The real solution is much more grim and difficult
Doug Jones
real cost will be. Glib talk of "glass" and "nuke 'em" is unrealistic
and unproductive.
We do not need to punish Afghanistan -it has already been punished
beyond anything most of us can comprehend- we must liberate it. This
will require blood and iron, much of it American.
--
Doug Jones
An essay by Tamim Ansary
I've been hearing a lot of talk about "bombing Afghanistan back to the
Stone Age." Ronn Owens, on KGO Talk Radio today, allowed that this would
mean killing innocent people, people who had nothing to do with this
atrocity, but "we're at war, we have to accept collateral damage. What
else can we do?" Minutes later I heard some TV pundit discussing
whether we "have the belly to do what must be done."
And I thought about the issues being raised especially hard because I am
from Afghanistan, and even though I've lived here for 35 years I've
never lost track of what's going on there. So I want to tell anyone who
will listen how it all looks from where I'm standing.
I speak as one who hates the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. There is no
doubt in my mind that these people were responsible for the atrocity in
New York. I agree that something must be done about those monsters. But
the Taliban and Ben Laden are not Afghanistan. They're not even the
government of Afghanistan. The Taliban are a cult of ignorant
psychotics who took over Afghanistan in 1997. Bin Laden is a political
criminal with a plan. When you think Taliban, think Nazis. When you
think Bin Laden, think Hitler. And when you think "the people of
Afghanistan" think "the Jews in the concentration camps." It's not
only that the Afghan people had nothing to do with this atrocity.
They were the first victims of the perpetrators. They would exult if
someone would come in there, take out the Taliban and clear out the rats
nest of international thugs holed up in their country.
Some say, why don't the Afghans rise up and overthrow the Taliban? The
answer is, they're starved, exhausted, hurt, incapacitated, suffering. A
few years ago, the United Nations estimated that there are 500,000
disabled orphans in Afghanistan--a country with no economy, no food.
There are millions of widows. And the Taliban has been burying these
widows alive in mass graves. The soil is littered with land mines, the
farms were all destroyed by the Soviets. These are a few of the reasons
why the Afghan people have not overthrown the Taliban.
We come now to the question of bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone
Age. Trouble is, that's been done. The Soviets took care of it already.
Make the Afghans suffer? They're already suffering. Level their houses?
Done. Turn their schools into piles of rubble? Done. Eradicate their
hospitals? Done. Destroy their infrastructure? Cut them off from
medicine and health care? Too late. Someone already did all that.
New bombs would only stir the rubble of earlier bombs. Would they at
least get the Taliban? Not likely. In today's Afghanistan, only the
Taliban eat, only they have the means to move around. They'd slip away
and hide. Maybe the bombs would get some of those disabled orphans, they
don't move too fast, they don't even have wheelchairs. But flying over
Kabul and dropping bombs wouldn't really be a strike against the
criminals who did this horrific thing. Actually it would only be making
common cause with the Taliban--by raping once again the people they've
been raping all this time.
So what else is there? What can be done, then? Let me now speak with
true fear and trembling. The only way to get Bin Laden is to go in there
with ground troops. When people speak of "having the belly to do what
needs to be done" they're thinking in terms of having the belly to kill
as many as needed. Having the belly to overcome any moral qualms about
killing innocent people. Let's pull our heads out of the sand. What's
actually on the table is Americans dying. And not just because some
Americans would die fighting their way through Afghanistan to Bin
Laden's hideout.
It's much bigger than that folks. Because to get any troops to
Afghanistan, we'd have to go through Pakistan. Would they let us? Not
likely. The conquest of Pakistan would have to be first. Will other
Muslim nations just stand by? You see where I'm going. We're flirting
with a world war between Islam and the West.
And guess what: that's Bin Laden's program. That's exactly what he
wants. That's why he did this. Read his speeches and statements. It's
all right there. He really believes Islam would beat the west. It might
seem ridiculous, but he figures if he can polarize the world into Islam
and the West, he's got a billion soldiers. If the west wreaks a
holocaust in those lands, that's a billion people with nothing left to
lose, that's even better from Bin Laden's point of view. He's probably
wrong, in the end the west would win, whatever that would mean, but the
war would last for years and millions would die, not just theirs but
ours. Who has the belly for that? Bin Laden does. Anyone else?
Tamim Ansary
John Hare
>I fear that this person, Tamim Ansary, understands too well what the
>real cost will be. Glib talk of "glass" and "nuke 'em" is unrealistic
>and unproductive.
>
>We do not need to punish Afghanistan -it has already been punished
>beyond anything most of us can comprehend- we must liberate it. This
>will require blood and iron, much of it American.
>
>--
>Doug Jones
>
The cost of doing it right could be very high. Hopeless poverty is a fertile
recruiting grounds for suicidal fanatics. I sincerily hope there are better
options than the years long struggles that I believe could happen. What
scares me more is the possibility that victory will be declared well short
of completion leaving essentially the same situation with a different cast
of villians. Our national history would suggest that we will relax in a few
years whether the job is done right or not. The next time it will be different
methods and different targets. Nukes would create many enemies where
only a few existed before. Vietnam would have been a very different war
if collateral casualties could have somehow been avoided.
For private spaceflight, the regulations spawned by this attack could make
it much more difficult to get anything flying. In our own self interest, we are
going to have to pay even more attention to the politics of our vehicles.
It will be necessary to have numbers in hand at all times when discussing
our goals. "There are only five seats in the cabin, three of which are occupied
by the crew. Even if someone could hijack one of our transports, it would be
out of fuel several minutes before it could reach downtown. Even on the pad
it contains less kero than a 767." Or whatever is accurate, and make damn
sure it is accurate. For the near future loose talk of skirting regulations
is
going to be counterproductive and should be discouraged whether in your
company or someone elses.
Tom Billings
I believe the sort of answer needed is similar to
what I just suggested in a post to alt.war.nuclear
Reposted below:
"LT.Hit-Man" wrote:
> I would like to hear your thoughts about WW3.
> One do any of you thinking that we are getting closer to it or are we
going
> to get our heads out of our asses and start looking towards expanding into
> space?
> To my way of thinking the human race has but two choices, one we grow up
and
> see that dispute the differences between us we have more in common then we
> know and work on that to put to rest most of the hate and strife between
us
> and work together to reach out and make the stars our own, why settle for
> killing a lot of people for a few miles of land when you could find a
planet
> and make your own to build as you see fit?
> Or we could have one jim dandy game of winner take all and start WW3.
>
> Another thought if we are destined to have the third world war how bad to
you
> think it would be and how would whoever is left after it survive and
rebuild
> the shattered earth?
First, stop the dramatics. This will be the resistance to the *fourth*
great wave of reaction against those freedoms of action so recently
born into human consciousness. This will require effort consonant
with calling it a World War, yes. It does not need to leave a shattered
world, merely one which no longer has growing scriptural literalist
sects engaged in political suppression of intellectual freedoms. (Note
that just as the socialist reaction had market freedoms as their point
of assault, even while their totalitarian core were willing to suppress
more than that, so the scriptural literalist reaction has intellectual
freedoms
as their bete noir, even though their totalitarians would willingly suppress
other freedoms of action to "get at" these subtler levels of action.)
These people have already declared war on the US, and now it will
be brought home to both them and their supporters. They operate,
as do all human endeavors, by motivation, support, and opportunity.
