Elections
Wim Degroot
of the US presidential elections among Dutch citizens only (sorry, I do not want
to discriminate. I'd just like to find out the feeling of s.c.n. reading Dutch
citizens as compared to the general American John Public (John Doe)). I do not
care where you live. Is there anyone who has an idea as to the format?
(Disclaimer: This is not expected to generate a scientific result, just
curiosity)
_Wim
************************************************************************************
| | | | / \ Wim de Groot NASA Lewis Research Center
| | | __| | ___ E-mail: sp...@scivax.lerc.nasa.gov
| | | / | | | Fax./Phone : (216) 356 - 9444
\__|__/ \ __| \_____/| Tel. : (216) 977 - 7485
*******************************************************************************
MW...@psuvm.psu.edu
ask myself: For which couple (pres/vice-pres) would I vote to make sure that:
1) I can trust the president
2) I can rely on the vice-pres when nr 1 is unable to govern.
THERFORE: NO BUSH (because of 1) and no BUSH (because of 2) and NO PEROT ( in e
ssence because of 2). Michael. PennSTate
eric
sp...@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Wim Degroot) writes:
> Just for fun. Is there anyone out there interested in having a shadow election
> of the US presidential elections among Dutch citizens only (sorry, I do not want
> to discriminate. I'd just like to find out the feeling of s.c.n. reading Dutch
> citizens as compared to the general American John Public (John Doe)). I do not
> care where you live. Is there anyone who has an idea as to the format?
> (Disclaimer: This is not expected to generate a scientific result, just
> curiosity)
That might have been interesting in other election years (how many
promille would actually have voted for Dombo??), but this time I think
the outcome is known in advance. Clinton is going to win hands down,
both in the real election and in your shadow election. Which just goes
to show what an enormous failure Bush is.
But if you hold a shadow election, I don't mind participating. Do give
us the option to cast invalid votes: they can give you sort of an
indication as to how many people have a strong dislike for all of the
candidates.
Eric.
-
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric M. Visser email: er...@flab.fujitsu.co.jp
Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd. phone: 044 - 754 - 2671
Kawasaki, Japan fax : 044 - 754 - 2570
Maarten Sierhuis
: Just for fun. Is there anyone out there interested in having a shadow election
This doesn't seem to be a difficult answer for true Dutchmen :-)
If you believe in the Dutch way of living you can NEVER vote for
Bush and/or Perot, so there only remains one answer ...
Not that we think he's that great, but he at least was against Vietnam,
and he doesn't like tricle-down economics (???? nobody knows what that
is, but is sounds like something we don't want, because Clinton says that
we've had that for the last 12 years :-) )
I also think he has the best looking wife of all the candidates, and he
doesn't take his marriage that serious (like a good American president
never does ... history? :-) )
"O say can you see, the bigot in me ... la la la ... la la la". Clinton
singing het volkslied.
Doei ... MXS
--
Jonathan Engelsma (Reid)
|> sp...@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Wim Degroot) writes:
|> : Just for fun. Is there anyone out there interested in having a shadow election
|> : of the US presidential elections among Dutch citizens only (sorry, I do not want
|> : to discriminate. I'd just like to find out the feeling of s.c.n. reading Dutch
|> : citizens as compared to the general American John Public (John Doe)). I do not
|> : care where you live. Is there anyone who has an idea as to the format?
|> : (Disclaimer: This is not expected to generate a scientific result, just
|> : curiosity)
|> : _Wim
|>
|> If you believe in the Dutch way of living you can NEVER vote for
|> Bush and/or Perot, so there only remains one answer ...
|>
And just what is this "Dutch way of living"? Are true Dutchmen the
ones that still live in windmills, and wear wooden shoes? Actually
there is more than one answer remaining. There are 5 or 6 presidential
canidates on the ballot this year.
|> Not that we think he's that great, but he at least was against Vietnam,
|> and he doesn't like tricle-down economics (???? nobody knows what that
|> is, but is sounds like something we don't want, because Clinton says that
|> we've had that for the last 12 years :-) )
|>
You must not of been around here during the Jimmy Carter years....
|> I also think he has the best looking wife of all the candidates, and he
|> doesn't take his marriage that serious (like a good American president
|> never does ... history? :-) )
|>
Hilary Clinton? I heard Bill calls her Hilary the Hun! She won't
even make him cookies... imagine that!
:-)
Jonathan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan R. Engelsma Michigan State University
Department of
E-mail: enge...@cps.msu.edu Computer Science
uunet!frith!engelsma
uunet!frith!jresys!engelsma (home)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maarten Sierhuis
Jonathan R. Engelsma writes:
>And just what is this "Dutch way of living"? Are true Dutchmen the
>ones that still live in windmills, and wear wooden shoes?
Very socialistic man very socialistic :-)
You should've seen Joop den Uyl in his political campaign ... that was the
Dutch way of living :-)
Doei ... MXS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maarten Sierhuis NYNEX Science & Technology, Inc.
Member of Technical Staff Research & Development
Expert Systems Laboratory
E-mail: sier...@nynexst.com 500 Westchester Avenue
voice: (914) 644-2352 White Plains, NY 10604
fax: (914) 644-2404 USA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
mw
>sp...@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Wim Degroot) writes:
>: Just for fun. Is there anyone out there interested in having a shadow
>: election
>: of the US presidential elections among Dutch citizens only (sorry, I do
>: not want
>: to discriminate. I'd just like to find out the feeling of s.c.n. reading
>: Dutch
>: citizens as compared to the general American John Public (John Doe)). I
>: do not
>: care where you live. Is there anyone who has an idea as to the format?
>: (Disclaimer: This is not expected to generate a scientific result, just
>: curiosity)
>: Wim de Groot NASA Lewis Research Center
>This doesn't seem to be a difficult answer for true Dutchmen :-)
>If you believe in the Dutch way of living you can NEVER vote for
>Bush and/or Perot, so there only remains one answer ...
Awright, so ya put a smiley behind "true Dutchy" (echte Nederlander), but
I'm gonna take issue with you opinion anyway...
>Not that we think he's that great, but he at least was against Vietnam,
Hey everyone was against fighting in Vietnam, but how can someone justify
having thier countrymen (who are of course also not thrilled about fighting)
die in thier place? Sure pacifism is a beautiful ideal, but when ya look at
it from a bottom line viewpoint, it amounts to passing the buck and that a
potential president should never do.
Imagine if the same attitude would have prevailed during "Desert Storm", when
Iraq invaded Kuwait and could conceivably have extended its grasp to engulf
Saudi Arabia as well. We would all be paying through the nose for gas and
petrochemical related products because Sadam Hussein would have held much too
strong a position in the world oil market.
IMHO, reasons such as those specified above are precisely why it would be
completely irresponsible to gamble with the world's international political
and economic stability by placing an inexperienced idealist such as Clinton
in the white house. Considering how delicate contemporary global balance is
between super-power nations and other nations attempting to attain that same
status, it seems to me that the only man for the job is Bush. I don't like
Bush either, but as far as foreign policy goes he's got by far the most
impressive resume (8 years VP, 4 years pres, former head of CIA, and former
ambassador to China).
Clinton on the other hand knows >>> 0!!! <<< about foreign policy, his state,
Arkansas, is far from being a cosmopolitan one, and is one of the poorest in
the nation. Arkansas ranks among the worst in leading indicators such as child
mortality, percentage of people below poverty line, literacy etc. How a
governor of a state like that, who also states outright that he WILL increase
federal taxes, could become a successful president is beyond me.
Its not a game folks, presidents should not be elected because they have nice
manners or because they talk right, look right, and say all the right things.
Bush is the only man for the job, whether he is likeable or not!
>I also think he has the best looking wife of all the candidates, and he
>doesn't take his marriage that serious (like a good American president
>never does ... history? :-) )
yeah I guess that counts fer sumthin :-)
>"O say can you see, the bigot in me ... la la la ... la la la". Clinton
>singing het volkslied.
>Doei ... MXS
Just my two cents worth,
Marco, LV, NV, USA
Ralph 'Hairy' Moonen
> And just what is this "Dutch way of living"? Are true Dutchmen the
> ones that still live in windmills, and wear wooden shoes? Actually
> there is more than one answer remaining. There are 5 or 6 presidential
> canidates on the ballot this year.
5 or 6 ? I think more like 20, however, not all 20 are
on all the lists of every state.
--Ralph
Maarten Sierhuis
open goal. So, I cannot do anything else than to explain to The Messiah
(however that maybe :-) ) what the notion of my kind of funny statement
is, in a more serious light.
Beware ... of what is comming :-)
mes...@nevada.edu (mw) writes:
>Hey everyone was against fighting in Vietnam, but how can someone justify
>having thier countrymen (who are of course also not thrilled about fighting)
>die in thier place? Sure pacifism is a beautiful ideal, but when ya look at
>it from a bottom line viewpoint, it amounts to passing the buck and that a
>potential president should never do.
Aha, what does this say? You have to be burned by something before you can
make decision about, in what other people feel are, similar circumstances?
What a load of BULLSHIT. Who the hell is talking about passing the buck?
Just because Georgie has been flying planes in WO-II makes hime qualified to
judge Saddam and decide to send people to war. He man wake up ... like you
say; WAR is NOT a game that you need experience in. You need some kind of
commonsense in making a good judgement call. Assholes that have flown a plane,
and think that is heroism, are NOT, by definition, thinking straight!!!
