Stirring the political kettle...
John R Pierce
Brits get all the good news... http://www.sundayherald.com/27735
(actually, the Sunday Herald is a scottish paper)....
of course, its more than a little inflammatory, like all independant
journalism should be expected to be... I was curious what the actual
background on this was, so I dug up the report that its referring to....
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
ok, so the article WAS a bit over the top, however, I can certainly see
how they could come to the conclusions they did. Someone tried to
discredit the connection to our current leadership by saying that there's
no way Bush or Cheney saw this, so I looked up the credentials of the
authors... The principle author of this specific report lists among other
accomplishments...
In 1995, he joined the professional staff of the House Committee on
Armed Services and soon was named head of the policy group. His major
contributions to the committee's work included overseeing committee
activities concerning the operations of U.S. forces in the Balkans,
leading the committee's investigation of the Khobar Towers bombing
in Saudi Arabia and worldwide readiness problems, and establishing a
series of hearings and committee white papers on American security
interests in the post-Cold War world. In addition, Donnelly drafted
significant legislative initiatives to reform the Defense Department's
readiness reporting system, explore the promise of the current
revolution in military affairs, monitor developments in the Chinese
military, understand the military and strategic effects of an expanded
NATO alliance, and shape the requirements for the 1997 and 2001
Quadrennial Defense Reviews.
so, yeah, I'd guess the folks on the Hill know him and his work rather
well...
The Director of the PNAC lists...
Before starting the Weekly Standard in 1995, Mr. Kristol led the
Project for the Republican Future, where he helped shape the strategy
that produced the 1994 Republican congressional victory. Prior to
that, Mr. Kristol served as chief of staff to Vice President Dan
Quayle during the Bush Administration and to Secretary of Education
William Bennett under President Reagan. Before coming to Washington
in 1985, Mr. Kristol taught politics at the University of Pennsylvania
and Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.
Gee, you think the Bush/Cheney gang ever heard of him? nahhhhh.
Queenie
wrote:
>Gee, you think the Bush/Cheney gang ever heard of him? nahhhhh.
I imagine he's the same guy who's on TV all the time, on political
talking heads shows. Interesting stuff.
So what's the point, really? That a bunch of right-wing conservatives
know each other? That they comissioned a think-tank report?
As far as getting rid of Saddam, seems to me that everybody would like
to get rid of him, including his neighbors. The question seems to be
whether or not we should move unilaterally and whether or not the U.N.
is like Charlie Brown, still trying to kick that football.
I don't see how this proves much except the stance of the extreme
right, really.
~Queenie
P.S. I didn't read all 90 pages, maybe later...
Glen Appleby
wrote:
>As far as getting rid of Saddam, seems to me that everybody would like
>to get rid of him, including his neighbors.
Hmmmm. Seems that, much like the EweEsse, in that you are not
terribly good at listening.
His western neighbor, especially, has not been a proponent of
violent overthrow of Saddam. In fact, both he and his father may
have been the most astute leaders in the region (including that
in Israel) and both have been strong proponents of really
understanding WTF is going on before anybody does much of
anything in the region.
> The question seems to be
>whether or not we should move unilaterally and whether or not the U.N.
>is like Charlie Brown, still trying to kick that football.
More short-term thinking.
Rather than focusing on how to overthrow some leader, have you
given any thought to who might take his place, should he depart
(by any means)?
Or, like our government, are you all comfey in just discarding
the old, just so that we'll have the opportunity to go through
all of this again in another 10 to 30 years?
OOOOOOOOPS!
--
"Who we are and who we become depends, in part, on whom we love."
-- "A General Theory Of Love" Thanks, Mom
______________________________________________________________
Glen Appleby gl...@armory.com <HTTP://www.armory.com/~glena/>
Queenie
wrote:
>Rather than focusing on how to overthrow some leader, have you
>given any thought to who might take his place, should he depart
>(by any means)?
Just about anybody would be better than that maniac. How about you?
Give you something to do during the day, and since you're used to the
heat and all...
Hey, you could put giant posters of yourself all over the place.