They must motivate those wealthy private people who donate to them,
and their organizers, and their fighters. They must support their network
of organizers, trainers, and fighters, while not harming the pocketbooks
of their wealthy private donors too much. They must have sanctuary
and places to operate from, as well as vulnerabilities in their opponent
to exploit.
Each of these is something that can be denied with any of several
strategies. We should pick those strategies which work, while increasing
our own levels of personal freedoms as much as possible. Make no
mistake about it, by their own statements to their followers, these people
are opponents of freedoms we cherish at the core of their motivational
matrix, and we must *not* do their work for them. Picking strategies
which reduce our own freedoms while assaulting merely their bodies
will only help their world-view, not cleanse our world of it. By basic
policy, we must support freedoms of action, not restrict them, or we
lose in the long run.
Let me suggest strategies consonant with that broad policy. I will
take the previous points in reverse order.
*Reduce the vulnerabilities of their opponents*
In a war against people who shoot *first* at civilians, this is something
many statists are obtuse about. The most obvious thing to do is to
increase the ability of our civilian population to do the 3 things which
will make them more safe; Recognize the nature of immediate terrorist
actions, communicate through instantly available networks to reinforcements
which can come to help them, and defend themselves effectively against
the immediate small-scale actions of terrorist murderers. This will *never*
be 100 percent effective, but can reduce the potential profit/loss ratio
of any particular terrorist operation dramatically.
1.) Train our people to realize the patterns of fast developing assaults.
2.) Train and equip them with such devices as cell phones with specific
"buttons" to reach immediate support teams, as well as more sophisticated
and information intensive links, even more intimate than present cell
phones.
3.) Cease disarming the population, and instead train all citizens to use
small firearms as an ultimate defense of their own persons and those
immediately surrounding them.
*Reduce the viability of their sanctuaries*
Note that totalitarian scriptural literalists are still a small
fraction of the umma of Islam, and they have many opponents
within the body of devout moslems, who will oppose them,
given the means to do so. The scriptural literalists oppose
a key subset of the freedoms of action needed for the
continuing industrial revolution, which too much of Islam
has missed out on so far. The umma of Islam need not be
kept in poverty by this misinterpretation of their own scripture.
Support those within the sanctuary countries who will oppose
those governments supporting the terrorist networks with sanctuary
and training areas. Logistical and monetary support should flow
immediately. This should be followed soon, if need be, by close-air
support for armed resistance and by special forces cooperation.
As a next step, assaults up to brigade size should be mounted
to break hard points of opposition to those forces willing to
form a government that does not support the scriptural literalist
terrorists against the intellectual freedoms of the industrializing
world. In the last extremity, we should be prepared to mount
larger expeditions to assault these governments directly, and
make it clear that supporting scriptural literalist terrorist networks
is a military/political death sentence for such governments.
*Reduce the motivations for support of these terror networks*
The present private support for many of those groups which
are striking the industrial world comes from, and is organized
through, wealthy business people who respond to "the economy
of honor" in the Arabian Peninsula, which predates Islam itself.
The means of reducing this is 3 fold:
1.) Reduce corruption in the governments of the Arabian
Peninsula, which are the first enemies, and primary
targets, of the scriptural literalists among the umma of Islam.
2.) Make it clear that assaults on countries which support
intellectual freedoms, such as Israel, will not lead to isolating
them from the rest of the industrial world.
3.) Make it clear that the choice is not between reshaping
the world into the mold of scriptural literalist Islam, and
slovenly indolence and corruption, but between the 21st
Century's industrial freedoms and the 9th century's theocratic
dictatorship.
This will be a *long* war.
If we are *lucky* it will last 10 years!
It could easily last 20 years!
The courage and vision for the future *we* desire
must be clear in our minds and our hearts, and we
must sustain that clarity, by our own recourse to
the divine. Doing so, we will find the policies, the
strategies, the tactics, the skills, the technology,
and the resources, to win the future of freedoms
of action that we desire, and the fulfillment of our
struggle.
Regards,
Tom Billings
Andrew Nowicki
Like it or not, criminals control most of the world.
If this is news to you, read Robert Kaplan's book
"The Coming Anarchy," or read excerpt from his book:
http://www.theatlantic.com/election/connection/foreign/anarchy.htm
Our military might is illusory when the enemy is
hiding among millions of foes, many of them living
in remote places that are not under control of any
government. WE NEED SOLAR-POWERED, COMSAT-CONTROLLED
DRONES ARMED WITH GUNS. Until we develop such
weapons we can neither police the world, nor we can
replace african anarchy with effective governments.
We do not know who financed the hijackers. The most
likely scenario is that we financed them! When we
paid for oil, muslim businessmen send our money to
Osama bin Laden via Pakistan. If bin Laden is dead,
our money will support other fanatics. We cannot call
them terrorists, because they make no demands.
Apparently they kill us because they enjoy doing it.
The hijacking is a harbinger of menace coming to us
in many forms from the tropics, usually called the
south. The south is hungry because their soil is prone
to erosion and their people are prone to violence.
Their main export items are narcotics, illegal aliens,
drug resistant germs, and oil. As long as we are
addicted to narcotics and oil, our money will support
the criminals. Replacing paper money with credit cards
may stop the narcotics epidemic. Replacing oil with
solar power may render muslim fanatics powerless.
Andrew Case
Doug Jones <ran...@qnet.com> wrote:
>I fear that this person, Tamim Ansary, understands too well what the
>real cost will be. Glib talk of "glass" and "nuke 'em" is unrealistic
>and unproductive.
>
>We do not need to punish Afghanistan -it has already been punished
>beyond anything most of us can comprehend- we must liberate it. This
>will require blood and iron, much of it American.
The position of Pakistan (both geopgraphic and political) will make this
very difficult. Perhaps its time for rapprochement with Iran. At least
Iran lets its people vote.
......Andrew
--
Andrew Case |
ac...@plasma.umd.edu |
Institute for Plasma Research |
University of Maryland, College Park |
Dr. Norman J. LaFave
1.) Spend substantial money on synthetic fuels and natural gas liquification
research and development programs. Lets create a new industry for power to
replace petroleum and cut them off from their money source. We cannot trust
them to use their assets to develop their nations into peaceful prosperous
world citizens so lets cut them off. A benefit of this is we could become a
source for fuel and power to replace them. After all...we are the Saudi
Arabia of natural gas. Another benefit is that these fuels would be
substantially cleaner.
2.) Lets fund, train and assist the rebels in Afghanistan against the
Taliban if they help us get Bin Laden. The Taliban have been raping and
pilaging their own society and deserve to be eliminated. Crush the Taliban
military, in partnership with the rebels, may be the best way to make
progress.
3.) Throw money at high technology specifically targeted at making it harder
for terrorists to operate and for obtaining intelligence. This could be in
areas as diverse as satellite imaging to defensive measures on aircraft. The
high tech industry is looking for new markets...lets give them a good one.
"Andrew Nowicki" <and...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3BA3D9BA...@nospam.com...
Mike Rhino
news:9o0lgo$n...@y.glue.umd.edu...
>
> The position of Pakistan (both geopgraphic and political) will
> make this very difficult. Perhaps its time for rapprochement
> with Iran. At least Iran lets its people vote.
I agree. Even if we can't be close friends with Iran, we want them out of
the war and they share borders with both Iraq and Afghanistan. They don't
like either country. It would be dangerous, but it's not unreasonable for
George Bush (either one) or Colin Powel to visit Iran.