IMHO, Clinton has shown the world that, in times that the idiots in the White House
and congress were forcing people to fight a rediculous war, he could reason
with some commonsense and NOT be influenced by BIG BROTHER. That tells me that
he can stand up for his believes, and is NOT scarred of taking the consequences.
It is not for nothing that the intellectuals (students, etc.) in the JNHS were
AGAINST Vietnam, and avoiding the draft!!. Assholes like Bush would go to war in
Vietnam today.
Politics has NOTHING to do with PATRIOTISM. In fact patriotism is what makes
people be emotional in times were they should be reasoning logically.
>Imagine if the same attitude would have prevailed during "Desert Storm", when
>Iraq invaded Kuwait and could conceivably have extended its grasp to engulf
>Saudi Arabia as well. We would all be paying through the nose for gas and
>petrochemical related products because Sadam Hussein would have held much too
>strong a position in the world oil market.
What a low blow. You can only say that because of how this STUPID WAR ended (although
it hasn't ended yet ... Saddam is still going strong with the same stuff as before!)
I could make a better case of Clinton's judgement during Vietnam: If those
assholes then would only had HALF of Clinton's ideas, a lot less American
BOYS would have died.
>IMHO, reasons such as those specified above are precisely why it would be
>completely irresponsible to gamble with the world's international political
>and economic stability by placing an inexperienced idealist such as Clinton
>in the white house. Considering how delicate contemporary global balance is
>between super-power nations and other nations attempting to attain that same
>status, it seems to me that the only man for the job is Bush. I don't like
>Bush either, but as far as foreign policy goes he's got by far the most
>impressive resume (8 years VP, 4 years pres, former head of CIA, and former
>ambassador to China).
I would like to say the same thing, only then against Bush and LOCAL politics.
Who is gambling here? What are the stakes, and what are the chances involved?
This is purely emotional talk. First of all, former ambassador of China? Don't
make me laugh, Clinton went to Moskou in the early days that should count for
something :-) Former head of the CIA? What the f..k does that have to do with
being able to lead your country in foreign political issues? Being able to
spy on your opponents, whom are now your allies? :-)
>Its not a game folks, presidents should not be elected because they have nice
>manners or because they talk right, look right, and say all the right things.
>Bush is the only man for the job, whether he is likeable or not!
Well you seem to think that politics is about WAR GAMES with foreign tirans, and
how important that is, etc. etc. Being a president has NOTHING to do with
being a religious American, playing the American sport (i.e. hunting. Like he
said in the debate: "I am against gun control ... how could I, I am also a
sportsman .." ?????? What ....?????, playing companies againt the people (S&L
scandal), and numerous other rediculous things.
>>I also think he has the best looking wife of all the candidates, and he
>>doesn't take his marriage that serious (like a good American president
>>never does ... history? :-) )
>
>yeah I guess that counts fer sumthin :-)
Hey, it is known all over the world that alot of Americans are influenced
by these kind of things. Why do you think that Bush has spend so much money
on getting these issues in the media?
Man WAKE UP .... JNHS WAKE UP ... you're political system SUCKS ... it is doomed
to fail (and very soon IMHO), just like you guys are saying now about communism.
I am not claiming that the Dutch system is better, I am just stating a FACT about
the American system ... IT IS FAILING in a world economy like we have today!!!
Put that in your pipe ... and smoke it ... sit on it ... or whatever ...
The only positive thing about the elections in the JNHS is that I have a day off
on Nov. 3rd. Yes Yes Yes, one of the view days ... and I don't have to get out
of my house to vote for these clowns (I am not allowed ... misschien maar goed ook :-)
ISS...@byuvm.bitnet
Based on results (like vetoing the "family leave bill" and the "catastrophic
healthcare bill"), Bush's social awareness cq. compassion sucks big time.
I am appalled and saddened that an out-of-touch leader like Bush is still
doing so well in the polls. Trickle down economics, alias foodoo economics,
alias reaganomics, has made the rich richer and the poor poorer. I am
sickened to see more and more people beg for donations to cover healthcare
costs for a child who happened to be born with a "pre-existing condition,"
like congenial heart defects. And since Republicans have effectively
frustrated attempts to move towards a "gentler" healthcare system, you will
continue to see children die needlessly. The facts show it: America ranks
e.g. (compared with other industrialized nation) at the bottom of infancy
mortality, and has the largest un(der)insured population (30-35 million)
of them all. Way to go, Republicans, you create ghetto's and third world
conditions for millions of your own citizens (for which you don't give a
f--k), while you pamper the rich, allow the streets to be saturated with
guns (the 2nd Amendment justification), and wonder why America has become
the most violent and unequal society in the West? Hmmm?
Casper.
iss...@byuvm.bitnet
mw
>Ok, we (as in every bone in my body) cannot resist this chance for
>open goal.
[ * munch * ]
>mes...@nevada.edu (mw) writes:
>>Hey everyone was against fighting in Vietnam, but how can someone justify
>>having thier countrymen (who are of course also not thrilled about fighting)
>>die in thier place? Sure pacifism is a beautiful ideal, but when ya look at
>>it from a bottom line viewpoint, it amounts to passing the buck and that a
>>potential president should never do.
>Aha, what does this say? You have to be burned by something before you can
>make decision about, in what other people feel are, similar circumstances?
>What a load of BULLSHIT.
[ranting and raving * munched * ]
>IMHO, Clinton has shown the world that, in times that the idiots in the
>White House and congress were forcing people to fight a rediculous war,
>he could reason with some commonsense and NOT be influenced by BIG BROTHER.
>That tells me that he can stand up for his believes, and is NOT scarred of
>taking the consequences.
So what do you tell the mothers of the boys that died in Clinton's place?
Note that I *AM* an advocate of pacifism, but not to the point where I
permit others to die in my place.
If anarchistic traits are considered desirable in presidential condidates,
then I submit it might be prefferable to vote for "Marrou", the little known
candidate representing the Libertarians. The man hasn't got a shot in hell,
and besides that most people have never heard of him, but his ideas ring of
the same radical departures/challenges to the status quo as draft-dodging.
>It is not for nothing that the intellectuals (students, etc.) in the JNHS were
>AGAINST Vietnam, and avoiding the draft!!. Assholes like Bush would go to
>war in Vietnam today.
That's matter of opinion, I realy doubt that Bush would do that because
he has little to *gain* from such a move. The US also does very little if
anything to settle disputes in (former) Yugoslavia for the same reasons.
>Politics has NOTHING to do with PATRIOTISM. In fact patriotism is what makes
>people be emotional in times were they should be reasoning logically.
Patriotism and human rights are the smoke-screens that are used to justify
taking action to protect national interests. There's nothing new about that
and everybody can read that much between the lines.
>>Imagine if the same attitude would have prevailed during "Desert Storm", when
>>Iraq invaded Kuwait and could conceivably have extended its grasp to engulf
>>Saudi Arabia as well. We would all be paying through the nose for gas and
>>petrochemical related products because Sadam Hussein would have held much too
>>strong a position in the world oil market.
>What a low blow. You can only say that because of how this STUPID WAR
>ended (although it hasn't ended yet ... Saddam is still going strong with
>the same stuff as before!)
The reason why the multi-nation coalition force (obviously with the USA
contributing the vast bulk of the military muscle) was ratified by the
United Nations is because they emphasized that they were acting ONLY to
liberate Kuwait, and not to interfere in Iraq's domestic affairs. As a
consequence, Saddam Hussein remains in power, inflicting attrocities upon
the Kurds, leading UN nuclear inspectors around by the nose, etc., *BUT*
he does NOT have a strangle-hold on a dominant portion of the world's
known oil reserves. That was the bottom line for most of the nations that
supported the coalition movement.
In my opinion Bush and Schwartzkopf would have ousted Saddam Houssein if this
would not have jeopardized the unprecedented cooperative efforts of the UN to
remedy the situation. Don't forget that there were also other Arab nations
involved in the coalition forces, who would probably have objected to such
"imperialistic" notions as overthrowing an Arab leader.
>I could make a better case of Clinton's judgement during Vietnam: If those
>assholes then would only had HALF of Clinton's ideas, a lot less American
>BOYS would have died.
I don't think Vietnam was a good idea either. In fact many political
scientists say that the action was illegal because international law
prohibits interfering in domestic affairs AND war was never declared by
Congress. Nevertheless, it was justified as a "police-action" and they
presumably were there at the invitation of non-communist Vietnam. Right
or wrong, dodgeing the draft when others are facing gun-fire in your place
amounts to anarchy.
>>IMHO, reasons such as those specified above are precisely why it would be
>>completely irresponsible to gamble with the world's international political
>>and economic stability by placing an inexperienced idealist such as Clinton
>>in the white house. Considering how delicate contemporary global balance is
>>between super-power nations and other nations attempting to attain that same
>>status, it seems to me that the only man for the job is Bush. I don't like
>>Bush either, but as far as foreign policy goes he's got by far the most
>>impressive resume (8 years VP, 4 years pres, former head of CIA, and former
>>ambassador to China).
[ * munch * ]
>First of all, former ambassador of China? Don't make me laugh, Clinton
>went to Moskou in the early days that should count for something :-)
You are making a case for logic in favour of emotion, but then you laugh
off the fact that Bush was once the ambassador to a nation that is one of
the last hard line communist regimes in the world. It *IS* significant,
how do you see that any other way?
>Former head of the CIA? What the f..k does that have to do with
>being able to lead your country in foreign political issues? Being able to
>spy on your opponents, whom are now your allies? :-)
Again you are contradicting your logic versus emotion case. The fact that
Bush has been directly involved in gathering sensitive inteligence data
from a variety of sources puts him in an infinitely superior position to
judge what a nation's "ulterior" motives may be in any aspect of foreign
relations. Can Clinton say the same?