~Queenie
In the middle of the road, you see the darndest things
Like fakirs driving 'round in jeeps through the city
Wearing big diamond rings and silk suits
Past corrugated tin shacks full up with kids
Oh man I don't mean a Hampstead nursery
When you own a big chunk of the bloody third world
The babies just come with the scenery
~Pretenders
Glen Appleby
wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 17:30:34 GMT, dirt...@rcip.com (Glen Appleby)
>wrote:
>
>>Rather than focusing on how to overthrow some leader, have you
>>given any thought to who might take his place, should he depart
>>(by any means)?
>
>Just about anybody would be better than that maniac.
Nope. See, this country has an abysmal record of picking good
leaders for other countries.
Aw, hell, we have an abysmal record of picking our own leaders.
["If I ruled the world"]
>Hey, you could put giant posters of yourself all over the place.
I'd be much more interested in having lotsa young babes doing my
sexual bidding; but that would distract me from running the
country.
Wait, we have had that in the leaders of our country and we seem
to have survived.
OK, I'll consider it, but ... say, what does this job pay?
Queenie
wrote:
>["If I ruled the world"]
>>Hey, you could put giant posters of yourself all over the place.
>
>I'd be much more interested in having lotsa young babes doing my
>sexual bidding; but that would distract me from running the
>country.
I think you're supposed to wait until you're dead for that...
>Wait, we have had that in the leaders of our country and we seem
>to have survived.
Oh! So you *do* like this political system better!
>OK, I'll consider it, but ... say, what does this job pay?
Don't worry, they'll be glad to get rid of Hussein, so they'll be
generous. How many camels can a guy like you need?
~Queenie
"Trust in Allah, but tie your camel."
-Old Muslim Proverb
John R Pierce
you should.
I got the distinct impression that it was a blueprint for a Pax Americana
where We The People are planning on permanently occupying Arabia with
omnipotent military forces, control the oil, you control the world.
Endgame.
Glen Appleby
wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 19:59:34 GMT, dirt...@rcip.com (Glen Appleby)
>wrote:
>
>>["If I ruled the world"]
>>>Hey, you could put giant posters of yourself all over the place.
>>
>>I'd be much more interested in having lotsa young babes doing my
>>sexual bidding; but that would distract me from running the
>>country.
>
>I think you're supposed to wait until you're dead for that...
Only if I were interested in impressing the locals that I am just
like them. The folks who our government has installed as leaders
in other countries didn't do that, so why should I bother?
>>Wait, we have had that in the leaders of our country and we seem
>>to have survived.
>
>Oh! So you *do* like this political system better!
Just more honest blowjobs.
>>OK, I'll consider it, but ... say, what does this job pay?
>
>Don't worry, they'll be glad to get rid of Hussein, so they'll be
>generous. How many camels can a guy like you need?
One hump or two?
Geoff Miller
John R Pierce <dont....@email.is.invalid> writes:
> I got the distinct impression that it was a blueprint for a Pax
> Americana where We The People are planning on permanently occupying
> Arabia with omnipotent military forces, control the oil, you control
> the world.
I've advocated that for years. Not to rule the world, though, but
to remove a thorn in our national side once and for all. Of course,
it had been little more than a Tom Clancyesque wank-fantasy for
right-winders such as myself, but now it looks more likely each 'n'
every day. Yee haw. I'd like to see us overrun the oil fields in
Iraq and Saudi Arabia both, replace Hussein with somebody more to
our liking, and send the Sauds off to a life of leisure in Monaco
or someplace where they'll be permanently out from underfoot. Then
we can control the oil fields as part of a benevolent regional trust.
As for controlling the world, or aspiring to: no fucking way. There
are simply too many other sourcs of oil outside the Middle East for
us to corner the market even if we wanted to. One of which is Russia,
who wouldn't take kindly to attempted U.S. economic hegemony.
Geoff
--
"Darkies? Water cannon? Why be PC when you can be right?
Geoff, you are wrong. You are *completely* wrong. You're
as wrong as you can be!" -- har...@informix.com
Julian Macassey
> I'd like to see us overrun the oil fields in
> Iraq and Saudi Arabia both, replace Hussein with somebody more to
> our liking, and send the Sauds off to a life of leisure in Monaco
> or someplace where they'll be permanently out from underfoot. Then
> we can control the oil fields as part of a benevolent regional trust.