Andrew Nowicki
is 9206 and rising. New York mayor
Rudy Giuliani ordered 11000 body bags.
Let us continue this discussion on
alt.terrorism.world-trade-center.
General L. Bradford Jr.
intellectual decay. It isn't surprising that those today who call the most
for more "intellectual freedom" are those who are dimming the fastest in
intellectual powers. Again, history repeating itself. Intellectual powers
and freedom cannot be dictated by any government. They die with One World
"globalism" of any kind. Intellectual freedom and enlarging minds (enlarging
intellectual powers) are born and nurtured to an evering widening, ever more
healthy, presence only of an opening spatial frontier: Only of the resulting
new born youth of civilization in there being raw and alien New Worlds. They
do not flower or flourish in any enclosure (circling) of space behind a
Great Wall. [It] decays them, decaying everything else generally positive
out from that specific decay.
It takes agonizing costs in time and pain before a Malthusian renewal of a
closed world develops. The costs of opening an outer space frontier are over
quicker and are enormously less for the enormously greater gain.
Brad
David H Parry
<glbr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> There isn't much difference today between intellectual freedom and
>intellectual decay. It isn't surprising that those today who call the most
>for more "intellectual freedom" are those who are dimming the fastest in
>intellectual powers. Again, history repeating itself. Intellectual powers
>and freedom cannot be dictated by any government. They die with One World
>"globalism" of any kind. Intellectual freedom and enlarging minds (enlarging
>intellectual powers) are born and nurtured to an evering widening, ever more
>healthy, presence only of an opening spatial frontier: Only of the resulting
>new born youth of civilization in there being raw and alien New Worlds. They
>do not flower or flourish in any enclosure (circling) of space behind a
>Great Wall. [It] decays them, decaying everything else generally positive
>out from that specific decay.
Civilisations have flourished for millennia on this planet amid worse
global situations ... why is the current time so different? One
tragedy and '...it's the end of the world is nigh!'... FFS calm down!
The last century, with its prolonged period of peace and prosperity,
was borne out of the mutually-assured-destruction of MAD and the
East-West stand-off. The 'enclosure' of the west, 'hemmed in' by the
soviet union's Iron Curtain as it was, DIDN'T prevent the West from
flourishing, did it? If anything the West was spurred on to do more
and reach further with its technology. The time when the superpowers
'fought' hardest resulted in the start of the space-race, the Internet
I am using to publish this message and hundreds of other benefits.
Conflict and decay PRODUCES activity, it doesn't stiffle it. You have
learned all the wrong lessons from history and distorted them to suit
your depressing suggestion.
You are simply afraid of social change, that's all. All this fear and
terror America feels right now is simply the birth-pangs of a new
america... an america that has to face up to its realistic place in
the world... as a mere player and not as a referee.
Societies change. Face it, the rest of the world has faced this kind
of challenge and adapted along with it. I live in Bolton, near
Manchester, in England and a few years ago the centre of Manchester
was bombed to rubble by the IRA. My entire way of life has NOT
ended... it doesn't. If you think yours has then the terrorists have
already won. It's a part of what they are trying to achieve, for their
wierd God's sake. If your country changes to accomodate terrorism so
be it. Change and go on doing what you want to, around them and their
threat. We have... but they don't win unless you give them what they
want.
If that means that I have to accept my life may be in danger when I go
to the mall... then so be it.I expect my government not to ruffle the
feathers of any other country enough to make them want to kill me. It
looks to me like yours has put more than a few noses out of joint and
is now reaping some 'thorns' as Saddam, the murderer, so succinctly
put it...
All that's happening here is that the US is being forced to come
kicking and screaming into the 21st century. You might have some high
tech 'toys' but perhaps,deep down, America is simply an 18th century
country that hasn't HAD to come into the same world and face the same
realities as the rest of us about how countries treat one another and
how to behave toward other nations... 'til now.
And it isn't going to be 'over by Christmas', you know?
> It takes agonizing costs in time and pain before a Malthusian renewal of a
>closed world develops. The costs of opening an outer space frontier are over
>quicker and are enormously less for the enormously greater gain.
>
>Brad
Eh?
Brad, are you seriously suggesting that Americans leave Earth behind,
for we anachic barbarians to fight over, and move lock stock and
barrel to someplace else? Such as?
Where and when are you going then?
Running away? Is that the 'great american dream' talking? I always
thought americans were braver than this... why not stay and fight,
even if you have to accept that your way of life changes irrevocably?
Americans always say we British are 'stuffy' and resist change... this
sounds like you will do ANYTHING but accept the realisation that a
change is being thrust upon your way of life.
Perhaps if your country would learn to live among us without making
sooo many enemies... why not behave better and you might, like the new
kid in school that thinks they can't make it work, fit in better?
"Oh dear... Boo hoo... the 'world' don't like me.. I'm off to Mars?"
seems to be what this implies...
?
Dave
--------
da...@cyba.co.feck
(Replace f... with uk to mail)
--------
Mike Rhino
news:hfcaqtooqo2rdoumf...@4ax.com...> Societies change.
Not all societies changes. Many Muslim countries seem to be stuck in the
7th century. Has Saudi Arabia changed any in the last thousand years? They
have oil now and they outlawed slavery 40 years ago, but in many ways the
culture hasn't changed much. Islam in its pure form is stuck in the 7th
century.
> Americans always say we British are 'stuffy' and resist change... this
> sounds like you will do ANYTHING but accept the realisation that a
> change is being thrust upon your way of life.
We don't like to get killed or bankrupted. Maybe we should bomb Afghanistan
and when they complain, give them your advice.
Phil Fraering
> The hijacking is a harbinger of menace coming to us
> in many forms from the tropics, usually called the
> south. The south is hungry because their soil is prone
> to erosion and their people are prone to violence.
> Their main export items are narcotics, illegal aliens,
> drug resistant germs, and oil. As long as we are
> addicted to narcotics and oil, our money will support
> the criminals. Replacing paper money with credit cards
> may stop the narcotics epidemic. Replacing oil with
> solar power may render muslim fanatics powerless.
I'd also like to point out that we do have oil in this
country, and that limiting local producers of oil to
strike back at Saudi Arabia would be counterproductive.
Not that that would stop anyone; the energy industry
within this country has among conspiracy buffs displaced
the Elders of Zion as the new threat to the republic.
(What would I suggest: some sort of tarriff against
oil from outside North America; I'd leave Mexico and
Canada out of it, because they share much of our
values).
Then... well, I think it's the only long-term solution
to the fossil fuel problem... we're going to have to
build more nuclear power plants. And probably replace
more oil use with ethanol.
Tom Billings
> "David H Parry" <da...@cyba.co.uk.feck> wrote in message
> news:hfcaqtooqo2rdoumf...@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 16 Sep 2001 18:02:52 -0400, "General L. Bradford Jr."
> > <glbr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Societies change.
>
> Not all societies changes. Many Muslim countries seem to be stuck in the
> 7th century. Has Saudi Arabia changed any in the last thousand years? They
> have oil now and they outlawed slavery 40 years ago, but in many ways the
> culture hasn't changed much. Islam in its pure form is stuck in the 7th
> century.
Not so. The forms desired by the Islamicists
are followed by 1-10 percent of Islam, at least
willingly. There are several "hadiths" which are
followed within islamic teaching. Few of them
demand a return to 7-11th century theocracy.