[ more emotional rhetoric deleted ]
>>>I also think he has the best looking wife of all the candidates, and he
>>>doesn't take his marriage that serious (like a good American president
>>>never does ... history? :-) )
>>yeah I guess that counts fer sumthin :-)
>Hey, it is known all over the world that alot of Americans are influenced
>by these kind of things. Why do you think that Bush has spend so much money
>on getting these issues in the media?
I'll go you one better on that. If Perot didn't look like such an outright
nerd, and talk like a "red-neck" he would probably have charmed the pants
off of everyone without ever stating his ideas any differently. And if
Clinton looked like Perot, then Bush would win the election. When the margin
of doubt between candidates is thin, little things definitely can act as
tie-breakers. This, IMHO, is typically an American phenomenon because many
voters here get most of their impressions from the "packaged" versions that
are shown on TV.
>I am not claiming that the Dutch system is better, I am just stating a
>FACT about the American system ... IT IS FAILING in a world economy like
>we have today!!!
Don't forget about the fact that a major reason for the ailing (as
opposed to "failing") US situation is that Congress, which is
dominated by the Democrats, refuses to draft legislation that will at
least make valid compromises with Republican policies. I'm not saying
that I agree with all of Bush's vetos, but when he does raise objections
they are usually things that could have been solved through negotiation.
As Perot quite accurately states "Congress and the executive branch
[presidency] don't work together," in fact they go out of thier way to
play the grand-standing game. As I see it, the Democrats could get
at least some of thier policies enacted into law if they had a more
cooperative attitude. As it stands now Congress (composed mostly of
Clinton's Democratic colleagues) rarely ever does anything constructive,
and prefers to stall on taking action in the hope that it will give them
propaganda victories over the Republicans.
Btw - while there is a recession going on, the investment climate is still
quite healthy in the US, just look at Wall street. If Clinton comes in
with all his talk of increasing public spending and raising taxes then
he might end up destroying one of the few positive indicators that remain
in the US because foreign investment will high-tail it. Without an influx
of investment capital, interest rates could rise, resulting in slower growth,
higher unemployment, inflation, etc.
>The only positive thing about the elections in the JNHS is that I have a
>day off on Nov. 3rd. Yes Yes Yes, one of the view days ... and I don't have
>to get out of my house to vote for these clowns (I am not allowed ...
>misschien maar goed ook :-)
Yeah its the same for me, but we talk about this stuff alot, and not all
of my colleagues are Republicans y'know.
>Doei ... MXS
>Maarten Sierhuis NYNEX Science & Technology, Inc.
Thanx for the input though...
C-ya, Marco, LV, NV, USA
Timothy S Newman
>|>
>|> This doesn't seem to be a difficult answer for true Dutchmen :-)
>|> If you believe in the Dutch way of living you can NEVER vote for
>|> Bush and/or Perot, so there only remains one answer ...
>|>
>
>And just what is this "Dutch way of living"? Are true Dutchmen the
>ones that still live in windmills, and wear wooden shoes? Actually
>there is more than one answer remaining. There are 5 or 6 presidential
Actually there are something like 50 or 60 people running in the various
states, but really there are only 3 that have a chance.
Wim Degroot again:
>
>|> I also think [Clinton] has the best looking wife of all the candidates, and
>|> he doesn't take his marriage that serious (like a good American president
>|> never does ... history? :-) )
>|>
>
Yeah, Hila the Hun is the best looking of the three wives, which is
good for Clinton, because there aren't too many other reasons to
vote for him!
Tim Newman
Wim Degroot
>
>Beware ... of what is comming :-)
>
>mes...@nevada.edu (mw) writes:
>
I did not think it was worth answering mr. messiahs crap, since people with his
thinking will never listen to facts. They have it all worked out in their little
world and will never change. Unfortunately, a large section of Reagans
constituency thinks this way and will not listen to reason.
>AGAINST Vietnam, and avoiding the draft!!. Assholes like Bush would go to war in
>Vietnam today.
>
They will only do that if they need an improved standing in the polls just
before the elections, since that seems to be the only method to make Americans
"appreciative" of their leaders.
>
>Doei ... MXS
>
The thing that pisses me off most is the fact that Bush is claiming that his
foreign policy has been of such greatness that he should be re-elected, and
most journalists and commentators seem to agree with his greatness in foreign
policy. Well, in my book, Bush's foreign policy has been non-existent or just
plain bad: - his invasion of Panama was the grossest violation of any
international law/decency/behavior (however, it was easy and got
many "patriotic" Americans in his camp)
- his continuous support of the dictatorship in China, after the
brutal killings of their own citizens, says a lot about his
thinking on expediency over decency.
- his propping up of the genocidal dictator in Iraq, after it has
been shown that this guy does not hesitate to murder thousands
of his own people is an obvious gross misjudgement
- his consistent lying on his involvement in the Iran-contra affair,
which shows that you cann NOT TRUST bush on foreign affairs.
- his pathetic trip with some car company presidents to Japan to beg
for trade concessions.
- his continuous use of State Dept. and other foreign officials for
political purposes (such as investigating Clintons mother)
- his appointment to ambassador posts of a large number of political
contributors, often people without any foreign or diplomatic
experience (such as two ambassadors to the Netherlands), which
was very much disliked by his own carreer diplomats.
And so on and so forth. In my book, Bushes foreign policy was a FAILURE. But
granted, it was still the best of any of his policies.
_Wim
************************************************************************************
_____
| | | | / \ Wim de Groot NASA Lewis Research Center
| | | __| | ___ E-mail: sp...@scivax.lerc.nasa.gov
| | | / | | | Fax. : (216) 356 - 9444
Maarten Sierhuis
>>IMHO, Clinton has shown the world that, in times that the idiots in the
>>White House and congress were forcing people to fight a rediculous war,
>>he could reason with some commonsense and NOT be influenced by BIG BROTHER.
>>That tells me that he can stand up for his believes, and is NOT scarred of
>>taking the consequences.
>
>So what do you tell the mothers of the boys that died in Clinton's place?
>Note that I *AM* an advocate of pacifism, but not to the point where I
>permit others to die in my place.
Why should those people have something to say about Clinton? Let them be angry
at those idiots who send their sons. Clinton (and many others) was demonstrating
FOR those poor kids who were being killed. What you're suggesting is that if
Clinton would have been killed in Vietnam he would be a far better president :-)
>>Politics has NOTHING to do with PATRIOTISM. In fact patriotism is what makes
>>people be emotional in times were they should be reasoning logically.
>
>Patriotism and human rights are the smoke-screens that are used to justify
>taking action to protect national interests. There's nothing new about that
>and everybody can read that much between the lines.
Everybody can read between the lines??? Who are you kiddin? This country does
nothing else than put up smoke-screens like that, and people love it here. That's
why Americans are willing to send their sons to distant countries to fight
against Communism, oil, etc. etc. If people could read between the lines in this
country, politics could not exist here, JNHS could not exist ... hell the
rest of the world could not rely on de JNHS.
>In my opinion Bush and Schwartzkopf would have ousted Saddam Houssein if this
>would not have jeopardized the unprecedented cooperative efforts of the UN to
>remedy the situation. Don't forget that there were also other Arab nations
>involved in the coalition forces, who would probably have objected to such
>"imperialistic" notions as overthrowing an Arab leader.
Let me remind you of the person(s) who gave Saddam all this power in the first
place. Bush has confessed that they wanted Saddam to be part of their "little
BIG MEN CLUB (the BMC)". Money, weapons, faith, etc etc, all stuff that Georgie
with all his CIA experience has given Saddam. His CIA experience unfortunately
did NOT help him one itsie weensie bit, because Saddam was LYING to them all
along :-(
>Nevertheless, it was justified as a "police-action" and they
>presumably were there at the invitation of non-communist Vietnam. Right
>or wrong, dodgeing the draft when others are facing gun-fire in your place
>amounts to anarchy.
Following your reasoning, every action against Big Brother, by the people,
amounts to anarchy. I don't think that's were democracy stands for, but you
never know with these Republicans :-)
>Don't forget about the fact that a major reason for the ailing (as
>opposed to "failing") US situation is that Congress, which is
>dominated by the Democrats, refuses to draft legislation that will at
>least make valid compromises with Republican policies. I'm not saying
>that I agree with all of Bush's vetos, but when he does raise objections
>they are usually things that could have been solved through negotiation.
That's funny, I have heard this type of reasoning before, during this election
year. Those people suggest that Congress should consist of a majority of
the same party as the reigning President. NOU BREEKT MIJN KLOMP ... You are
suggesting a ONE-PARTY system here.
This is what is so scary about Perot. He wants puppets in Congress that
'negotiate' with him ... he means that listen to him, and don't argue.
>Btw - while there is a recession going on, the investment climate is still
>quite healthy in the US, just look at Wall street. If Clinton comes in
>with all his talk of increasing public spending and raising taxes then
>he might end up destroying one of the few positive indicators that remain
>in the US because foreign investment will high-tail it. Without an influx
>of investment capital, interest rates could rise, resulting in slower growth,
>higher unemployment, inflation, etc.
Sheer speculation ... while Bush will go on like this, giving foreign
companies tax-insentives, cheap loans ,etc. while the deficit rises, and
people don't have health insurense, education, financial security, etc. etc.