You should ask the Brits how that worked for them.
You can also ask the U.S. how they feel now about
installing Husssein's Baathist predecessor.
Ask the U.S. how they feel about supporting Hussein
during the Iran Iraq war, enabling him to build up his military
strength and "weapons of mass destruction" know how.
Personally, I think we should give it all back to the
Turks.
--
Corporate budgeting is a joke, and everyone knows it. -- Michael
Jensen. Harvard Business Review, November 2001.
Sherwood Harrington
: Personally, I think we should give it all back to the
: Turks.
Atta boy.
--
Sherwood Harrington
Creepy Hollow
John R Pierce
wrote:
> Ask the U.S. how they feel about supporting Hussein
>during the Iran Iraq war, enabling him to build up his military
>strength and "weapons of mass destruction" know how.
yeah, amazing how many of the daemons we've tilted at recently have been
of our own making...
Dave Laird
Geoff Miller wrote:
>
>
> John R Pierce <dont....@email.is.invalid> writes:
>
>> I got the distinct impression that it was a blueprint for a Pax
>> Americana where We The People are planning on permanently occupying
>> Arabia with omnipotent military forces, control the oil, you control
>> the world.
>
>
> I've advocated that for years. Not to rule the world, though, but
> to remove a thorn in our national side once and for all. Of course,
> it had been little more than a Tom Clancyesque wank-fantasy for
> right-winders such as myself, but now it looks more likely each 'n'
> every day. Yee haw. I'd like to see us overrun the oil fields in
> Iraq and Saudi Arabia both, replace Hussein with somebody more to
> our liking, and send the Sauds off to a life of leisure in Monaco
> or someplace where they'll be permanently out from underfoot. Then
> we can control the oil fields as part of a benevolent regional trust.
Yee haw, indeed. The Shrub has little choice but to take us to war in the
Middle East. Give our superior intellect, ostensibly bigger balls and
incredible technological edge over the other combatants, we'll probably win
this time and watch ourselves on the evening news to boot, just as we did
driving the Iraqis out of Kuwait. Of course, there is that marginal chance
that we might get a surprise in the mail, an overpopulated building in Los
Angeles decide to unexpectedly comply with gravity or other unprecedented
disaster strike us.
After all, we are dealing with Islamic terrorists who have already proven
capable of moving from country to country complete with MasterCard and Visa
ready to pay for plane fare. Giant-sized helpings of the Philippine Islands,
if not most of the region nearby already have acquired the taste for Al
Quaeda, and although it might not surprise anyone, they are nearly all
sitting atop what some say are petroleum production zones. Allah has been
merciful to the unwitting. Ahem.
However, if we're going to take over the oil productions zones in Iraq and
Saudi Arabia, while we're at it, we'd better grab a few South Sea Islands
while we're at it, wouldn't you think?
> As for controlling the world, or aspiring to: no fucking way. There
> are simply too many other sourcs of oil outside the Middle East for
> us to corner the market even if we wanted to. One of which is Russia,
> who wouldn't take kindly to attempted U.S. economic hegemony.
Although between the oil reservers in Alaska, the new-and-improved Middle
East, the potential for the South Pacific and our own native home-grown
sources in Teck's Ass, we certainly would reduce our oil dependency, thus
allowing us to drive more gas-guzzling SUV's and full-sized Beastmobiles down
the highway without paying quite such a stiff price for the privilege, one
would think.
Say, did I overplay that trump card you just laid down a minute ago?
Dave
--
Dave Laird (dla...@kharma.net)
The Used Kharma Lot
Web Page: http://www.kharma.net updated 07/06/2002
Musicians' Calendar: http://www.kharma.net/calendar.html
Usenet news server : news://news.kharma.net
Fortune Random Thought For the Minute
If you cannot in the long run tell everyone what you have been doing,
your doing was worthless.
-- Edwim Schrodinger
Glen Appleby
Careful! If you start talking like that, Queenie and Geoff (can
you say "strange bedfellows"?) will come down on you for being
un'Murikun and "always" badmouthing this "great nation".