> > Americans always say we British are 'stuffy' and resist change... this
> > sounds like you will do ANYTHING but accept the realisation that a
> > change is being thrust upon your way of life.
On the contrary, we have accepted that for 5 straight days.
Indeed, some of our journalists can speak of nothing else.
That doesn't mean it will be the change that Islamicist statists
desire for us, or that others fantasize, either. The nature of that
change will be determined far more by our own actions than
anyone else's.
> We don't like to get killed or bankrupted.
Then fight the people who intend to
destroy the industrial culture that you
live in. They are neither unstoppable
nor invisible to those of Islam they
live amongst. Those people are our
natural allies.
Regards,
Tom Billings
john chapman
“http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/14/afghanistan/index.html
“
the author Mr. Tamim Ansary makes some very interesting points, but I
believe stops short of addressing some other significant ones. First
of all, according to the newspaper, K'istan (don't remember the exact
name of this southernmost ex-Russian province), which borders on
Afghanistan, has offered to let its country be a staging area for the
attack, thereby providing an alternative to Pakistan. Secondly, the
Afghans were able to succeed against the Russians only because they
were heavily supplied with armaments by the US. No doubt they will
continue to get a trickle of arms, but what they have will dry up
quickly, particularly if we can destroy a few supply dumps early on.
They may have to get down to throwing rocks. Thirdly, the Russians
did not have the satellite coverage of the area like the US does.
Certainly during daylight any significant movement of men or materials
will be easily visible from space. I do not know for sure, but I
suspect that the satellites are by no means blind even at night.
People cannot hide without supplies and those supply lines will give
away locations. If they hide in caves, we can simply seal up the
caves, which would be far safer for our troops than open conflict.
And last but not least, the Afghan northern alliance as well as the
millions of other Afghans who hate the Taliban will inevitably provide
much accurate intelligence regarding the plans and whereabouts of
those we will be targeting.
He seems to try to suggest that the Afghans have little else to lose.
I suggest otherwise. Prior to the takeover by the Taliban many women
in Afghanistan were working outside the home in businesses, hospitals,
etc as professionals, and support personnel. They could go shopping,
socialize, etc. All that has changed and women are now the most
suppressed element in the current Afghan society. Indeed, they may be
the most suppressed group of people in the entire world. I therefore
propose the following as being both humanitarian and an effective,
albeit very primitive, strategy in war. The US should allow any woman
and her children to emigrate from Afghanistan, to other locations
around the globe, including the US. No doubt there are other Moslem
countries that would take many of them. First of all, it gets these
suppressed and enslaved individuals out of their society and away from
the dangers of war. Secondly, as the big tough Taliban are up in the
hills waiting to fight, they would be aware that many of their
families are departing the country for better lives elsewhere. We
might even consider giving priority to the families of Taliban
members. And if enough of the women voluntarily emigrate, we could
then literally and accurately suggest to the Taliban that they can go
f___ themselves.
While emigration would be purely voluntary, the effect is essentially
that of the past when all the "possessions" of a defeated entity would
be confiscated by the victor. Even providing continued financial
support to these displaced persons would be cheap compared to the
costs of war and losses of lives.
Eleven years ago Iraq was quoted as saying that the war was going to
be “The mother of all battles!” I remember watching TV
the night before listening to all our preparations and what Iraq was
doing, and thinking that it was going to be over quickly, no more than
one week. Well, it took two days. Secondly, those of you who had
the experience of watching the magnificent mini-series Shaka Zulu will
remember his famous philosophy “Never leave an enemy
behind.” Well, President Bush senior and Colin Powell both left
an enemy behind in Iraq. I do not believe that mistake will be made
again. First, for the reasons stated in the first paragraph, I think
that Afghanistan will not be the protracted conflict many are
predicting. Secondly, when other terrorist groups and their host
countries see the example that will be made of Afghanistan and the
Taliban and their other terrorists, they will become far more flexible
and reasonable in defusing the international terrorist problem/threat.
Mike Rhino
Afghanistan. We should overthrow the Taliban and then leave. Somebody will
take over and I don't really care who. The Soviets were trying to run
Afghanistan which is a much tougher task. I don't know what Bush is
thinking, but there is a risk that he will wimp out like his dad and not
overthrow any governments.
Gregg Germain
: I think that our task is easier than Soviet's task when they were in
: Afghanistan. We should overthrow the Taliban and then leave. Somebody will
: take over and I don't really care who.
But we do:
We don't want it to be a bin Laden lackey.
--- Gregg
"Eschew surplusage."
gr...@head-cfa.harvard.edu
Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Mark Twain
Phone: (617) 496-7237
Mike Combs
>
> Mike Rhino <july...@alexanderpics.com> wrote:
> : I think that our task is easier than Soviet's task when they were in
> : Afghanistan. We should overthrow the Taliban and then leave. Somebody will
> : take over and I don't really care who.
>
> But we do:
>
> We don't want it to be a bin Laden lackey.
Or anyone else favorably disposed toward harboring terrorists as long as
they approve of their political aims.
But I agree that we shouldn't care who from the perspective of
Islamic/Secular. Personally, I think the Afghans would benefit
enormously from a secular government, but that's for them to decide.
--
Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur: You know, it's at times like this... that I really wish I'd
listened to what my mother told me when I was young.
Ford: Why, what did she tell you?
Arthur: I don't know, I didn't listen!
Amy
alt.conspiracy.america-at-war, alt.conspiracy,
alt.terrorism.world-trade-center
Mike Rhino
news:3ba89...@cfanews.harvard.edu...
> Mike Rhino <july...@alexanderpics.com> wrote:
> : I think that our task is easier than Soviet's task when they were in
> : Afghanistan. We should overthrow the Taliban and then leave. Somebody
will
> : take over and I don't really care who.
>
> But we do:
>
> We don't want it to be a bin Laden lackey.
In a way we care, but at what cost. I think that we overthrow the
government to send a message that we can overthrow governments. This
message is both for the new Afghan leaders and leaders of other countries.
Ideally, I'd like a Mother Theresa clone, but I don't want to hang around
Afghanistan for years trying to prop her up. I like the idea of
accomplishing the mission and getting out. There is risk with this
strategy, but there is also risk with hanging around. I think that Mommar
Khadafy (sp?) has been restrained since we bombed him.
Gregg Germain
: "Gregg Germain" <gr...@elway.harvard.edu> wrote in message
The problem, as I see it - watching stuff like this happen for the
last 35 years - is that generally the really good guys - Mother
Theresa types - are usually also the weakest.
David H Parry
<mike...@nospam.comchgnospam2ti> wrote:
>Gregg Germain wrote:
>>
>> Mike Rhino <july...@alexanderpics.com> wrote:
>> : I think that our task is easier than Soviet's task when they were in
>> : Afghanistan. We should overthrow the Taliban and then leave. Somebody will
>> : take over and I don't really care who.
>>
>> But we do:
>>
>> We don't want it to be a bin Laden lackey.
>
>Or anyone else favorably disposed toward harboring terrorists as long as
>they approve of their political aims.
>
>But I agree that we shouldn't care who from the perspective of
>Islamic/Secular. Personally, I think the Afghans would benefit
>enormously from a secular government, but that's for them to decide.
------------------------------------------
<sarcasm>
Oh f*ck!
Do ya think so?
</sarcasm>
Dear me.. did you really have that thought in your head?
Of course IT IS for THEM to decide!