Doei ... MXS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maarten Sierhuis NYNEX Science & Technology, Inc.
Wim Degroot
>>|> sp...@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Wim Degroot) writes:
>>|>
>>|> This doesn't seem to be a difficult answer for true Dutchmen :-)
>>|> If you believe in the Dutch way of living you can NEVER vote for
>>|> Bush and/or Perot, so there only remains one answer ...
>>|>
Tim, the fact that someone in the line of followups made a mistake in
attributing that quote to me does not give you the right to continue that.
I did not write the above statement (even though I do mostly agree with it).
So, do not put words in my mouth that I did not say!
>
>
>Wim Degroot again:
>>
>>|> I also think [Clinton] has the best looking wife of all the candidates, and
>>|> he doesn't take his marriage that serious (like a good American president
>>|> never does ... history? :-) )
>>|>
I do not claim that statement to be mine (even though I agree). It was from
someone who followed up on my original message. Read more carefully next time,
else you can become a reporter here in the States:-)
>Tim Newman
_Wim
************************************************************************************
_____
| | | | / \ Wim de Groot NASA Lewis Research Center
| | | __| | ___ E-mail: sp...@scivax.lerc.nasa.gov
| | | / | | | Fax. : (216) 356 - 9444
Louis Verhagen
>So what do you tell the mothers of the boys that died in Clinton's place?
>Note that I *AM* an advocate of pacifism, but not to the point where I
>permit others to die in my place.
You tell them they died for nothing ! If you get send into a war that you
comletly don't agree with, revolt, stay out. What do tell the mothers of
the people that were killed by boys taking Clints place? This has nothing
to do with patriotism. That's only what your goverment and arms sellers
like you to think. Following orders blindly is stupid. That's what
the nazi's did in WW2, and look what happend. I am glad the red army
didn't follow orders last year during the coup.
There is a great differance in being an anarchist and doing what you
think is right.
>>>Imagine if the same attitude would have prevailed during "Desert Storm", when
>>>Iraq invaded Kuwait and could conceivably have extended its grasp to engulf
>>>Saudi Arabia as well. We would all be paying through the nose for gas and
>>>petrochemical related products because Sadam Hussein would have held much too
>>>strong a position in the world oil market.
Ah so this was a economic war !! You see it had nothing to do with
freeing a country. It was about the american need for oil.
Greetings
Louis
mw
>mes...@nevada.edu (mw) writes:
>>So what do you tell the mothers of the boys that died in Clinton's place?
>>Note that I *AM* an advocate of pacifism, but not to the point where I
>>permit others to die in my place.
>You tell them they died for nothing ! If you get send into a war that you
>comletly don't agree with, revolt, stay out. What do tell the mothers of
>the people that were killed by boys taking Clints place? This has nothing
>to do with patriotism.
If you check what I said you'll find that the word "patriotism" never comes
up in any of my statements. My point is that if others are man enough to
risk thier lives to protect national interests, then someone who tries to
weasel out of the draft is reneging on his obligation to show solidarity
with his/her COUNTRYMEN who face gun-fire on the front line.
>There is a great differance in being an anarchist and doing what you
>think is right.
Terrorists who hi-jack airplanes say that too. Look, this is a subjective
issue so I suggest it is best to agree to disagree, and that's it.
>>>>Imagine if the same attitude would have prevailed during "Desert Storm", when
>>>>Iraq invaded Kuwait and could conceivably have extended its grasp to engulf
>>>>Saudi Arabia as well. We would all be paying through the nose for gas and
>>>>petrochemical related products because Sadam Hussein would have held much too
>>>>strong a position in the world oil market.
>Ah so this was a economic war !! You see it had nothing to do with
>freeing a country. It was about the american need for oil.
Exactly. Is that news to you? Why is it that idealists are so naive?
Besides, its not American oil but the international oil market that had to
be protected. What do you suppose Royal Dutch Shell would be charging for its
oil if Saddam Hussein had managed to corner Kuwaiti and Saudi Arabian oil
fields permanently? Anyone who says that Shell or any other oil company
not directly active in the Middle East would have undercut the resulting
hyper-inflated world oil price, is out of touch with reality.
>Greetings
>Louis
Ditto.
Marco, LV, NV, USA
mw
>In article <1992Oct30....@nynexst.com>, sier...@nynexst.com writes...
>>Beware ... of what is comming :-)
>>mes...@nevada.edu (mw) writes:
>I did not think it was worth answering mr. messiahs crap, since people with
>his thinking will never listen to facts. They have it all worked out in
>their little world and will never change. Unfortunately, a large section
>of Reagans constituency thinks this way and will not listen to reason.
Its got nothing to do with me. Besides, what's the point in dragging this
discussion down into a personal level? That's exactly what makes it dull
reading for everyone else. The tactics you employ are to attack the man
becuase you have difficulty refuting the man's arguments.
[ * munch * ]
>Well, in my book, Bush's foreign policy has been non-existent or just
>plain bad: - his invasion of Panama was the grossest violation of any
> international law/decency/behavior (however, it was easy and got
> many "patriotic" Americans in his camp)
This is not an accurate assesment. Noreiga had first allowed democratic
elections, then when someone else (I forgot his name - but I believe he
is still in office to this day) was voted into his position, he cancelled
the electoral result. The US invasion of Panama was at the invitation
of the democratically elected official.
> - his continuous support of the dictatorship in China, after the
> brutal killings of their own citizens, says a lot about his
> thinking on expediency over decency.
There are different schools of thought on this subject. Bush does not *support
the current Chinese dictotorship as much as he makes a case for not cutting
off diplomatic ties to China. Isolationist tactics will do not good if we
expect to be able to pressure China into respecting human rights issues in
the international arena.
> - his propping up of the genocidal dictator in Iraq, after it has
> been shown that this guy does not hesitate to murder thousands
> of his own people is an obvious gross misjudgement
Making that statement at all is a gross misjudgement. In a previous post that
you refered to as "crap" I specified precise reasons why it was not Bush's
decision to get rid of Saddam Hussein. The UN coalition (including other
Arab nations) forces acted to liberate Kuwait only, it is a violation of
international law to interfere in Iraq's internal affairs (unless invited).
> - his consistent lying on his involvement in the Iran-contra
> affair, which shows that you cann NOT TRUST bush on foreign
> affairs.
You are convicting the man of something that has not been proven beyond a
reasoble doubt. Besides, what is so bad about freeing American hostages
and channeling funds to the Contras who are fighting against political
oppression in a strategically sensitive area of the world?
> - his pathetic trip with some car company presidents to Japan
> to beg for trade concessions.
Why fault a guy for trying?
> - his continuous use of State Dept. and other foreign officials for
> political purposes (such as investigating Clintons mother)
Thay all do that.
> - his appointment to ambassador posts of a large number of
> political contributors, often people without any foreign or
> diplomatic experience (such as two ambassadors to the
> Netherlands), which was very much disliked by his own
> carreer diplomats.
There may be some validity to this statement, but I think you are refering
to personal friends as opposed to political contributors. Could you be more
specific?
In any case, each candidate has advantages and disadvantages. Perhaps it
seems that I am a Bush fan. This is not the case, but he's the only man
who can handle the intricaies of international diplomacy of any of the three
candidates.
It won't be long now...
>Wim de Groot NASA Lewis Research Center
C'mon Bushy baby :-)
Marco LV, NV, USA
Ralph 'Hairy' Moonen
> In article <2NOV1992...@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov> sp...@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Wim Degroot) writes:
> >plain bad: - his invasion of Panama was the grossest violation of any
> > international law/decency/behavior (however, it was easy and got
> > many "patriotic" Americans in his camp)
>
> This is not an accurate assesment. Noreiga had first allowed democratic
> elections, then when someone else (I forgot his name - but I believe he
> is still in office to this day) was voted into his position, he cancelled
> the electoral result. The US invasion of Panama was at the invitation
> of the democratically elected official.
Until an official is inaugurated, he is <name-of-official>-elect. This means
that at the moment Panama was invaded, Noriega was the official
leader of the country. Bush *accepted* Noriega as the leader, and therefore
it can not be argued that the US was invited.
>
> > - his continuous support of the dictatorship in China, after the
> > brutal killings of their own citizens, says a lot about his
> > thinking on expediency over decency.
>
> There are different schools of thought on this subject. Bush does not *support
> the current Chinese dictotorship as much as he makes a case for not cutting
> off diplomatic ties to China. Isolationist tactics will do not good if we
> expect to be able to pressure China into respecting human rights issues in
> the international arena.
Agreed.
> > - his consistent lying on his involvement in the Iran-contra
> > affair, which shows that you cann NOT TRUST bush on foreign
> > affairs.
>
> You are convicting the man of something that has not been proven beyond a
> reasoble doubt. Besides, what is so bad about freeing American hostages
> and channeling funds to the Contras who are fighting against political
> oppression in a strategically sensitive area of the world?
Oh come on! The majority of the US population believes Bush knew all about
it. There are loads of evidence to support that claim, and Bush has
made quite a few contradictory statements on the subject. Anyone who believes
him is a gullible fool.
> > - his continuous use of State Dept. and other foreign officials for
> > political purposes (such as investigating Clintons mother)
>
> Thay all do that.
Ah. I get it. If we all do it, it makes it good. NOT!
> In any case, each candidate has advantages and disadvantages. Perhaps it
> seems that I am a Bush fan. This is not the case, but he's the only man
> who can handle the intricaies of international diplomacy of any of the three
> candidates.