Interesting how, when we have dark secrets (heh), when someone
speaks of them truthfully, we get all frightened and defensive.
Glen (watch for it) Appleby
Queenie
wrote:
>Careful! If you start talking like that, Queenie and Geoff (can
>you say "strange bedfellows"?)
[...]
Strange bedfellows? Not as strange as you and Tim May.
~Queenie
"I'm a neurotic nut, but you're crazy!"
-Felix Ungar
Glen Appleby
wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 11:39:25 GMT, dirt...@rcip.com (Glen Appleby)
>wrote:
>
>>Careful! If you start talking like that, Queenie and Geoff (can
>>you say "strange bedfellows"?)
>
>[...]
>
>Strange bedfellows? Not as strange as you and Tim May.
Let's squelch that rummor *right* now!
*I* am not the one who slept with him and is presently playing cupholder while he mans the remote.
Geoff Miller
Julian Macassey <jul...@tele.com> writes:
[ I said that we should seize the oil fields ]
> You should ask the Brits how that worked for them.
I wasn't aware that the Brits ever had possession of the oil
fields in that part of the world -- at least, when they were
actually being exploited significantly.
But even if they had, why do you insist that because the Brits
once failed at something, everyone else is doomed to fail also?
> You can also ask the U.S. how they feel now about
> installing Husssein's Baathist predecessor.
I'm not aware of that. But again, assuming for the moment
that it's true, does our past mistake condemn us to failure
forever? It seems a little odd that you'd believe this,
since you've never struck me as an "If at first you don't
succeed, then the hell with it" sort of person.
You know, it's funny. I can think of a lot of things I did
wrong the first time around during the course of my life.
But funnily enough, I eventually got them right. It would
never have occrred to me that an initial failure mean that
I'd forever forfeited the right to try again until I finally
succeeded. It seems reasonable to think that the same
principle scales up nicely to a national/governmental level.
> Ask the U.S. how they feel about supporting Hussein
> during the Iran Iraq war, enabling him to build up his military
> strength and "weapons of mass destruction" know how.
Doing so made perfect sense at the time, and in retrospect, it
still does. The enemy at that time was Iran; it was logical
to play the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" card and try
to weaken Iran by strengthening Iraq. Or do you expect the
American government to be able to predict the future?
I'm not sure I understand where weapons of mass destruction
enter into it, though.
Julian, I've noticed a recurring theme in these threads about
Afghanistan, the War On Terrorism, and U.S. foreign policy in
general: you like to display your knowledge of history, but
you put somewhat less effort into making a case that would
explain specifically why you believe history is applicable to
the here and now. For example, you were all gloom and doom
over our going into Afghanistan, citing the dismal experience
of the Brits and later, the Soviets. And even know, you
cling to the idea of Afghanistan being impossible to sub-
jugate so tenaciously that you refuse to admit that going in
there was a cake walk for us.
> Personally, I think we should give it all back to the
> Turks.
So they could give it the works?
Glen Appleby
scruz.general,geo...@u1.netgate.net (Geoff Miller) wrote:
[Brits had the oil fields for a while]
>But even if they had, why do you insist that because the Brits
>once failed at something, everyone else is doomed to fail also?
OK, it is *possible* that our country could do better (although
the Brits have a much longer history of impearilaism) because
*we* don't have that difficult, effected accent that so many of
the British officers seemed to spew.
An M-16 has no accent.
Julian suggested:
>> You can also ask the U.S. how they feel now about
>> installing Husssein's Baathist predecessor.
>
>I'm not aware of that.
Care to bone up on even somewat recent events?
You have *got* to start keeping up, here!
>But again, assuming for the moment
>that it's true, does our past mistake condemn us to failure
>forever?
As long as we deny it and don't learn from the mistakes of the
past, there will always be a Right Guard Geoff Miller admonishing
us blindly to give it another go.
(The "learning from the past" was the important part. I just
threw in the "Right Guard Geoff Miller" for entertainment. KIDS,
don't try this without adult supervision!)