That is why america is being attacked.. you keep seriously thinking it
might be for america to decide such things!
My advise, humbly suggested of course, is that you might like to
suggest this minor and insignificant polcy change to your own
government... perhaps...
Sheesh...
D
David H Parry
=8-)
On Wed, 19 Sep 2001 22:45:58 +0200, Amy <spamv...@hideout.org>
wrote:
>This topic belongs to other newsgroups:
>alt.conspiracy.america-at-war, alt.conspiracy,
>alt.terrorism.world-trade-center
--------
Rand Simberg
Parry <da...@cyba.co.uk.feck> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>Of course IT IS for THEM to decide!
But they never get to decide. It is always decided for them by thugs
like the Taliban and bin Laden. The goal of America is to finally let
them decide.
--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org
"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Replace first . with @ and throw out the "@trash." to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers: postm...@fbi.gov
David H Parry
<sarcasm>
Yeah... brilliant idea!
Overthrow ten governments while your at it... why not all of them...
why not kill any world leaders with a 'beard'....impose your superior
will on on all non-baseball fans, and demand that your supreme 'way of
life' be extended and taken up by all non-yanks.
Impose US ideology and the 'american way' on everyone in the whole
world... they can't commit terrorism while they're watching reruns of
Friends and StarTrek, punching down a few Cokes and (butt) munching on
McBurgers.
</sarcasm...perhaps>
I humbly beg to suggest that it may, conceiveably, in some minor way,
be precisely this sort of attitude to other countries that has got the
grand and noble and 'God Bless America...' sorry getting carried away
by the rhetoric on CNN there... US into this little pickle at this
time. Just a thought. Perhaps..
regards
David H Parry
David H Parry
<july...@alexanderpics.com> wrote:
>strategy, but there is also risk with hanging around. I think that Mommar
>Khadafy (sp?) has been restrained since we bombed him.
So sending bombers to his house and killing that little girl must have
chastened him, you think?
regards
Dave
Rand Simberg
Parry <da...@cyba.co.uk.feck> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>My advise, humbly suggested of course, is that you might like to
>suggest this minor and insignificant polcy change to your own
>government... perhaps...
Here is an excellent description of why the bin Ladens of the world
hate America.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=95001175
(Hint, it's not really about Israel--they are the "Little Satan." We
are the "Great Satan.")
Andrew Case
>But they never get to decide. It is always decided for them by thugs
>like the Taliban and bin Laden. The goal of America is to finally let
>them decide.
I don't think the goal of America is to let them decide. America's goal
is to make them stop killing our people. It would be nice if our goal
was to let them decide[1], but I don't think that's really what it
is.
......Andrew
[1] I'm going to lose my Candy-Assed Liberal merit badge (with Bleeding
Heart Clusters) for saying this, but: Certain forms of government are
vastly superior to others - constitutional secular republican
representative government being the best we've found so far, at least
in the case where the constitution guarantees basic human rights and
freedoms. That means basically the model prevailing in the US, Canada,
parts of Europe, and a few other countries. Theocracy, even if it's
popular with the vast majority of the populace, always sucks donkeys.
If the people of Afghanistan choose a theocratic government, they are
misguided at best and idiots at worst.
Mike Combs
>
> My advise, humbly suggested of course, is that you might like to
> suggest this minor and insignificant polcy change to your own
> government... perhaps...
My advice, humbly suggested of course, is that you stop verbally
berating people because you're convinced they're thinking the opposite
of what they're saying.
Rand Simberg
ac...@Glue.umd.edu (Andrew Case) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>>But they never get to decide. It is always decided for them by thugs
>>like the Taliban and bin Laden. The goal of America is to finally let
>>them decide.
>
>I don't think the goal of America is to let them decide.
I was talking generically, as part of our national ethic--not
necessary the goals of this particular war.
>America's goal
>is to make them stop killing our people. It would be nice if our goal
>was to let them decide[1], but I don't think that's really what it
>is.
I think that it is our goal to let them decide (if for no other reason
than that will best reduce the prospects for a repeat performance),
but if that goal cannot be achieved, then we will seek other means.
Mike Combs
>
> I don't think the goal of America is to let them decide. America's goal
> is to make them stop killing our people. It would be nice if our goal
> was to let them decide[1], but I don't think that's really what it
> is.
Then let's say that encouraging the Afghans to just give democracy a
chance is a secondary goal that could be attached to our primary goal.
David H Parry
>[1] I'm going to lose my Candy-Assed Liberal merit badge (with Bleeding
>Heart Clusters) for saying this, but: Certain forms of government are
>vastly superior to others - constitutional secular republican
So what? You consider that *your* form of government is superior. Well
done! I applaud your modesty and confidence.
Another country has another form of government... a theocracy.
So what has that got to do with you? Just who the hell do you think
you are?
Move along there... it's nothing to do with you!
>representative government being the best we've found so far, at least
>in the case where the constitution guarantees basic human rights and
>freedoms. That means basically the model prevailing in the US, Canada,
>parts of Europe, and a few other countries. Theocracy, even if it's
>popular with the vast majority of the populace, always sucks donkeys.
Perhaps it does. So? what has it got to do with you? Butt out buddy!
>If the people of Afghanistan choose a theocratic government, they are
>misguided at best and idiots at worst.
So they are. So what? What has it got to do with you?
"Does ya get it now, Sparky?"
Nobody elected you, or any american, to the position of commander in
chief of planet Earth!
regards
David H Parry
David H Parry
Are you joking or are you seriously so twisted as to be incapable of
seeing that you have absolutely no right to meddle in anyone elses
politics other than your own.
I pray to Jesus that you don't have to learn this the hard way.
On Thu, 20 Sep 2001 17:43:44 GMT, simberg.i...@trash.org (Rand
Simberg) wrote:
>On 20 Sep 2001 13:22:07 -0400, in a place far, far away,
>ac...@Glue.umd.edu (Andrew Case) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
>in such a way as to indicate that:
>
>>>But they never get to decide. It is always decided for them by thugs
>>>like the Taliban and bin Laden. The goal of America is to finally let
>>>them decide.
>>
>>I don't think the goal of America is to let them decide.
>
>I was talking generically, as part of our national ethic--not
>necessary the goals of this particular war.
>
>>America's goal
>>is to make them stop killing our people. It would be nice if our goal
>>was to let them decide[1], but I don't think that's really what it
>>is.
>
>I think that it is our goal to let them decide (if for no other reason
>than that will best reduce the prospects for a repeat performance),
>but if that goal cannot be achieved, then we will seek other means.
Jordan S. Bassior
>
>So sending bombers to his house and killing that little girl must have
>chastened him, you think?
Yes, actually.
--
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
--
Rand Simberg
Parry <da...@cyba.co.uk.feck> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>The american-centric arroganc displayed here is simply breathtaking.
>
>Are you joking or are you seriously so twisted as to be incapable of
>seeing that you have absolutely no right to meddle in anyone elses
>politics other than your own.
Twisted? (pot, kettle, black...)
I don't generally believe that I have a right to meddle in other
people's politics, except when they attack me and mine. I generally
wish for more enlightened governments in other places, but if they
don't bother me, I in fact don't presume to force anything on them.
I suppose you think that we had no right to meddle in Germany's
politics in 1941?
>I pray to Jesus that you don't have to learn this the hard way.
Save your prayers for someone who cares.