Bush can't handle anything. Let alone teh " intricacies of international
diplomacy". He has blundered his way through his 4 years, and most of the
world is sick of him.
For readers of this forum who can vote today, and are still in doubt:
I paraphrase Bush (but nearly verbatim) in an interview with the leader
of the American Atheists Society.
Q: Mr. Bush, what are you going to do for the atheists in this country?
A: I do not support Atheism, nor will I do anything to help further
their cause. We are 1 nation under God, and there is no room for
atheists.
Q: Do you then deny the equal citizenship of atheists? A president should
serve his country and the people who live there.
A: To me, atheists are not citizens of the Unites States.
Q: What are you going to do then to win the votes of the atheists of America?
A: Nothing. I don't need their votes.
C Ya all!
--Ralph Moonen
ISS...@byuvm.bitnet
and open exchange of opinions. Disclaimers, etc. apply.
Jonathan Engelsma| (enge...@cps.msu.edu) writes:
#In article <92305.135...@BYUVM.BITNET>, you write:
#|> The prevailing opinion of Dutch students at BYU, is that Bush = BU-ll-SH-it
#|> Based on results (like vetoing the "family leave bill" and the "catastrophi
#|> healthcare bill"), Bush's social awareness cq. compassion sucks big time.
#|>
#|> I am appalled and saddened that an out-of-touch leader like Bush is still
#|> doing so well in the polls. Trickle down economics, alias foodoo economics,
#|> alias reaganomics, has made the rich richer and the poor poorer. I am
#|> sickened to see more and more people beg for donations to cover healthcare
#|> costs for a child who happened to be born with a "pre-existing condition,"
#|> like congenial heart defects. And since Republicans have effectively
#|> frustrated attempts to move towards a "gentler" healthcare system, you will
#|> continue to see children die needlessly. The facts show it: America ranks
#Yes, even before they are born!! I think you have the political parties
#mixed up Casper.... its the democrats who are advocating the murder of
#children.
Children? --You mean zygotes/fertilized blobs of cells? The Democrats,
to my knowledge, do *not* advocate "murder of children," (since when are
embryos recognized as individuals (i.e. legal personhood) for the law??)
but advocate CHOICE. You may not like an individual's choice (say under
Roe vs. Wade), but at least it is the individual's choice, and NOT yours.
To use your line of logic, the Republicans "advocate the murder of
pregnant women who choose an abortion, since banning abortion rights will
invariably force women to back-alley abortions/unsanitary conditions."
I do not necessarily endorse the Democrats/the Clinton-Gore ticket, but,
-given their social/utilitarian (= "the greatest good for the greatest
number of people") philosophy, they may initialize some needed and long-
awaited changes in domestic policies, HEALTHCARE being perhaps the most
pressing of them all.
|> e.g. (compared with other industrialized nation) at the bottom of infancy
|> mortality, and has the largest un(der)insured population (30-35 million)
|> of them all. Way to go, Republicans, you create ghetto's and third world
|> conditions for millions of your own citizens (for which you don't give a
|> f--k), while you pamper the rich, allow the streets to be saturated with
|> guns (the 2nd Amendment justification), and wonder why America has become
|> the most violent and unequal society in the West? Hmmm?
|>
#But boy does the rest of the world crave this awful, rotten, mess
#we call America! Have you entered the green card lottery lately?
#Why don't you skip your leisure netnews session someday, and go visit your
#local INS office. Chances are the lines will be forming before
#they even open. (All types of people from all over the world extending
#visa's, applying for green cards etc.)
I discussed Republican retheric/policy results and wondered how well off
America has been under three Republican voodoo economic administrations.
(BTW, why do you propose the Democrats hold a majority in both Houses?
a spell of nature? U.N. conspiracies? --or could it be that a majority
of Americans (at least through their chosen representatives) do NOT like
laissez faire capitalism?)
What has the INS to do with me, or even this discussion??? You'll find
the same long, sorry lines at Dutch "INS" offices, mostly third world
"guests," many with economic motivations. Given the sorry/"Lebanon-esc"
conditions found in many Latin-American nations, it doesn't surprise me
at all that many (hispanic) refugees find in America a haven of peace
and prosperity. BTW, if it wasn't for you/your parents/grand-parents/
(whatever) immigrating to the States, you'd still be peeling potatoes
somewhere in Europe or wherever. And for your information, I find a lot
of good and praise-worthy in this nation. But I do NOT subscribe to
blind patriotism, or support government policies without questioning its
morality. Clinton was right (and w/ him a number of Republican senators,
may I add) to avoid the Vietnam draft. I'd have done the same.
#I'm surprised you have managed to survive in this cruel society as long
#as you have. Perhaps you should pack your bags and head down to Bolivia
#where I hear the living standards are much better. Yeah I know its hard
#to buy the plane ticket when you only make a $1 a week. I've got a better
#idea, maybe you could hitchhike to Mexico, thats not to far from Utah.
Dear chap, I've "survived" quite handsomely in this society, and done
quite well. There are enough good, rewarding and redeeming qualities in
this nation for me and my family to make it a great place to live in.
Your crap about Bolivia doesn't do justice about the urgent need for
educational, healthcare, tax, gun, social, etc. reforms in America. You
cannot be so naive to deny that (unless of course you are) certain things
are bad and getting worse. Indeed, the world has much to gain -and has
gained- from America, but I would submit to you that this nation needs
to look how other nations (e.g. Canada) have dealt with said issues.
If this nation does not do that, it will create millions of second class
citizens/third world-like regions, and I think we can do better.
Much better.
#Jonathan
Casper.
Wim Degroot
>In article <2NOV1992...@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov> sp...@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Wim Degroot) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct30....@nynexst.com>, sier...@nynexst.com writes...
>
>>>Beware ... of what is comming :-)
>
>>>mes...@nevada.edu (mw) writes:
>
>becuase you have difficulty refuting the man's arguments.
>
I did not want to argue on this BB, since it seems that our underlying "values"
are different. Yours' seem to be honor, family values and blind sacrifice,
whereas mine are slightly more towards personal judgement of the issues. It has
no use arguing if the undelying premise is different
>
>This is not an accurate assesment. Noreiga had first allowed democratic
>elections, then when someone else (I forgot his name - but I believe he
>is still in office to this day) was voted into his position, he cancelled
>the electoral result. The US invasion of Panama was at the invitation
>of the democratically elected official.
This is one of those examples of different values. I do not beleive that any
country should invade (and in the process kill thousands of civilians) a
sovereign country because a single official of that country requested it, even
if that official was elected. If all countries would do that, the world would be
in anarchy in no time. Of course, the JNHS has the power, and thinks that power
makes just. Furthermore, I do not think that the invitation was the reason, it
was just a convenient excuse. There is also evidence that the official was
coerced by the JNHS to ask for help. We do not even have to mention the fact
that Noriega was installed with the help of the CIA, and probably was a close
ally for awhile. Alas, thats what you get. No matter how bad a dictator behaves
inside his own country, no other country has a right to invade. That is my
opinion.
>
>> - his continuous support of the dictatorship in China, after the
>> brutal killings of their own citizens, says a lot about his
>> thinking on expediency over decency.
>
>There are different schools of thought on this subject. Bush does not *support
>the current Chinese dictotorship as much as he makes a case for not cutting
>off diplomatic ties to China. Isolationist tactics will do not good if we
>expect to be able to pressure China into respecting human rights issues in
>the international arena.
>
Indeed, that is your school. How about your policy towards Cuba. Do you think
that isolation helps to further human rights issues there? You have a real
funny policy. Are you wearing bi-focals there?:-) However, the JNHS IS
supporting China. Right after the Tiennaman square massacre, some high US
officials went to visit China and toasted the leadership there. The JNHS has
given favorite trade status to China, despite the fact that they use prison
labor (against human rights) to make these products and despite the fact that
the last decade they have violated every policy that warrants that status.
The US has refused to reinstall diplomatic relations with Taiwan, even though
that country has made remarkable progress towards democracy and are vastly
more democratic than China (ask Amnesty International). This just because of
fear that China will cut off relations. China has not changed at all. Who is in
charge in those relations anyway. Bush DOES actively support China.
>> - his propping up of the genocidal dictator in Iraq, after it has
>> been shown that this guy does not hesitate to murder thousands
>> of his own people is an obvious gross misjudgement
>
>Making that statement at all is a gross misjudgement. In a previous post that
>you refered to as "crap" I specified precise reasons why it was not Bush's
>decision to get rid of Saddam Hussein. The UN coalition (including other
>Arab nations) forces acted to liberate Kuwait only, it is a violation of
>international law to interfere in Iraq's internal affairs (unless invited).
I was only partly talking about the invasion. I was more referring to the fact
that Bush kept on sending weapons and supporting this with "agricultural"
subsidies, while his intelligence community strongly advised him NOT to do so.
Also, the congress did not approve. We have to see what comes out of the trial
of Christopher Dragul in Atlanta, but there is more chance that the real
culprit in this scandal comes out with Clinton than with Bush. A second
international policy mistake that Bush made was to indicate through his
ambassador in Iraq, (and yes, that is Bushes responsibility), that the JNHS
would stand by idle if and when Iraq was going to invade Kuwait. Thus, there
are three consecutive mistakes in MY judgement:
1. Keep on selling weapons to Iraq
2. Indicate a hands off policy in case of invasion, and
3. Send American boys to go and be killed because of your previous judgement
And this was NOT to uphold democracy in Kuwait (as was clearly shown in the last
"elections", where only a very select group of males was allowed to vote, the
same males who were in Cairo and European casinos while foreigners were fighting
and being killed for them). It was clearly and only for our economic (read oil)
need. If you really wanted to invade a country, and that country was Iraq, we
should have invaded it a long time ago, when this bastard Houssein was gassing
and killing off thousands of Kurds, but no, that was not economically expedient)
It seems that you are judging by the centuries old foreign policy objectives of
powerfull countries as to what consists of good foreign policy. I have different
standards of foreign policy. Therefore we will never get together.