>It seems a little odd that you'd believe this,
>since you've never struck me as an "If at first you don't
>succeed, then the hell with it" sort of person.
>
>You know, it's funny. I can think of a lot of things I did
>wrong the first time around during the course of my life.
>But funnily enough, I eventually got them right. It would
>never have occrred to me that an initial failure mean that
>I'd forever forfeited the right to try again until I finally
>succeeded. It seems reasonable to think that the same
>principle scales up nicely to a national/governmental level.
It does.
However, as I suggested, if we do the same old things in the same
old ways, we had better expect the same old results.
As long as the gubmint insists on denying past blunders, they are
not in a position to learn from them.
Until they can learn what they did wrong, it makes no sense to me
to try to do stupid stuff again.
>> Ask the U.S. how they feel about supporting Hussein
>> during the Iran Iraq war, enabling him to build up his military
>> strength and "weapons of mass destruction" know how.
>
>Doing so made perfect sense at the time, and in retrospect, it
>still does. The enemy at that time was Iran;
Hello?
They were nothing more than an embarassment to us because (now
hold on and fasten yer seatbelt!) we screwed up *there* (remember
the Sha of Iran? We installed him as well) as a part of
*causing* our own embarasement in Iran.
They were even less of a threat to our National Security than is
Iraq, today.
>it was logical
>to play the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" card and try
>to weaken Iran by strengthening Iraq. Or do you expect the
>American government to be able to predict the future?
No, but I really do look forward to the day when our government
can somewhat accurately predict the friggin past.
>Julian, I've noticed a recurring theme in these threads about
>Afghanistan, the War On Terrorism, and U.S. foreign policy in
>general: you like to display your knowledge of history, but
>you put somewhat less effort into making a case that would
>explain specifically why you believe history is applicable to
>the here and now.
I'm not Julian (he gets far more wimmen that I do and he seems to
be better at holding his liquor ... you know, just for future
reference), but I'll attempt a bit of an answer (even though I'll
be looking forward to his reply as well).
>For example, you were all gloom and doom
>over our going into Afghanistan, citing the dismal experience
>of the Brits and later, the Soviets. And even know, you
>cling to the idea of Afghanistan being impossible to sub-
>jugate so tenaciously that you refuse to admit that going in
>there was a cake walk for us.
LOL!!! Geoff, you do *not* think that we *conquored* the
Afghanistan people, do you? You don't think that we conquored
the people or the land, do you?
What part, exactly, of going into Afghanistan, was a "cake walk"?
The *only* thing that we did, there (aside from turning rocks
into gravle and killing a few Canadians) was that we sorta kicked
the Taliban out of power, there. We sure didn't get Ben Lomond
(although I notice that Shrub is getting suddenly vague on this),
which was, IIRC, our stated goal in going in there.
I also remember that Shrub said that we weren't going in there to
do "nation building" (imperialism?), yet here we are, trying to
install a government in an area that has long been anarchists
(and calling them that is very kind of me).
What we are doing there, and have done since the beginning, is
dumps LOTS of US buk$. Initially, we dropped the buk$ as bombs,
troops and equipment. More recently (and apparently, long term)
we arecdropping buk$ in the form of "infrastructure" and other
forms of aid that will (if we can actually follow the money) be
gouing toward paying off the war lords to keep quiet for a while,
so that the government, there, can get mo' money from the US to
pay off the warlords.
Will *this* come back and bite us in the butt?
Hmmmm. I honestly don't know.
The reason that I don't know is because I cannot predict which of
our self-generated problems (there or with our WOT or WOD) will
be the first to bite us so big that the US simply won't be worth
living in.
Wanna be jabbed with a sharp stick in yer right eye or yer left
eye? Yer choice.
Don Steiny
Glen Appleby <dirt...@rcip.com> wrote:
>
>They were nothing more than an embarassment to us because (now
>hold on and fasten yer seatbelt!) we screwed up *there* (remember
>the Sha of Iran? We installed him as well) as a part of
>*causing* our own embarasement in Iran.
That is not as black and white as you would like it to be either.
I have many Iranian friends who loved the Shah. My next-door-neighbor
told me of a personal experience with him made the Shah seem quite wise.