Tom Billings
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2001 02:03:48 GMT, "Mike Rhino"
> <july...@alexanderpics.com> wrote:
>
> >strategy, but there is also risk with hanging around. I think that Mommar
> >Khadafy (sp?) has been restrained since we bombed him.
>
> So sending bombers to his house and killing that little girl must have
> chastened him, you think?
It would have chastened him even more if we'd been
able to avoid the little girl, but the total effect was adequate
to immediate needs. As long as he is in power, he'll be a
problem to us,but a worse problem to his people.
Regards,
Tom Billings
David H Parry
Simberg) wrote:
>I don't generally believe that I have a right to meddle in other
>people's politics, except when they attack me and mine. I generally
>wish for more enlightened governments in other places, but if they
>don't bother me, I in fact don't presume to force anything on them.
>
>I suppose you think that we had no right to meddle in Germany's
>politics in 1941?
No. You didn't. BTW Adolph declared war on you... I guess he figured
you needed the incentive.
D
David H Parry
<mike...@nospam.comchgnospam2ti> wrote:
>Andrew Case wrote:
>>
>> I don't think the goal of America is to let them decide. America's goal
>> is to make them stop killing our people. It would be nice if our goal
>> was to let them decide[1], but I don't think that's really what it
>> is.
>
>Then let's say that encouraging the Afghans to just give democracy a
>chance is a secondary goal that could be attached to our primary goal.
Why? What's the nature of their internal politics got to do with YOU!
?
David H Parry
wrote:
>David H. Parry said:
>
>>
>>So sending bombers to his house and killing that little girl must have
>>chastened him, you think?
>
>Yes, actually.
No. Actually.
They continued, perhaps even increased, their funding of terrorism.
I'd refer you to the relevent articles on the current terrorism in
other parts of North Africa... but I think you need the exercise more
than me.
regards
D
Bill Bonde
David H Parry wrote:
>
> The american-centric arroganc displayed here is simply breathtaking.
>
> Are you joking or are you seriously so twisted as to be incapable of
> seeing that you have absolutely no right to meddle in anyone elses
> politics other than your own.
>
The United States is a sovereign and as such retains the right to meddle
in anyone's politics or anything else as it sees fit.
Rand Simberg
Parry <da...@cyba.co.uk.feck> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>>I don't generally believe that I have a right to meddle in other
>>people's politics, except when they attack me and mine. I generally
>>wish for more enlightened governments in other places, but if they
>>don't bother me, I in fact don't presume to force anything on them.
>>
>>I suppose you think that we had no right to meddle in Germany's
>>politics in 1941?
>
>No. You didn't.
Really?
OK, I won't waste any more time discussing anything with you.
>BTW Adolph declared war on you...
I am aware of that.
>I guess he figured
>you needed the incentive.
??
Paul F. Dietz
> Are you joking or are you seriously so twisted as to be incapable of
> seeing that you have absolutely no right to meddle in anyone elses
> politics other than your own.
When our skyscrapers are exploding, it *is* our politics.
Paul
Art
"David H Parry" <da...@cyba.co.uk.feck> wrote in message
news:vopkqtsna91g9icf6...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2001 15:54:08 -0500, Mike Combs
> <mike...@nospam.comchgnospam2ti> wrote:
>
> >Andrew Case wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't think the goal of America is to let them decide. America's goal
> >> is to make them stop killing our people. It would be nice if our goal
> >> was to let them decide[1], but I don't think that's really what it
> >> is.
> >
> >Then let's say that encouraging the Afghans to just give democracy a
> >chance is a secondary goal that could be attached to our primary goal.
>
> Why? What's the nature of their internal politics got to do with YOU!
Let's see, the Taliban (those guys in charge of Afgahnistan right now)
support terrorists who kill normal, ordinary citizens (like me!) on American
soil.
I see lots to their internal politics that need changing. Of course, they're
busy trying to scare us with talk of 'holy war' which is so bogus that even
most Muslims are giving them funny looks.
The US has been incredibly tolerant. We haven't bombed anyone, we've used as
'official' channels as possible and tried to settle things peacibly.
Heck, if we were half as bloodthirsty as they, we'd have already bombed
several cities to dust (non-nuke, of course.)
That doesn't mean that we *won't* eventually get to that point.
> ?
>
>
> D
>
> --------
> da...@cyba.co.feck
Arthur Hansen
Andrew Case
>The american-centric arroganc displayed here is simply breathtaking.
>
>Are you joking or are you seriously so twisted as to be incapable of
>seeing that you have absolutely no right to meddle in anyone elses
>politics other than your own.
Umm... not to put too fine a point on it, but perhaps you might
consider the possibility that murdering several thousand US citizens
(and hundreds of UK citizens, too) does entitle the US to an opinion
on at least some issues of domestic policy in the nations that
knowingly harbor the terrorists.
......Andrew
Andrew Case
>
>>[1] I'm going to lose my Candy-Assed Liberal merit badge (with Bleeding
>>Heart Clusters) for saying this, but: Certain forms of government are
>>vastly superior to others - constitutional secular republican
>
>So what? You consider that *your* form of government is superior. Well
>done! I applaud your modesty and confidence.
And I suppose you have an alternative form of government that you
think is better? No? Yes? pony up. Any idiot can snipe at the
opinions of others.
>Another country has another form of government... a theocracy.
>So what has that got to do with you? Just who the hell do you think
>you are?
Well, murdering my fellow citizens does rather involve me, you know.
And to your second question - I think I am a free citizen of a free
nation expressing his views in a peacable way in a public forum. If
that sort of thing bothers you, there are plenty of countries where
you can go and not be subject to these onerous freedoms.
>>representative government being the best we've found so far, at least
>>in the case where the constitution guarantees basic human rights and
>>freedoms. That means basically the model prevailing in the US, Canada,
>>parts of Europe, and a few other countries. Theocracy, even if it's
>>popular with the vast majority of the populace, always sucks donkeys.
>
>Perhaps it does. So? what has it got to do with you? Butt out buddy!
You butt out. Why have you decided to insert yourself into a conflict
between the US and Afghanistan? What has it got to do with you? Nothing.
The only reason you are able to express your view in this matter, btw,
is because you live in a nation that respects the very same rights and
freedoms that American blood is about to be shed defending. If that
bothers you, perhaps you should move to Iran.
>>If the people of Afghanistan choose a theocratic government, they are
>>misguided at best and idiots at worst.
>
>So they are. So what? What has it got to do with you?
As somebody who gives a rat's ass about the rights of those
Afghans who'd rather not have extremist Islam shoved down their
throats, I'm interested in not having a Theocracy there or anywhere
else, for that matter. Your wonderful evenhandedness in holding
a vicious thug government imposed against the will of the governed
on an equal footing with a government run by the governed is charming,
but idiotic.
>"Does ya get it now, Sparky?"
Explain, if you can, how your expressing your views on US-Afghan
relations is somehow qualitatively different from me (and other
USAmericans) expressing their views on the relations between
the Taliban and the people they are crushing beneath their sandals.
......Andrew
Paul F. Dietz
> You butt out. Why have you decided to insert yourself into a conflict
> between the US and Afghanistan? What has it got to do with you? Nothing.
Isn't he from a NATO country? His country is obligated by
article V of the NATO treaty to assist militarily when any
NATO member is attacked.
Paul
Rand Simberg
ac...@Glue.umd.edu (Andrew Case) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>>Are you joking or are you seriously so twisted as to be incapable of
>>seeing that you have absolutely no right to meddle in anyone elses
>>politics other than your own.