>
>> - his consistent lying on his involvement in the Iran-contra
>> affair, which shows that you cann NOT TRUST bush on foreign
>> affairs.
>
>You are convicting the man of something that has not been proven beyond a
>reasoble doubt. Besides, what is so bad about freeing American hostages
>and channeling funds to the Contras who are fighting against political
>oppression in a strategically sensitive area of the world?
You mean that memos detailing all that Bush knew. Books by Secord and others
stating that he knew, and statements by highly placed (Weinberger, Schultz, etc.
are not sufficient? You see, here we go again. If you refuse to beleive even
when you get pushed with your nose in it, there is no ground for discussion
>
>> - his pathetic trip with some car company presidents to Japan
>> to beg for trade concessions.
>
>Why fault a guy for trying?
I am not faulting anybody. I just stated that is was pathetic and not good
foreign policy to lose your face in international diplomacy. And yes, he did
lose his face on that one. He just never admitted it.
>
>> - his continuous use of State Dept. and other foreign officials for
>> political purposes (such as investigating Clintons mother)
>
>Thay all do that.
>
Good, so that makes it right? Again, here is our underlying difference. If it
is not "might makes right", you think that "they all do it so it is right"?
Funny morals you guys have.
>> - his appointment to ambassador posts of a large number of
>> political contributors, often people without any foreign or
>> diplomatic experience (such as two ambassadors to the
>> Netherlands), which was very much disliked by his own
>> carreer diplomats.
>
>There may be some validity to this statement, but I think you are refering
>to personal friends as opposed to political contributors. Could you be more
>specific?
>
Last week ther was a program from Bill Moyers on public TV, called Frontline.
They scrutinized all three candidates. Since we are talking about Bush, I will
only mention his policy (even though clinton is far from clean). They showed
a list of at least 20 people that had contributed more then $100,000.- and had
been appointed to ambassador posts (no, not personal friends, but political
contributors) I am sorry that I do not remember the names, I do not have a
photographic memory. However, I do remember there were two appointees to the
Netherlands (of course, more important countries might have carreer officials)
and one to Austria. You can inquire with your public TV station in your area,
although you probably think that those guys are commies anyway:-) (sorry, I
could not resist
>In any case, each candidate has advantages and disadvantages. Perhaps it
>seems that I am a Bush fan. This is not the case, but he's the only man
>who can handle the intricaies of international diplomacy of any of the three
>candidates.
>
I am sorry for the state of the JNHS government if you have nothing better to
offer.
>Marco LV, NV, USA
Maarten Sierhuis
We need NOT to worry anymore ... although it is not officially over, I think
we can say that BUSH goes HOME :-)
For all us atheists out there ... Maybe there is a GOD after all :-)
Doei ... MXS
--
mw
>In article <1992Nov3.1...@nevada.edu>, mes...@nevada.edu (mw) writes...
>>In article <2NOV1992...@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov> sp...@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Wim Degroot) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct30....@nynexst.com>, sier...@nynexst.com writes...
OK netters, this Repulican supporter can conceed defeat gracefully. :-)
However one can not help but notice that while Clinton's margin of victory
from the polular vote was not exactly overwhelming, his victory from the
electoral college was an absolute landslide. Another subject for debate?
It is even possible for the popular vote to have a majority favour one
candidate while the electoral college favours another. The outcome depends
on getting a majority in key states. Any parallels in Europe?
[ * opening comments previous post - munched * ]
>it seems that our underlying "values"
>are different. Yours' seem to be honor, family values and blind sacrifice,
>whereas mine are slightly more towards personal judgement of the issues.
>It has no use arguing if the undelying premise is different
Honor and family values are fine but from where do you imply "blind"
sacrifice? If my neighbor goes to war and I don't, and he comes back home
wounded (or not at all), can I look him in the eye honestly and tell him
"I didn't go because of conscientious objections?"
>>This is not an accurate assesment. Noreiga had first allowed democratic
>>elections, then when someone else (I forgot his name - but I believe he
>>is still in office to this day) was voted into his position, he cancelled
>>the electoral result. The US invasion of Panama was at the invitation
>>of the democratically elected official.
>This is one of those examples of different values. I do not beleive that any
>country should invade (and in the process kill thousands of civilians) a
>sovereign country because a single official of that country requested it, even
>if that official was elected.
Thousands of civilians killed in Panama? Its been close to three years since
the Panamanian invasian, but that's news to me. As I recall, the short
military action inflicted casualties primarily on Noreiga's military.
>>> - his continuous support of the dictatorship in China, after the
>>> brutal killings of their own citizens, says a lot about his
>>> thinking on expediency over decency.
>>There are different schools of thought on this subject. Bush doesn't *support
>>the current Chinese dictotorship as much as he makes a case for not cutting
>>off diplomatic ties to China. Isolationist tactics will do not good if we
>>expect to be able to pressure China into respecting human rights issues in
>>the international arena.
>>
>
>Indeed, that is your school. How about your policy towards Cuba. Do you think
>that isolation helps to further human rights issues there? You have a real
>funny policy. Are you wearing bi-focals there?:-)
Good point. Seems to be a discrepancy there. Cuba's proximity to the US
(So that its relatively easy for the US to monitor activity in Cuba)
and its relative strategic insignificance as compared to China must account
for some of this discrepancy, but allright chalk one up for you.
>>> - his propping up of the genocidal dictator in Iraq, after it has
>>> been shown that this guy does not hesitate to murder thousands
>>> of his own people is an obvious gross misjudgement
>>The UN coalition (including other
>>Arab nations) forces acted to liberate Kuwait only, it is a violation of
>>international law to interfere in Iraq's internal affairs (unless invited)
>are three consecutive mistakes in MY judgement:
>1. Keep on selling weapons to Iraq
Since Iraq and Iran are enemies, and at the time Iran was less in favour
with the US than Iraq, it makes sense to me that at that time Bush was
supporting US national interests.
>2. Indicate a hands off policy in case of invasion, and
[refers to Iraqi winvasion of Kuwait]. Yeah I've heard that before too,
but I consider it to be either a mis-quote, exaggeration, or soemthing else
along those lines. In dispute at the time were some oil fields that lie
underneath the Iraqi/Kuwaiti border. Originally it may have been Iraq's
"stated" intentions to capture only those fields because the bulk of
these oil fields were situated under Iraq but Kuwait was pumping from them
excessively. Under those circumstances its conceivable that the US ambasador
to Iraq would indicate "hands-off" on behalf of the US. *BUT* those are not
the circumstances which took place, and they had to be remedied fast.
>3. Send American boys to go and be killed because of your previous judgement
>And this was NOT to uphold democracy in Kuwait
If you are saying that the action to liberate Kuwait was primarilly motivated
by economic concerns about keeping the world oil market competitive, then that
is *precisely* my point as well. There are a lot of idealists around who seem
to think that if a nation has economic interests at heart then this discounts
its motives as invalid. I say that's RUBISH.
>>> - his consistent lying on his involvement in the Iran-contra
>>> affair, which shows that you cann NOT TRUST bush on foreign
>>> affairs.
>>You are convicting the man of something that has not been proven beyond a
>>reasoble doubt. Besides, what is so bad about freeing American hostages
>>and channeling funds to the Contras who are fighting against political
>>oppression in a strategically sensitive area of the world?
>You mean that memos detailing all that Bush knew. Books by Secord and others
>stating that he knew, and statements by highly placed (Weinberger, Schultz,
>are not sufficient? You see, here we go again. If you refuse to beleive even
>when you get pushed with your nose in it, there is no ground for discussion
Who said anything about "refusing to believe?" Someone in another post even
went so far as to say I was "a gullible fool." (to that person I
respectfully suggest that he take a long walk off a short pier :-) )
In anycase by "prove" I mean that Bush has not been tried and convicted of
such acts. Are we not discussing human rights? I think its obvious that
Bush knew, and if he didn't then that doesn't say much for his ability to
stay abreast of the issues. Yeah, he probably knew but he can not be charged
without first being convicted. Aside from that, the "Iran-Contra scandal"
did have human rights end-goals (to free US hostages and to cannel funds
to the Contras who are fighting against political oppression.) Don't start
warming up the torches on your flames cause I *KNOW* that in the process
arms were sold to Iran (US enemy). Welcome to the real world...
>>> - his continuous use of State Dept. and other foreign officials for
>>> political purposes (such as investigating Clintons mother)
>>They all do that.
>Good, so that makes it right? Again, here is our underlying difference. If it
>is not "might makes right", you think that "they all do it so it is right"?
>Funny morals you guys have.
Its not *you guys*. I'm Dutch { :-) } I just support Republican philosophy.
Also, no its not right. It never was, and I didn't say that it was. But if
they all do it then you can not single out Bush for it just because he's
the one that you don't like. Democracy?
>>> - his appointment to ambassador posts of a large number of
>>> political contributors, often people without any foreign or
>>> diplomatic experience (such as two ambassadors to the
>>> Netherlands), which was very much disliked by his own
>>> carreer diplomats.