I once said to an Iranian "but the Shah was supposedly ruthless and
a bad guy," and she said "not bad enough, look what he was up against."
As one Iranian Moslem friend explained to me, the vast majority of
people in Iran were illerate. Note that the Shah was big on educating
women, something that ceased after the revolution. The revolutionaries were
religious fundementalists. Radio broadcasts of Khomini was one of the few ways
they got information. The Shah could not turn Iran into a modern country
overnight, he tried, but he was overwhelmed by ignorance and superstition.
I often ride to work with my next-door-neighbor who is Iranian and he
tells me stories about the beliefs and lifestyle of the people that would
work on his farm, about the mullahs, the djinn, and the superstition and
magic that ruled the lives of the peasants.
Incidently, Iranians are not Arabs and they dislike Arabs, though,
as the daughter of my next-door-neighbor once told me as she touched
her dark hair "they polluted our bloodline."
-Don
--
Don Steiny - InfoPoint, Inc. - www.infopoint.com
125 Mission St #3 - Santa Cruz, CA 95060 - 831.471.1671 - fax: 831.471.1670
Julian Macassey
>
>
> Julian Macassey <jul...@tele.com> writes:
>
> [ I said that we should seize the oil fields ]
>
>> You should ask the Brits how that worked for them.
>
> I wasn't aware that the Brits ever had possession of the oil
> fields in that part of the world -- at least, when they were
> actually being exploited significantly.
Well, where do you think British Petroleum came from?
>
> But even if they had, why do you insist that because the Brits
> once failed at something, everyone else is doomed to fail also?
>
I mention them because they are recent history.
>
>> You can also ask the U.S. how they feel now about
>> installing Husssein's Baathist predecessor
>
> I'm not aware of that.
Well, for a Chauvinist like yourself, I would assume you
knew the recent history of Iraq. They are after all currently
Public Enemy Number One.
>But again, assuming for the moment
> that it's true, does our past mistake condemn us to failure
> forever? It seems a little odd that you'd believe this,
> since you've never struck me as an "If at first you don't
> succeed, then the hell with it" sort of person.
Not so much past mistakes as knowing what you getting
into in the first place.
Consider it a bit like strolling into a biker bar. It
helps to know the lay of the land so to speak.
>
> You know, it's funny. I can think of a lot of things I did
> wrong the first time around during the course of my life.
> But funnily enough, I eventually got them right. It would
> never have occrred to me that an initial failure mean that
> I'd forever forfeited the right to try again until I finally
> succeeded. It seems reasonable to think that the same
> principle scales up nicely to a national/governmental level.
But, there are some things that you will never "get
right", like say walking into a biker bar and shouting "Harleys
suck!" You will get your arse kicked and you will get your arse
kicked no matter how many times you try it.
>
>
>> Ask the U.S. how they feel about supporting Hussein
>> during the Iran Iraq war, enabling him to build up his military
>> strength and "weapons of mass destruction" know how.
>
> Doing so made perfect sense at the time, and in retrospect, it
> still does. The enemy at that time was Iran; it was logical
> to play the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" card and try
> to weaken Iran by strengthening Iraq. Or do you expect the
> American government to be able to predict the future?
Well, if they looked at history, they would be a tad
better at predicting the future.
>
> I'm not sure I understand where weapons of mass destruction
> enter into it, though.
Who gave the Iraquis the know how?
>
> Julian, I've noticed a recurring theme in these threads about
> Afghanistan, the War On Terrorism, and U.S. foreign policy in
> general: you like to display your knowledge of history, but
> you put somewhat less effort into making a case that would
> explain specifically why you believe history is applicable to
> the here and now. For example, you were all gloom and doom
> over our going into Afghanistan, citing the dismal experience
> of the Brits and later, the Soviets. And even know, you
> cling to the idea of Afghanistan being impossible to sub-
> jugate so tenaciously that you refuse to admit that going in
> there was a cake walk for us.
Well, history helps us predict the future. Just for
giggles and apropos Afghanistan let me quote some history.
In the sixteenth century, Ibn Batuta said: "a tribe of
Persians called Afghans. They hold mountains and defiles
(passes), posess considerable strength and are mostly
highwaymen."