>
>Umm... not to put too fine a point on it, but perhaps you might
>consider the possibility that murdering several thousand US citizens
>(and hundreds of UK citizens, too) does entitle the US to an opinion
>on at least some issues of domestic policy in the nations that
>knowingly harbor the terrorists.
Andrew, I admire your ability to be so polite to this...orifice.
pat
"John Hare" <redne...@aol.comspam> wrote in message
news:20010915154435...@nso-fm.aol.com...
> In article <3BA22740...@qnet.com>, Doug Jones <ran...@qnet.com>
writes:
>
> >I fear that this person, Tamim Ansary, understands too well what the
> >real cost will be. Glib talk of "glass" and "nuke 'em" is unrealistic
> >and unproductive.
> >
> >We do not need to punish Afghanistan -it has already been punished
> >beyond anything most of us can comprehend- we must liberate it. This
> >will require blood and iron, much of it American.
> >
> >--
> >Doug Jones
> >
> The cost of doing it right could be very high. Hopeless poverty is a
fertile
> recruiting grounds for suicidal fanatics. I sincerily hope there are
better
I am actually more optimistic that this can be won.
The people who did this were not the seething masses of poverty stricken
palestinians from the
Gaza strip or the legions of poor egyptians from the Cairo Garbage dumps.
These were the upper middle class of Saudi Arabia and Egypt, The children of
doctors and lawyers and
Engineers, who were well educated, learned english and could dance to almost
all of Michael Jackson's tunes.
What this appears to me, is a radical fringe of well tended spoiled brats,
rather much like the SDS and
Weather Underground. Products of the best of their societies, they have
time and energy and training to
compose a cause.
What this means is that these bastards are stoppable. They are not part of
a giant legion, what these are
are a small cadre of red diaper babies who can be tracked, assessed and
eliminated using the systems of justice.
The only thing that saddens me, is that in the 60's the SDS worked hard to
minimize casualties, these MFers worked as
hard as possible to maximize casualties. I hope we catch them, bust them and
put them in cells with a guy named leroy.
It won't be easy but these scum are few and detectable, once we learn their
patterns.
pat
> options than the years long struggles that I believe could happen. What
> scares me more is the possibility that victory will be declared well short
> of completion leaving essentially the same situation with a different cast
> of villians. Our national history would suggest that we will relax in a
few
> years whether the job is done right or not. The next time it will be
different
> methods and different targets. Nukes would create many enemies where
> only a few existed before. Vietnam would have been a very different war
> if collateral casualties could have somehow been avoided.
>
> For private spaceflight, the regulations spawned by this attack could make
> it much more difficult to get anything flying. In our own self interest,
we are
>
> going to have to pay even more attention to the politics of our vehicles.
> It will be necessary to have numbers in hand at all times when discussing
> our goals. "There are only five seats in the cabin, three of which are
occupied
> by the crew. Even if someone could hijack one of our transports, it would
be
> out of fuel several minutes before it could reach downtown. Even on the
pad
> it contains less kero than a 767." Or whatever is accurate, and make damn
> sure it is accurate. For the near future loose talk of skirting
regulations
> is
> going to be counterproductive and should be discouraged whether in your
> company or someone elses.
Greg Kuperberg
>Why have you decided to insert yourself into a conflict
>between the US and Afghanistan?
Actually it is a conflict between the free world and the Taliban.
Not just the US, and not all of Afghanistan.
--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *
George Ellis
>
> Nobody elected you, or any american, to the position of commander
> in chief of planet Earth!
But many Americans believe just that: They are to be the leader of
the free world. This is not even questioned in the US, it's a given.
But I and close to 5 billion other people world-wide did not partici-
pate in their elections (nor do I want to).
It is really sad that I believe I have to emphasize that I do not
wish any innocent people (like the people in the WTC) to suffer or
even die, and that I am fiercely against that asshole bin Laden and
his friends. Yes, I want the persons responsible for the death of
more than 6000 people persecuted or killed. But the blind arrogance
displayed by some people here is still just sickening.
George
Phil Fraering
> I am actually more optimistic that this can be won.
> The people who did this were not the seething masses of poverty
> stricken palestinians from the Gaza strip or the legions of poor
> egyptians from the Cairo Garbage dumps.
> These were the upper middle class of Saudi Arabia and Egypt, The
> children of doctors and lawyers and Engineers, who were well
> educated, learned english and could dance to almost all of Michael
> Jackson's tunes.
Precisely. In short, typical Hoffer-described True Believers.
> What this appears to me, is a radical fringe of well tended spoiled brats,
> rather much like the SDS and
> Weather Underground. Products of the best of their societies, they have
> time and energy and training to
> compose a cause.
>
> What this means is that these bastards are stoppable. They are not part of
> a giant legion, what these are
> are a small cadre of red diaper babies who can be tracked, assessed and
> eliminated using the systems of justice.
>
> The only thing that saddens me, is that in the 60's the SDS worked hard to
> minimize casualties, these MFers worked as
> hard as possible to maximize casualties. I hope we catch them, bust them and
> put them in cells with a guy named leroy.
What did Leroy ever do to you to deserve this?
> It won't be easy but these scum are few and detectable, once we learn their
> patterns.
Yes.
--
Phil Fraering "The Greeks invented logic but were not fooled
p...@globalreach.net by it." - Eric Hoffer
Mike Combs
>
> Why? What's the nature of their internal politics got to do with YOU!
Given recent events, that seems an odd question indeed.
But leaving terrorism concerns aside for the moment, maybe I'm generally
more favorably disposed toward people elsewhere getting to choose their
own leaders over intolerant religious fanatics seizing power and denying
most basic human freedoms. It only concerns me in as much as I give a
damn for the suffering of fellow human beings.
General L. Bradford Jr.
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@trash.org> wrote in message
news:3bb00a08...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2001 16:19:56 +0100, in a place far, far away, David H
> Parry <da...@cyba.co.uk.feck> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
> such a way as to indicate that:
>
>
> But they never get to decide. It is always decided for them by thugs
> them decide.
>
> --
And if they elect another Taliban into power, they of course didn't decide
for themselves, right? Just as the Iranians in the mid 70s didn't decide for
themselves when with revolution they placed in power an anti-American
Taliban-like regime. No people have decided for themselves, ever, if they
elect by one means or another an anti-American (probably more specifically,
an anti-Liberal) government.
The goal should be simply to take out these thugs. That's all. And if
thugs replace them, cause them to have reason to think twice before
committing acts of terror and war against us. We practically invited this
attack through our media celebrating and letting go too far our own
homegrown anti-American likes of those thugs. The one who always comes first
to mind for me is "Hanoi Jane" addressing the U.N. as if she were an
official ambassador of a Revolution. Then Jesse Jackson strutting his
anti-American stuff during the conference in South Africa as if he were an
official ambassador of a Revolution.
That's alright though, just as long as they remember we have the right to
reply in kind. They never see that coming. They can't see beyond their noses
or foresee any consequences from their words and actions other the ones they
fantasize. After getting away with it for a time they become bolder and
bolder, escalating and becoming ever more careless. That is what they share
most with the other Thuggees of the world and of history.
