil war, just get out of
> the way and let them have it; maybe if their leaders are all concerned
> that they are going to be killed, they will actually decide that they
> can live together somehow.
Do you really think that they have a choice?
Maybe the U.S. electorate, in 1948, could have voted for Russia not to
get nuclear weapons, so that they wouldn't have had to pay so much
taxes for the Cold War.
It takes *one* to make a fight, not two.
> You start a draft when your country is under attack, not when you decide
> to invade another country.
September 11, 2001.
> We frankly can't afford this war in a monetary sense; our tanks,
> Humvees, and helicopters are worn out, our National Guard and Reserve
> troops have had their lives torn apart with no good reason, and if the
> President tries to start a draft, he's going to impeached inside of 48
> hours...and rightfully so.
Why impeached? Doesn't Congress have to authorize conscription? Surely
all they have to do is laugh at him, not impeach him.
John Savard
Rand Simberg
<om@dale_is_a_thug_loving_putz.com> made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 13:17:37 GMT, simberg.i...@org.trash (Rand
>Simberg) wrote:
>
>>>Look around. Look at what everyone around here has been saying about you
>>>and your postings.
>>
>>*Everyone*?
>>
>>I don't think so.
>
>...Cite one person who's sided with you, Rand.
On what subject?
Henry Spencer
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> You start a draft when your country is under attack, not when you decide
>> to invade another country.
>
>September 11, 2001.
The Sept. 11th attacks were conducted by a small band of criminals,
loosely backed by one government which no longer exists (the Taliban
regime of Afghanistan). They can't reasonably be used as an excuse to
impose conscription for any purpose you please, 5+ years later.
(Of course, the secret motto of the Department of Fatherland Security is
"we have to destroy freedom to save it" :-), but this seems a trifle
excessive even so.)
There might be some sense to it if the proposed draft were for the purpose
of pacifying *Afghanistan* and finally stamping the Taliban out once and
for all -- and heaven knows, that could use doing. But Iraq is an
unrelated side show.
>> ...and if the
>> President tries to start a draft, he's going to impeached inside of 48
>> hours...and rightfully so.
>
>Why impeached? Doesn't Congress have to authorize conscription? Surely
>all they have to do is laugh at him, not impeach him.
If he asked for something so stupid, they might feel that the process of
regime change couldn't reasonably wait another two years.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | he...@spsystems.net
Pat Flannery
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
>
>> You start a draft when your country is under attack, not when you decide
>> to invade another country.
>>
>
> September 11, 2001.
>
Which had zip to do with the Iraqis.
Or as one wag put it: "It's like the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor...
and we promptly declared war on Mexico."
The really horrible part of this mess is that we pulled most of our
troops out of Afghanistan, where al-Qaeda really was, so that now they
really do have a chance to taking over there, and our invasion of Iraq
and failure to find any WMDs is the best recruiting tool they could
ever dream of.
We blew this about every way imaginable.
>
>> We frankly can't afford this war in a monetary sense; our tanks,
>> Humvees, and helicopters are worn out, our National Guard and Reserve
>> troops have had their lives torn apart with no good reason, and if the
>> President tries to start a draft, he's going to impeached inside of 48
>> hours...and rightfully so.
>>
>
> Why impeached? Doesn't Congress have to authorize conscription? Surely
> all they have to do is laugh at him, not impeach him.
>
Who needs those damn Congressmen?
The Decider-In-Chief will do whatever he wants, Congress or no Congress.
The dual conceptions of the Rule Of Law and Separation Of Powers aren't
his high points, to put it mildly.
That's why you get all of his signing statements on new legislation that
say he has no intention of obeying it:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/
Most recently, that he has the right to read anyone's mail he wants with
no court order:
http://www.readingeagle.com/blog/editorials/archives/2007/01/bush_hides_behi.html
Pat
Rand Simberg
Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>
>
>jsa...@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
>>
>>> You start a draft when your country is under attack, not when you decide
>>> to invade another country.
>>>
>>
>> September 11, 2001.
>>
>
>
>Which had zip to do with the Iraqis.
>Or as one wag put it: "It's like the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor...