>>There may be some validity to this statement, but I think you are refering
>>to personal friends as opposed to political contributors. Could you be more
>>specific?
>Last week ther was a program from Bill Moyers on public TV, called Frontline.
>They scrutinized all three candidates. Since we are talking about Bush, I
>will only mention his policy (even though clinton is far from clean).
Awright since you seem to be somewhat of a realist here, I won't pounce to
take advantage of your statement against Clinton :-)
>They showed
>a list of at least 20 people that had contributed more then $100,000.- and had
>been appointed to ambassador posts (no, not personal friends, but political
>contributors)
Hmmmm... I'd like to have seen that program so that I could asses for myself
if the facts were biased or not. Journalists do tend to slant facts, omit
counter arguments, and sensationalize trivialties into appearing much more
wide-scale than is actually the case. If there is significance to these
allegations, then I'm surprised it did not get more media coverage outside
of the public TV arena.
>I am sorry that I do not remember the names, I do not have a
>photographic memory. However, I do remember there were two appointees to the
>Netherlands (of course, more important countries might have carreer officials)
>and one to Austria.
> Wim de Groot NASA Lewis Research Center
I guess that settles it, Bush lost. I hope Clinton learns fast, cause he's
got a hell of a lotta catchin up to do.
C-ya... Marco, LV, NV, USA
mw
>coo...@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (Ralph 'Hairy' Moonen) writes:
>: In article <1992Nov3.1...@nevada.edu>, mes...@nevada.edu (mw) writes:
>: > In article <2NOV1992...@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov> sp...@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Wim Degroot) writes:
>: > >plain bad: - his invasion of Panama was the grossest violation of any
>: > >international law/decency/behavior (however, it was easy and got
>: > >many "patriotic" Americans in his camp)
>: > This is not an accurate assesment. Noreiga had first allowed democratic
>: > elections, then when someone else (I forgot his name - but I believe he
>: > is still in office to this day) was voted into his position, he cancelled
>: > the electoral result. The US invasion of Panama was at the invitation
>: > of the democratically elected official.
>: Until an official is inaugurated, he is <name-of-official>-elect. This means
>: that at the moment Panama was invaded, Noriega was the official
>: leader of the country. Bush *accepted* Noriega as the leader, and therefore
>: it can not be argued that the US was invited.
Consider the following hypothetical situation:
Clinton is elected to the presidency but will not take office until several
weeks later. In the meanwhile Bush "cancels" the election's outcome and
refuses to give up his office. Of course it must be assumed that Bush would
enjoy the support of an army of loyalists (somewhat unrealistic, to say the
least). In such a scenario, would Clinton not have the right to solicit
military aid from Eurpoe, the United Nations (or wherever) to restore the
nation back to order? I suspect that the answer is emphatically *YES*, and
that counts for the Panamanian invasion as well.
[ interview Bush:atheists *munched* ]
>: --Ralph Moonen
>We need NOT to worry anymore ... although it is not officially over, I think
>we can say that BUSH goes HOME :-)
>For all us atheists out there ... Maybe there is a GOD after all :-)
>Doei ... MXS
C-ya... Marco, LV NV, USA
Rob Carriere
>In article <3NOV1992...@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov> sp...@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov
(Wim Degroot) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov3.1...@nevada.edu>, mes...@nevada.edu (mw) writes
(Wim Degroot) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Oct30....@nynexst.com>, sier...@nynexst.com
writes
>
>However one can not help but notice that while Clinton's margin of victory
>from the polular vote was not exactly overwhelming, his victory from the
>electoral college was an absolute landslide. Another subject for debate?
>
>It is even possible for the popular vote to have a majority favour one
>candidate while the electoral college favours another. The outcome depends
>on getting a majority in key states. Any parallels in Europe?
Brittain. They would have four major parties under proportional
representation; as it is, they have two. District/electoral systems are BAD
news. There was a good reason for the electoral college system back in the
1700's, but it should be scrapped now.
>Honor and family values are fine but from where do you imply "blind"
>sacrifice? If my neighbor goes to war and I don't, and he comes back home
>wounded (or not at all), can I look him in the eye honestly and tell him
>"I didn't go because of conscientious objections?"
If your neighbor goes and jumps off a cliff, is it your patriotic duty to
follow him? Some people went to Vietnam because they believed in it. Well,
it is the inalienable right of the people to be stupid. Some went because
they were forced to. Here one might argue for solidarity; however, that same
logic would have put all of Europe in the gas chambers 50 years ago. I find
that a sufficient flaw that I cannot object to those who do not espouse that
logic. Your milage may vary.
<*CHOMP*>
>>are three consecutive mistakes in MY judgement:
>>1. Keep on selling weapons to Iraq
>
>Since Iraq and Iran are enemies, and at the time Iran was less in favour
>with the US than Iraq, it makes sense to me that at that time Bush was
>supporting US national interests.
I have no objections to `realpolitik;' much as it stinks, we _do_ have to live
in the real world. I do, however, submit that a policy other than the US
style crisis management is possible and, indeed, desirable. The US was
supporting Iraq because Iran was the crisis-of-the-day. Any fool could have,
and indeed many in the administration had, forseen the this would simply make
Iraq into the next crisis.
>>2. Indicate a hands off policy in case of invasion, and
>
>[refers to Iraqi winvasion of Kuwait]. Yeah I've heard that before too,
>but I consider it to be either a mis-quote, exaggeration, or soemthing else
>along those lines. In dispute at the time were some oil fields that lie
>underneath the Iraqi/Kuwaiti border. Originally it may have been Iraq's
>"stated" intentions to capture only those fields because the bulk of
>these oil fields were situated under Iraq but Kuwait was pumping from them
>excessively. Under those circumstances its conceivable that the US ambasador
>to Iraq would indicate "hands-off" on behalf of the US. *BUT* those are not
>the circumstances which took place, and they had to be remedied fast.
Hm. I think the litmus test here is that if the US did not have some policy
like the one outlined above, then the government was operating in a massively
irrational way for months. In either case, something was seriously wrong with
the Bush administration.
>If you are saying that the action to liberate Kuwait was primarilly motivated
>by economic concerns about keeping the world oil market competitive, then that
>is *precisely* my point as well. There are a lot of idealists around who seem
>to think that if a nation has economic interests at heart then this discounts
>its motives as invalid. I say that's RUBISH.
I can't speak for others, but I don't have a major problem with that. Of
course it feels better if you're the knight in shining armor, but most
conflicts take place on morally very muddy fields.
However, if your motives are economical, be honest and say so. Spare me the
three months of insultingly transparent rethoric about `that dictator' and
`agression is not going to stand.' It was YOUR party that started the `fight
for democracy' line, so don't accuse the sensible half of the world of not
facing reality.
[re Iran-Contra]
>Who said anything about "refusing to believe?"
You did. I quote:
>>>You are convicting the man of something that has not been proven beyond a
>>>reasoble doubt.
>Someone in another post even went so far as to say I was "a gullible fool."
I don't think you are a gullible fool, but you sure play one pretty well when
it serves your argument.
>In anycase by "prove" I mean that Bush has not been tried and convicted of
>such acts. Are we not discussing human rights? I think its obvious that
>Bush knew, and if he didn't then that doesn't say much for his ability to
>stay abreast of the issues. Yeah, he probably knew but he can not be charged
>without first being convicted.
Check your civics textbook. You're somewhat confused...
>Aside from that, the "Iran-Contra scandal" did have human rights end-goals
>(to free US hostages and to cannel funds to the Contras who are fighting
>against political oppression.) Don't start warming up the torches on your
>flames cause I *KNOW* that in the process arms were sold to Iran (US enemy).
>Welcome to the real world...
Again, the policy itself I don't have a major problem with. Like with the
Kuweit thing, I don't agree, but I can see where an intelligent and informed
person can take the opposite position. What I _do_ have a major problem with,
is lying to the people about it. And don't give me that National Security
crap, 'cause he's still doing the lying.
>>>> - his continuous use of State Dept. and other foreign officials for
>>>> political purposes (such as investigating Clintons mother)
<chomp>
>Its not *you guys*. I'm Dutch { :-) } I just support Republican philosophy.
So it _is_ you guys. I'm Dutch too, but if someone wants to call me a
Democrat, I'll only object to the extend that I don't agree with the
Democratic platform. That I'm not a voting US citizen doesn't that I suddenly
start supporting platforms I wouldn't want to be associated with.
>Also, no its not right. It never was, and I didn't say that it was. But if
>they all do it then you can not single out Bush for it just because he's
>the one that you don't like. Democracy?
No, but you can single him out for doing it. Believe me, if Clinton starts
pulling this crap in four years, I'll single him out just as (un)happily.
>I guess that settles it, Bush lost. I hope Clinton learns fast, cause he's
>got a hell of a lotta catchin up to do.
This is certainly true.
SR
---
Jonathan Engelsma (Reid)
|> Since my article was submitted in a public domain, I'd appreciate a free
|> and open exchange of opinions. Disclaimers, etc. apply.
|>
Sorry, I did mean to followup in s.c.n., but evidently I hit my reply
button instead of followup....