They do get away with it. And they have a huge following of followers
throughout the world. [We] literally fill the ranks of [their] followers for
them. The prophecy of tyranny in any kind of Towers of Babel whatsoever
don't you know: and the prophecy of their inevitable fate, including
inexorably increasing confusion and anarchy. We never think that anyone will
decide--if allowed to decide--in favor of a Clinton, a Gore, a Lenin, a Mao,
a Hitler, a Mussolini, a Genghis Khan or Julius Caesar, or a Caligula or
Commodus, or a Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden. But they do. They most
certainly do. But it is the Neville Chamberlains of the world and history
that make them ever more powerful and ever more bolder in an ever growing
arrogance.
Brad
Rand Simberg
L. Bradford Jr." <glbr...@hotmail.com> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
>"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@trash.org> wrote in message
>news:3bb00a08...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
>> On Thu, 20 Sep 2001 16:19:56 +0100, in a place far, far away, David H
>> Parry <da...@cyba.co.uk.feck> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
>> such a way as to indicate that:
>>
>> >Of course IT IS for THEM to decide!
>>
>> But they never get to decide. It is always decided for them by thugs
>> like the Taliban and bin Laden. The goal of America is to finally let
>> them decide.
>>
>> --
>
> And if they elect another Taliban into power, they of course didn't decide
>for themselves, right?
No, if they actually elect a Taliban, then they decided for
themselves. The current Taliban was never elected.
Andrew Case
>But many Americans believe just that: They are to be the leader of
>the free world. This is not even questioned in the US, it's a given.
It is actually questioned in the US by many people, myself among them.
I'd really prefer it if the US displayed substantially less arrogance
than it does, but I don't get to make that call alone. Part of the
problem as perceived outside the US is not US arrogance - we have
nothing on the French, for example - it's that the US has a
disproportionate share of power. That's why US arrogance is notable.
>It is really sad that I believe I have to emphasize that I do not
>wish any innocent people (like the people in the WTC) to suffer or
>even die, and that I am fiercely against that asshole bin Laden and
>his friends. Yes, I want the persons responsible for the death of
>more than 6000 people persecuted or killed. But the blind arrogance
>displayed by some people here is still just sickening.
Don't mistake a lack of disclaimers etc. for arrogance. Many of the
people posting in this thread in defense of the US have repeatedly
stated their desire for a non-interventionist foreign policy. Some
of us (myself included) have tended to spin our opinions in a way
calculated to get a rise out of the dipshit posting anti-US bile.
I have complete support for the right of self determination of
all countries, subject only to their willingness to observe certain
basic human rights. This is true of most US posters here.
Mike Rhino
news:1PMq7.10373$2H2.7...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
>
> And if they elect another Taliban into power, they of course didn't
decide
> for themselves, right? Just as the Iranians in the mid 70s didn't decide
for
> themselves when with revolution they placed in power an anti-American
> Taliban-like regime. No people have decided for themselves, ever, if they
> elect by one means or another an anti-American (probably more
specifically,
> an anti-Liberal) government.
Iranians can elect a president, but clerics maintain control of judges, the
army, and the police force. Congress can pass laws, but clerics decide
which laws actually get enforced. It's a weird democracy.
PBlase
recently, one of the most pervasive problems in the world today, particularly
in Africa but also in the mid-east, is tribalism. The Afghani's don't see
themselves as "Afghani" so much as a member of a particular clan or tribe - and
the three or four biggest tribes have been feuding for the last 20 years to see
who gets the power. Like so many other places, if the U.S. invaded, they'd join
forces to fight us - and then go back to killing each other again as soon as we
left.
PBlase
Kabul and nobody would notice the difference.
PBlase
When said politics affects us, yes we do have such a right. We also have the
right to use our economic capabilities to try to influence things to our
benefit.
Personally, I'd simply respond to the lack of cooperation from the MidEast by
cutting off trade and purchasing no more oil from non-U.S. sources. period. of
course it would be interesting to see what that would do to the Mid East's
economics.
PBlase
little more?
David H Parry >No. You didn't. BTW Adolph declared war on you... I guess he
figuredyou needed the incentive.
Jordan S. Bassior
>I have complete support for the right of self determination of
>all countries, subject only to their willingness to observe certain
>basic human rights. This is true of most US posters here.
I do too, actually. The only countries I favor intervention against are those
who are doing things which violate the rights of other countries. In fact, in
most cases I don't even favor intervention against countries which merely
violate the human rights of their _own_ citizens.
During the Cold War, I favored intervention against Commuinist regimes because
the Communists were our enemies -- not because I didn't like socialism (though
I don't).
Now, we _have_ to intervene against state supporters of terrorism, because they
are a deadly threat to us. But that doesn't mean that I insist that other
countries govern themselves as we do. I'm willing, for instance, to let the
Chinese be Communist or the Saudis monarchist, if that's what floats their
boats.
--
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
--
pat
"Phil Fraering" <p...@globalreach.net> wrote in message
news:87itecg...@globalreach.net...
> "pat" <ba...@tgv-rockets.com> writes:
> > The only thing that saddens me, is that in the 60's the SDS worked hard
to
> > minimize casualties, these MFers worked as
> > hard as possible to maximize casualties. I hope we catch them, bust them
and
> > put them in cells with a guy named leroy.
>
> What did Leroy ever do to you to deserve this?
>
Do you think Leroy cares who is his bitch?
rem...@yahoo.com
<<Replacing paper money with credit cards may stop the
narcotics epidemic.>>
Unfortunately if it's the law to not use paper money, then
only the criminals will have paper money, and our own
privacy will be invaded whereas there will be no effect on
the criminals.
How about tracking the serial numbers on paper money:
Instead of a clerk visually inspecting incoming cash to
verify it's legitimate, the customer puts the cash in a
machine that both recognizes that it's legitimate (as
current vending machines and change machines do) but also
logs the serial number? Likewise, if a customer receives
paper-money change, it is dispensed by a machine, which
records the serial number, rather than handed out manually
from a drawer. At all moments a bank's or store's computer
knows exactly what serial numbers are there, so after a
robbery the aftermath can be compared to the database to get
a list of exactly which serial numbers were stolen, then
whenever they show up elsewhere they are noted and we have a
clue who committed the crime. Whenever a drug arrest is
made, search of the suspect yields the serial numbers which
are then traced back to when they were last officially
registered at a bank or store, either as part of a robbery
or as a legitimate withdrawl or change from a purchase. If a
particular serial number goes out then comes back in without
either of the transactions being criminal, no problem. Only
if one or the other was some criminal activity, then the
match must be explained by the people involved, so no gross
loss of privacy occurs. For example, in my own case, my only
frequent cash transaction is when I withdraw $20 bills from
the bank and use them to buy gasoline, getting $10 change,
then later use that $10 change to buy more gasoline. If both
bank and gasoline stations kept track of serial numbers and
got them auto-matched, everything I get out would go back in
legally and at that point the record that I ever held that
serial number would be forgotten.
<<Replacing oil with solar power may render muslim fanatics
powerless.>>
So instead of having large money transfers to pay for
tankers full of petroleum, those nations would have no
cashflow coming in, and so their leadership as well as their
populace would suffer abject poverty, right? So then their
citizens could be offered tele-operation jobs for Lunar
mining etc., so the cashflow into their countries would be
spread evenly among the populace instead of concentrated in
a few hands, right? One problem: Christians are supposed to
tithe 10% of their gross income to their church, right? How
much are Moslems supposed to give to their mosque? So
whatever that amount is, the mosques would get huge amounts
of money, which some of them might pass to the extremists.
How would we combat that?