>and we promptly declared war on Mexico."
Or we promptly invaded Tunis, in North Africa. Which is in fact what
we did, since you seem historically ignorant.
OM
Simberg) wrote:
>>...Cite one person who's sided with you, Rand.
>
>On what subject?
...Rand, don't play fuckwit games here. You know what I'm talking
about, and that sort of response is sinking your boat with *everyone*
very rapidly.
OM
wrote:
>Or as one wag put it: "It's like the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor...
>and we promptly declared war on Mexico."
...No, the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor, and we declared war on Dean
Wormer and his Hitler Youth.
Pat Flannery
Rand Simberg wrote:
> Or we promptly invaded Tunis, in North Africa. Which is in fact what
> we did, since you seem historically ignorant.
>
You don't really know almost anything about what happened in America's
history, do you?
Were you even born in the United States? I can't believe you ever went
to even high school here, as this would have been covered in something
like seventh grade history class.
Although getting war declared on Japan was a piece of cake, getting war
declared on the rest of the Axis would have been almost impossible
politically for FDR... but lucky for him (and particularly Churchill,
who couldn't believe what he was seeing when it happened, and was almost
bouncing off the walls with joy) on December 11th, 1941 Germany and
Italy declared war on the United States.
We didn't get around to invading Tunisia until almost a year later, on
November 8th, 1942, and the city of Tunis proper didn't fall until the
evening of May 6th, 1943.
If you are referring to the Barbary Pirates, we attacked them after they
they started raiding American shipping at the end of the 1700's, and we
never did invade the city of Tunis, just bombarded the place, burnt the
frigate "The Philadelphia" in Tripoli harbor in 1804, and came back and
seized the fortress of Derna at Tripoli in 1805 as a way of making the
Pacha of Tripoli agree to stop raiding our shipping in the
Mediterranean: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/barbary.htm
What that would have to do with the attack on Pearl Harbor or 9-11 is
beyond me, as the Barbary Pirates weren't into slaying Christians, but
rather holding them hostage for ransom.
But you know what?
I think I know exactly what you were trying to pull here.
You were going to do the old bait-and-switch.
I was going to assume you were referring to "Tunisia" and Operation
Torch, not "Tunis"...and then you were going to bring up The Barbary
Pirates and the attack on Derna, claiming I was misunderstanding what
you were talking about.
This would be a classic troll move, and worthy of ol' CT himself. Except
that there's a big difference... CT would say something completely off
the wall, then have fun taking on those who disagreed with him by a
series of torturous and convoluted arguments.
You, on the other hand I'm pretty sure, were attempting to purposely
make a posting that was misleading, so that I'd jump on it, and then you
could say "That's not what I was talking about at all."
Of course you couldn't say "Tripoli" as that would be a give-away. And
Tunisia would of course refer to Operation Torch...so you said "Tunis"
instead, without checking if we ever invaded the place during the
Barbary war.
The alternative to that would be that you really are that completely
clueless about the history of WW II, in which case it's no wonder that
your take on reality is so odd, as it's based on extreme ignorance of it
in any detail.
Pat
Rand Simberg
<om@dale_is_a_thug_loving_putz.com> made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 20:53:49 GMT, simberg.i...@org.trash (Rand
>Simberg) wrote:
>
>>>...Cite one person who's sided with you, Rand.
>>
>>On what subject?
>
>...Rand, don't play fuckwit games here. You know what I'm talking
>about, and that sort of response is sinking your boat with *everyone*
>very rapidly.
Sorry, answer the question. You snipped it out, but Greg's post was
very general.
Rand Simberg
>
>
>Rand Simberg wrote:
>> Or we promptly invaded Tunis, in North Africa. Which is in fact what
>> we did, since you seem historically ignorant.
>>
>
>
>You don't really know almost anything about what happened in America's
>history, do you?
Actually, I'm quite conversant, thanks.
Pat Flannery
OM wrote:
> ...No, the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor, and we declared war on Dean
> Wormer and his Hitler Youth.
>
"Bluto's right!"
Belushi did some great stuff, but "Bluto" Blutarski was his crowning gem.