It is considered that the decision of Babur who founded
the Mogul dynasty in India in 1525, to move from Kabul and
conquer India was the "inability to completely subdue the Pathan
tribesmen."
So, not just the Brits, not just the Ruskies, but Babur,
and the Mongols and Nadir Shah of Persia in 1747.
Look at that history. Every invader thought it was a
cakewalk. Every one left, maybe a decade later, sometime earlier
knowing that the Pathans own the passes and own the roads at
night.
Today in Pakistan, in the Pathan areas, the police close
the roads to travellers at dusk as it is considered too dangerous
to travel at night. It was that way when the British ruled India
and talked of the North West Frontier.
>
>
>> Personally, I think we should give it all back to the
>> Turks.
>
> So they could give it the works?
No one likes the Turks. They "take no prisoners". Note
that Turks are currently in Kabul as NATO troops.
May I say in closing that you should consider travelling.
You will find out that in the rest of the world it isn't
California and it isn't Kansas either.
--
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the
argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." William Pitt, British
prime-minister (1759-1806)
George Kleist
>
> "I have many Iranian friends ......."
> -Don
------------------------------------------------
Yes, but have you counted the cats in Zanzibar?
"I win!"
~Idi Amin DaDa
Queenie
wrote:
[...]
>I'm not sure I understand where weapons of mass destruction
>enter into it, though.
[...]
Apparently, the Germans have a lot to do with it, and more than the
U.S.... A journalist named Eric Nadler has a film out called
"Stealing the Fire" about this German scientist/spy person who
provided nuclear secrets to Saddam. He got a fine and 5 yrs.
probation.
-----------------
http://www.hrw.org/iff/2002/ny/stealing.html
Filmed over five years on four continents, Stealing the Fire focuses
on Karl-Heinz Schaab, a German technician convicted of treason in 1999
for selling top secret nuclear weapons plans to Iraq. The film
unflinchingly exposes a web of government and corporate intrigue and
lays bare an unbroken chain of events and people that connects today's
nuclear weapons underground with the atomic bomb program of Nazi
Germany. Stealing the Fire investigates the 60-year history of a
German multi-national corporation that directly profited from the
Holocaust and in recent decades became a leading supplier of nuclear
weapons technology to developing nations, including Iraq and Pakistan
----------------------
Germany's contribution to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is more
than the rest of the world combined.
Interesting to see what's going on over there, now with the
re-election of Herr Gerhard
Schroeder.
~Queenie
"The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of
rhetoric than to any other force."
-Mein Kampf
Dave Laird
Queenie wrote:
> Germany's contribution to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is more
> than the rest of the world combined.
>
> Interesting to see what's going on over there, now with the
> re-election of Herr Gerhard Schroeder.
Incredibly enough, this is quite credible. I am curious, however, about having
read a story in a German magazine about a year ago that was discussing the
emergence of nuclear fission/fusion byproducts as a commodity being sold to
South Africa in the latter part of 2000. Do you think, based upon what you
have read, that the Germans might be also selling the same set of information
to the South Africans, perhaps via the Dutch?
Originally I didn't give the story much credibility, but after researching
what you wrote, perhaps I'm re-examining the original story. Any ideas?
Dave
--
Dave Laird (dla...@kharma.net)
The Used Kharma Lot
Web Page: http://www.kharma.net updated 07/06/2002
Musicians' Calendar: http://www.kharma.net/calendar.html
Usenet news server : news://news.kharma.net
Fortune Random Thought For the Minute
The best thing that comes out of Iowa is I-80.
neil klopfenstein
> -----------------
> http://www.hrw.org/iff/2002/ny/stealing.html
>
> Filmed over five years on four continents, Stealing the Fire focuses
> on Karl-Heinz Schaab, a German technician convicted of treason in 1999
> for selling top secret nuclear weapons plans to Iraq. The film
> unflinchingly exposes a web of government and corporate intrigue and
> lays bare an unbroken chain of events and people that connects today's
> nuclear weapons underground with the atomic bomb program of Nazi
> Germany. Stealing the Fire investigates the 60-year history of a
> German multi-national corporation that directly profited from the
> Holocaust and in recent decades became a leading supplier of nuclear
> weapons technology to developing nations, including Iraq and Pakistan
> ----------------------
>
> Germany's contribution to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is more
> than the rest of the world combined.