Yes, indeed, he was on a roll, and yes indeed, we must of necessity
follow him into righteous, just, and completely futile and doomed battle
against those who would oppress us.
It's time that those crooked bastards in Washington met the Deathmobile
face-to-face.
And about a zillion marbles as well. :-D
Pat
Pat Flannery
Rand Simberg wrote:
>> You don't really know almost anything about what happened in America's
>> history, do you?
>>
>
> Actually, I'm quite conversant, thanks.
>
And so when exactly did American forces invade Tunis? :-D
Pat
Pat
Fred J. McCall
:In article <1169411722....@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
: <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
:>> You start a draft when your country is under attack, not when you decide
:>> to invade another country.
:>
:>September 11, 2001.
:
:The Sept. 11th attacks were conducted by a small band of criminals,
:loosely backed by one government which no longer exists (the Taliban
:regime of Afghanistan). They can't reasonably be used as an excuse to
:impose conscription for any purpose you please, 5+ years later.
:
:(Of course, the secret motto of the Department of Fatherland Security is
:"we have to destroy freedom to save it" :-), but this seems a trifle
:excessive even so.)
:
:There might be some sense to it if the proposed draft were for the purpose
:of pacifying *Afghanistan* and finally stamping the Taliban out once and
:for all -- and heaven knows, that could use doing. But Iraq is an
:unrelated side show.
The only people proposing a draft are left-wing Democrats.
:
:>> ...and if the
:>> President tries to start a draft, he's going to impeached inside of 48
:>> hours...and rightfully so.
:>
:>Why impeached? Doesn't Congress have to authorize conscription? Surely
:>all they have to do is laugh at him, not impeach him.
:
:If he asked for something so stupid, they might feel that the process of
:regime change couldn't reasonably wait another two years.
Again, the only people proposing a draft are left-wing Democrats
(usually Rangel, D-NY).
--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain
OM
wrote:
>Belushi did some great stuff, but "Bluto" Blutarski was his crowning gem.
...In no particular order, Belushi's ten greatest roles were arguably:
* Joliet Jake Blues
* The Samurai
* Captain James Tiberius Kirk
* Joe Cocker
* Captain Ned of the Raging Queen
* The Future Sen. John "Bluto" Blutarsky
* Jor-El, who was reincarnated as Charlie Rich
* Capt. Wild Bill Kelso
* Ernie Souchak
* The Incredible Hulk taking a shit!
...But, of course, no list can go without mentioning his most ironic,
yet memorable role: himself, giving a decades-later eulogy for his
long-departed SNL comrades, with the irony being that -he- would be
the first to die, and not the last.
OM
Simberg) wrote:
>Sorry, answer the question.
...Fuck it. Rand, you're just jerking chains while you're jerking off.
I'm not going to play your sick little game. Begone.
<PLONK>
I just can't believe that Rand finally fell to the madness of the
trolls...
Charles Buckley
> In article <1169411722....@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> You start a draft when your country is under attack, not when you decide
>>> to invade another country.
>> September 11, 2001.
>
> The Sept. 11th attacks were conducted by a small band of criminals,
> loosely backed by one government which no longer exists (the Taliban
> regime of Afghanistan). They can't reasonably be used as an excuse to
> impose conscription for any purpose you please, 5+ years later.
Generally, I would agree, but not here. The rationale isn't the
Taliban or even directly Iraq. The simple fact of the matter is that
the US is overcommitted and we do not have sufficient reserves to
handle any new threats or emergencies. We've been losing strength
for the past few years. We've already lost about a division's worth
of casualties as well as declining enlistments to backfill those
slots. We're losing a disproportionate amount of second term enlistees
who normally decide to re-enlist. (Generally, the people who complete
their second enlistment tend to retire in the military after 20. Leaving
at the end of 8 or 12 years is a huge red flag). The Army and Marines
have reduced standards to below that of the Carter Administration's
level of requirements. They have then also been publishing overly
optimistic re-enlistment news based upon meeting ever decreasing quotas
rather than hard requirements for maintaining combat effectiveness.
We've had peacetime drafts before. There is a solid requirement now
to maintain certain levels of force and there is no real expectation
of maintaining that level with the current situation and qualified
people are even more noticable in their absence than their volunteering.
(Doubly true of upper income war supporters).
The truth of the matter is quite simple. The Bush administration
has tried to do this on the cheap from day 1. They opposes increasing
the size of the military in the 2003 budget when this started and
Congress overrode that objection. They have consistently opposed any
other increase in military spending or budget since then[1].
When you push through tax cuts and fight a war on credit, you're
really not big on the whole sacrifice concept.
>
> (Of course, the secret motto of the Department of Fatherland Security is
> "we have to destroy freedom to save it" :-), but this seems a trifle
> excessive even so.)
>
> There might be some sense to it if the proposed draft were for the purpose
> of pacifying *Afghanistan* and finally stamping the Taliban out once and
> for all -- and heaven knows, that could use doing. But Iraq is an
> unrelated side show.
>
We're likely to be in a shooting war with either Syria or Iran soon.
Side show, or not, that does not decrease the risk of having no reserves
and the potential loss of a lot of qualified military personnel.
>>> ...and if the
>>> President tries to start a draft, he's going to impeached inside of 48
>>> hours...and rightfully so.
>> Why impeached? Doesn't Congress have to authorize conscription? Surely
>> all they have to do is laugh at him, not impeach him.
>
> If he asked for something so stupid, they might feel that the process of
> regime change couldn't reasonably wait another two years.
I am not sure about that. The democrats have been the ones who have
been pushing for the increase in the size of the military and they
have been the ones who have pushed draft legislation. Personally,
I would be shocked and pleasantly surprised if anyone near the
administration actually did *any* contingency planning[2],
much less took any steps towards meeting the possible requirements.
Now, if Bush's current hostile stance towards Iran leads to a
shooting war, then there will be some serious doubts as to
the provocation of such a war. His current rules of engagement
are almost designed to lead to an escalation incident. An outright
bombing of Iranian oil platforms or other targets would be very
questionable.
[1] http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1203/121003cdpm1.htm
"It's bad policy to speculate on what you'll do if a plan fails
when you're trying to make a plan work."
-- Condoleezza Rice, quoted in The Washington Post speaking at today's
hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (special thanks
to TPM Reader SW for the tip)
Rand Simberg
Buckley <rijr...@friiSTOPSPAM.com> made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>Now, if Bush's current hostile stance towards Iran
What planet are you posting this from, and what color is the sky
there?
Rand Simberg
McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>he...@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) wrote:
>
>:In article <1169411722....@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>: <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>:>> You start a draft when your country is under attack, not when you decide
>:>> to invade another country.
>:>
>:>September 11, 2001.
>:
>:The Sept. 11th attacks were conducted by a small band of criminals,
>:loosely backed by one government which no longer exists (the Taliban
>:regime of Afghanistan).
That "gang of criminals" still exists, and continues to be funded in
the same manner as it was on 911, from a lot of Saudi oil money, and
protected by tribal leaders in the anarchy of Waziristan.
Pat Flannery
OM wrote:
> ...In no particular order, Belushi's ten greatest roles were arguably:
>
> * Joliet Jake Blues
>
Great character, and you would've had to have gone to a Catholic primary
school, like I did, to realize the full and terrible power of "The
Penguin".
Christ, she was of the same order of nuns that I was instructed by as a
kid.
> * The Samurai
Facial expressions just did it, didn't it?
That and a razor-sharp Katana sword to help divide sandwiches.
> * Captain James Tiberius Kirk
> * Joe Cocker
> * Captain Ned of the Raging Queen
> * The Future Sen. John "Bluto" Blutarsky
>
Again, facial expressions without a word were perfect.
He just balled the living hell out of her, and she's sitting there
looking at a very force of nature.
> Jor-El, who was reincarnated as Charlie Rich
Perfect ending for "Seinfeld":
They all really go down in the plane, and wake up in their new lives,
decided by their karma.
Jerry wakes up as he's crawling out of a meteorite that fell near
Smallville, with his impervious swaddling clothes around him.