Although nobody believes that Irq actually _has_ any _nuclear_ weapons, so
this contribution is of rather limited significance. On the other hand, the
WMDs which we know Saddam has and has used:
"WASHINGTON - American research companies, with the approval of two previous
presidential administrations, provided Iraq biological cultures that could be
used for biological weapons, according to testimony to a U.S. Senate
committee eight years ago."
Paul Russell
>
> In article <3d8f3f01....@216.168.3.40>,
> Glen Appleby <dirt...@rcip.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >They were nothing more than an embarassment to us because (now
> >hold on and fasten yer seatbelt!) we screwed up *there* (remember
> >the Sha of Iran? We installed him as well) as a part of
> >*causing* our own embarasement in Iran.
>
> That is not as black and white as you would like it to be either.
> I have many Iranian friends who loved the Shah. My next-door-neighbor
> told me of a personal experience with him made the Shah seem quite wise.
> I once said to an Iranian "but the Shah was supposedly ruthless and
> a bad guy," and she said "not bad enough, look what he was up against."
>
Well, if we're resorting to personal anecdotes, I'll add my own. When I
was a stoodent back in England there were some Iranians on my
engineering degree course. One of the women failed the second year exams
and was therefore facing the prospect of having to return to Iran (which
was then under the Shah's rule). She committed suicide rather than face
this prospect.
Remember all those public executions in Iran where anyone who had voiced
any dissent against the Shah got hung from a crane ?
Nice guy.
Paul
Glen Appleby
<prus...@arc-software.com> wrote:
Hey! I get to respond to a followup to a post from Stiney. I am
all atwitter.
>Don Steiny wrote:
>> In article <3d8f3f01....@216.168.3.40>,
>> Glen Appleby <dirt...@rcip.com> wrote:
>>
>> >They were nothing more than an embarassment to us because (now
>> >hold on and fasten yer seatbelt!) we screwed up *there* (remember
>> >the Sha of Iran? We installed him as well) as a part of
>> >*causing* our own embarasement in Iran.
>>
>> That is not as black and white as you would like it to be either.
>> I have many Iranian friends who loved the Shah. My next-door-neighbor
You disappoint me. I would have expected you to procailm "My
close personal friend, the Shah".
>> told me of a personal experience with him made the Shah seem quite wise.
>> I once said to an Iranian "but the Shah was supposedly ruthless and
>> a bad guy," and she said "not bad enough, look what he was up against."
Gosh, that sounds like the sort of apologist thinking that
suggests we bring Communism back to the USSR, because at least it
was peacful and quiet.
>Well, if we're resorting to personal anecdotes, I'll add my own. When I
>was a stoodent back in England there were some Iranians on my
>engineering degree course. One of the women failed the second year exams
>and was therefore facing the prospect of having to return to Iran (which
>was then under the Shah's rule). She committed suicide rather than face
>this prospect.
>
>Remember all those public executions in Iran where anyone who had voiced
>any dissent against the Shah got hung from a crane ?
>
>Nice guy.
Come on! That's entertainment, much like Shrub's boiz are
putting on for us, now.
Do we appreciate it? Noooooo. All we can manage to do is bitch
about it.
Don Steiny
Paul Russell <prus...@arc-software.com> wrote:
>
>Well, if we're resorting to personal anecdotes, I'll add my own. When I
>was a stoodent back in England there were some Iranians on my
>engineering degree course. One of the women failed the second year exams
>and was therefore facing the prospect of having to return to Iran (which
>was then under the Shah's rule). She committed suicide rather than face
>this prospect.
>
>Remember all those public executions in Iran where anyone who had voiced
>any dissent against the Shah got hung from a crane ?
I do, but several of the stories I heard about people who did not
want to return to Iran under the Shah's rule were from Bahais and others
who did not want to return not because of the Shah, but because of the
Moslems. So, even from your story it hard to tell.