As the two Kents approach him in the crater, a close friend of their's
also approaches the desperate child.
The bald-headed Lex Newman approaches the Kryptonian child as seen
through Jerry's eyes.
"Why look, what a lovely little baby! Look, I've brought a little gift
for him....
Hello... KAL-EL."
Newman holds up a glowing piece of green Kryponite...the baby Jerry
starts screaming.
>> * Capt. Wild Bill Kelso
Perfect realization of a character... stick your finger through the hole
on the inside of your P-40's canopy.
Reach outside your P-40's canopy, and stick your finger through the same
hole from the outside.
"THIS IS FUCKING IT! THE GODDAMN JAPS HAVE JUST SHOT A HOLE IN *MY*
AIRPLANE!" :-D
Pat
Pat Flannery
Rand Simberg wrote:
> That "gang of criminals" still exists, and continues to be funded in
> the same manner as it was on 911, from a lot of Saudi oil money, and
> protected by tribal leaders in the anarchy of Waziristan.
>
Okay.. what the fuck is "Waziristan"?
Pat
Rand Simberg
Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>
>
You want to argue about Bush's evil war, and be taken seriously, and
don't know what Waziristan is?
Hop David
>>>no minority is being exterminated in Iraq. Even if all the Sunnis or
>>>Shia there were killed (unlikely), there'd be millions of others
>>>elsewhere.
>>
>>So because there were Jews elsewhere, the Holocaust doesn't count as
>>genocide?
>
>
> No. The intent was to wipe out the Jews. If Hitler had achieved his
> ultimate ambition of world domination he would have done so.
So those killing Sunnis are restricting their efforts to Iraqi Sunnis?
Hop David
>
>
> Rand Simberg wrote:
>> (snip), since you seem historically ignorant.
A master of irony.
Rand Simberg
David <ho...@cunews.info> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:
>>>>no minority is being exterminated in Iraq. Even if all the Sunnis or
Probably. I'm not aware, and haven't seen any evidence, that they
have any intent of invading Saudi Arabia or Jordan in order to kill
Sunnis. They just want to run Iraq. It's mostly about revenge for
all of the Ba'athist oppression over the past few decades. And of
course, for the more recent atrocities against Shia encouraged by Al
Qaeda in Iraq, such as the Golden Dome bombing.
Don't confuse a blood feud and civil war with genocide. It really
does water down the meaning of the word to uselessness.
Here's a challenge, to anyone, but particularly to those who think
that the UN's definition of genocide is valid and useful. Does anyone
here think that it would be possible to get the UN to declare what's
happening in Iraq by that word?
Rand Simberg
David <ho...@cunews.info> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:
>Pat Flannery wrote:
To whom are you referring, and on what basis?
OM
wrote:
>Great character, and you would've had to have gone to a Catholic primary
>school, like I did, to realize the full and terrible power of "The
>Penguin".
...And one of the Great Secrets of the Catholic Church is that some
30% of those "Evil Penguins" usually have one or more of their former
students enacting some sort of revenge against them for being such
unnecessary disciplinarians. Usually it's something relatively
harmless, like breaking into the school and prank sabotaging something
that was representative of their tyranny, but on rare occasions the
Mother Sadistica winds up getting the shit beat out of her *and*
explained why this has happened between blows.
There's a difference between educating kids and masturbating your ego
using sadism, kids.
OM
wrote:
>Perfect ending for "Seinfeld":
...No, the perfect ending for "Seinfeld" would have been to steal the
one from "I Married Dora", with an added twist:
Jerry: [opens telegram] "Oh my God! We've been cancelled!"
Audience Member: "About damn time! Let's get the fuck outta here,
people. There's still time to catch the taping of "Friends"..."
...That show was the most unfunny show ever foisted on American TV
audiences since "Pink Lady and Jeff", and why anyone thinks Seinfeld
has ever been funny has never understood comedy in the first place.
OM
wrote:
>Okay.. what the fuck is "Waziristan"?
...Pat, forget it. Rand's gone off the deep end. Just quietly killfile
the poor dope and let him metastisize out of our sight and out of his
mind.
Rand Simberg
<om@dale_is_a_thug_loving_putz.com> made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 08:17:04 -0600, Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Okay.. what the fuck is "Waziristan"?
>
>...Pat, forget it. Rand's gone off the deep end.
Because I know the region where Al Qaeda currently hangs out, and you
and Pat are ignorant of it?
Alan Jones
<om@dale_is_a_thug_loving_putz.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 20:37:01 -0600, Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Belushi did some great stuff, but "Bluto" Blutarski was his crowning gem.
>
>...In no particular order, Belushi's ten greatest roles were arguably:
My favorite was Belushi playing himself in the SNL opening bit,
holding the network hostage by refusing to say the opening phrase
until his demands were met.
Jonathan Silverlight
<fla...@daktel.com> writes
That reply is beneath you, Pat.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004-2006_Waziristan_conflict> has some
recent history.
Rand Simberg
Silverlight <jsilve...@spam.merseia.fsnet.co.uk.invalid> made the
phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>>Rand Simberg wrote:
>>> That "gang of criminals" still exists, and continues to be funded in
>>> the same manner as it was on 911, from a lot of Saudi oil money, and
>>> protected by tribal leaders in the anarchy of Waziristan.
>>>
>>
>>Okay.. what the fuck is "Waziristan"?
>
>That reply is beneath you, Pat.
I'd like to think that there are replies that are beneath Pat, but I'm
not sure there are. That one certainly (obviously) wasn't, unless
someone hijacked his account.
As already noted, he should be embarrassed to be attempting to argue
about these issues when he's so ignorant of them. Guess it's easier
to hope that Chimpy McHalliburton chokes to death on a pretzel. That
requires no thought, or knowledge at all.
Terrell Miller
news:46112c9b....@news.giganews.com...
>>That reply is beneath you, Pat.
>
> I'd like to think that there are replies that are beneath Pat, but I'm
> not sure there are. That one certainly (obviously) wasn't, unless
> someone hijacked his account.
troops...cool it. You're two of the Good Guys around here. Grab a couple
beers and makethefuckupalready.
--
Terrell Miller
mill...@bellsouth.net
"Some of history's worst disasters have been brought about by taking a
solution that has worked successfully in one area, and trying to apply it in
another area where it isn't appropriate."
-James P. Hogan
Terrell Miller
news:uuu9r21sljr4pf9er...@4ax.com...
> There's a difference between educating kids and masturbating your ego
> using sadism, kids.
"Girlfriend's into some different shit..."
Rand Simberg
Miller" <mill...@bellsouth.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
>news:46112c9b....@news.giganews.com...
>
>>>That reply is beneath you, Pat.
>>
>> I'd like to think that there are replies that are beneath Pat, but I'm
>> not sure there are. That one certainly (obviously) wasn't, unless
>> someone hijacked his account.
>
>troops...cool it. You're two of the Good Guys around here. Grab a couple
>beers and makethefuckupalready.
It would be a lot easier to do that if he wasn't determined to live in
North frickin' Dakota....
robert casey
>>
>> Okay.. what the fuck is "Waziristan"?
>>
>>
>
> That reply is beneath you, Pat.
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004-2006_Waziristan_conflict> has some
> recent history.
Well, it did sound like a flippant made up name, like "Butt-wipe-ah-stan".
robert casey
> ...And one of the Great Secrets of the Catholic Church is that some
> 30% of those "Evil Penguins" usually have one or more of their former
> students enacting some sort of revenge against them for being such
> unnecessary disciplinarians. Usually it's something relatively
> harmless, like breaking into the school and prank sabotaging something
> that was representative of their tyranny, but on rare occasions the
> Mother Sadistica winds up getting the shit beat out of her *and*
> explained why this has happened between blows.
>
> There's a difference between educating kids and masturbating your ego
> using sadism, kids.
>
As this experience of rabid ruler wielding nuns is very common in the
USA, this policy of excessive discipline must have been created as
official policy at some high level in the Catholic church. Once was
talking with a co-worker from Taiwan, and he mentioned about nuns.
Turns out the nuns there were nice to the kids there.