And since having automobiles on the roads will invariable result in accidents
leading to death we should ban automobiles?? I don't think thats my line
of logic...
|> I do not necessarily endorse the Democrats/the Clinton-Gore ticket, but,
|> -given their social/utilitarian (= "the greatest good for the greatest
|> number of people") philosophy, they may initialize some needed and long-
|> awaited changes in domestic policies, HEALTHCARE being perhaps the most
|> pressing of them all.
|>
|> |> e.g. (compared with other industrialized nation) at the bottom of infancy
|> |> mortality, and has the largest un(der)insured population (30-35 million)
|> |> of them all. Way to go, Republicans, you create ghetto's and third world
|> |> conditions for millions of your own citizens (for which you don't give a
|> |> f--k), while you pamper the rich, allow the streets to be saturated with
|> |> guns (the 2nd Amendment justification), and wonder why America has become
|> |> the most violent and unequal society in the West? Hmmm?
|> |>
|>
|>
|> #I'm surprised you have managed to survive in this cruel society as long
|> #as you have. Perhaps you should pack your bags and head down to Bolivia
|> #where I hear the living standards are much better. Yeah I know its hard
|> #to buy the plane ticket when you only make a $1 a week. I've got a better
|> #idea, maybe you could hitchhike to Mexico, thats not to far from Utah.
|>
|> Dear chap, I've "survived" quite handsomely in this society, and done
|> quite well. There are enough good, rewarding and redeeming qualities in
|> this nation for me and my family to make it a great place to live in.
|>
OK, I didn't mean to imply you were out collecting cans or something. The
point I was trying to make was that I am tired of the media and other folks
painting this incredibly bleak picture of the USA, and completely ignoring
the fact that this country and society does have its positive characteristics.
|> Your crap about Bolivia doesn't do justice about the urgent need for
|> educational, healthcare, tax, gun, social, etc. reforms in America. You
|> cannot be so naive to deny that (unless of course you are) certain things
|> are bad and getting worse. Indeed, the world has much to gain -and has
|> gained- from America, but I would submit to you that this nation needs
|> to look how other nations (e.g. Canada) have dealt with said issues.
|> If this nation does not do that, it will create millions of second class
|> citizens/third world-like regions, and I think we can do better.
|>
|> Much better.
|>
Agreed on the latter statement, and on the part about things going from
bad to worse. Also, I think the American people can
(and must) do their part. To expect the new administration to magically
turn things around while we sit and watch is expecting the impossible.
|>
|> Casper.
Jonathan
Wim Degroot
>sacrifice? If my neighbor goes to war and I don't, and he comes back home
>wounded (or not at all), can I look him in the eye honestly and tell him
>"I didn't go because of conscientious objections?"
I would look him in the eye and would say exactly that, and would add that he
was quite stupid to travel halfway around the world to kill or get killed
because some moron in the white house decides that he has to protect your
"freedom" (we will not get into the real reason why he wants to go there) by
supporting some dictator (Nguyen, Ky, or whoever) to continue to suppress
a people that have been suppressed for dacades, and to prevent those people
to exercise their own right to "freedom". When are your kind going to quit
to tell other people how and why they can live?
>
>Thousands of civilians killed in Panama? Its been close to three years since
>the Panamanian invasian, but that's news to me. As I recall, the short
>military action inflicted casualties primarily on Noreiga's military.
>
Poor and homeless people in Panama had set up shantytowns of shacks around
Noriegas military bases because some of the spills of these bases. The US forces
strafed and bombed the bases and the towns at night without warning. The nature of
of such shantytowns are that they are extremely densely populated. Media were
no allowed in till the whole area was bulldozed by the army. The Pentagon
estimates that 200-300 civilians in those towns were killed. Amnesty Int'l
thinks that it is closer to 10 to 15 times that much. But those people were
poor and who cares anyway. Maybe someone on the net from Europe can give some
more accurate numbers on the civilian toll.
>
>>are three consecutive mistakes in MY judgement:
>>1. Keep on selling weapons to Iraq
>
>Since Iraq and Iran are enemies, and at the time Iran was less in favour
>with the US than Iraq, it makes sense to me that at that time Bush was
>supporting US national interests.
Bush kept on selling even after Iran was out of the picture and Iraq began to
be much more of a threat (read the media on this one)
>
>>2. Indicate a hands off policy in case of invasion, and
>
>[refers to Iraqi winvasion of Kuwait]. Yeah I've heard that before too,
>but I consider it to be either a mis-quote, exaggeration, or soemthing else
Exactly, you only want to beleive what you want to beleive, and ignore memos,
taped conversation, witnesses and concrete evidence. But hey, what is all that
proof against Bushes words anyway.
>
>>3. Send American boys to go and be killed because of your previous judgement
>>And this was NOT to uphold democracy in Kuwait
>
>If you are saying that the action to liberate Kuwait was primarilly motivated
>by economic concerns about keeping the world oil market competitive, then that
>is *precisely* my point as well. There are a lot of idealists around who seem
>to think that if a nation has economic interests at heart then this discounts
>its motives as invalid. I say that's RUBISH.
>
Exactly, and that was my original reason why I did not argue with you. I do not
beleive that it is justified to send some other people overseas to kill or get
killed to protect my wallet. Clinton was smart enough to realize that, and as
such I salute him. However, you probably look the veteran straight in the eye
and say:"I am glad that you went over there to kill (and lost your leg in the
process) so I can still drive my car at $1.00 a gallon instead of $1.25). There
is exactly our difference in values. And no, I am not an idealist.
>
>Who said anything about "refusing to believe?" Someone in another post even
>went so far as to say I was "a gullible fool." (to that person I
>respectfully suggest that he take a long walk off a short pier :-) )
>
I respectfully agree with that someone. And no I am not willing to walk off a
short pier to accomodate your economic agenda. There are better causes to die
for.
>
>Its not *you guys*. I'm Dutch { :-) } I just support Republican philosophy.
It is clear that you do not understand that by "you guys" I mean those people
with the same philosophy and not US vs Dutch. There are probably just as many
decent Americans as there are Dutch. (Nationalists always seem to drag
nationality in there somehow).
>Also, no its not right. It never was, and I didn't say that it was. But if
>they all do it then you can not single out Bush for it just because he's
>the one that you don't like. Democracy?
Not democracy, but the interpretation and abuse of democracy to further ones
own economic goals (and by ones own I mean private, and not national).
>wide-scale than is actually the case. If there is significance to these
>allegations, then I'm surprised it did not get more media coverage outside
>of the public TV arena.
Because it is not new to Bush. Reagan instituted that type of nepotism.
Furthermore (I did not metion it because it is national politics), it was
shown in the same program that Bush signed a bill to divert water from
cities and rivers in northern California (and thus killing the fisherie and
driving the price of city water up) just 9 days after a group of big farm
owners from the valley (who by the way mostly live in Washington) had a
fundraiser to raise 10 million dollar for the Bush campaign. Of course, all the
water went to the farms. (But in the trade talks with Europe, that is not
considered farm subsidies)
>I guess that settles it, Bush lost. I hope Clinton learns fast, cause he's
>got a hell of a lotta catchin up to do.
>
>C-ya... Marco, LV, NV, USA
>
I consider this discussion closed too. It is useless after all.
_Wim
>
************************************************************************************
Frank Teusink
>Honor and family values are fine but from where do you imply "blind"
>sacrifice? If my neighbor goes to war and I don't, and he comes back home
>wounded (or not at all), can I look him in the eye honestly and tell him
>"I didn't go because of conscientious objections?"
Yes. If you think that that war resulted only in the death of innocent
people, of course. Let me state another question. Suppose you met
someone of the other side who got wounded, lost relatives in the war.
Could you look him (her) honestly in the eye, while explaining that
you where against the war (while fighting it), and thought it was fought
for the wrong reasons, but that you fought in it because the president
said you had to? I couldn't.
>If you are saying that the action to liberate Kuwait was primarilly motivated
>by economic concerns about keeping the world oil market competitive, then that
>is *precisely* my point as well. There are a lot of idealists around who seem
>to think that if a nation has economic interests at heart then this discounts
>its motives as invalid. I say that's RUBISH.
Well, Saddam wanted to use war for (partly) economic reasons. So tell me,
why where his economic reasons invalid? I believe, that the only valid
reason for freeing Kuwait was that in this world we cannot allow countries
to invade other countries anymore. That the US had economic reasons as well,
was a happy coincidence.
>C-ya... Marco, LV, NV, USA
Frank Teusink
Maarten Sierhuis
In article 16...@nevada.edu, mes...@nevada.edu (mw) writes:
> Consider the following hypothetical situation:
>
> Clinton is elected to the presidency but will not take office until several
> weeks later. In the meanwhile Bush "cancels" the election's outcome and
> refuses to give up his office. Of course it must be assumed that Bush would
> enjoy the support of an army of loyalists (somewhat unrealistic, to say the
> least). In such a scenario, would Clinton not have the right to solicit
> military aid from Eurpoe, the United Nations (or wherever) to restore the
Funny slip of the tongue ... eh ... finger :-)
> nation back to order? I suspect that the answer is emphatically *YES*, and
> that counts for the Panamanian invasion as well.
>
> [ interview Bush:atheists *munched* ]
>
> >: --Ralph Moonen
>
> >We need NOT to worry anymore ... although it is not officially over, I think
> >we can say that BUSH goes HOME :-)
> >For all us atheists out there ... Maybe there is a GOD after all :-)
> >Doei ... MXS
>
> C-ya... Marco, LV NV, USA
>
>
>
Would Clinton have the right? Maybe he has 'the right' to do that, but
why do you think that this can be the *ONLY* answer?
I think the difference lays within the REACTION of Europe or the United Nations.
See the reaction of Europe with Yugoslavia. The BIG question is: Do you, as a
foreign nation(s), have the *right* to *invade* a country in any circumstance,
even if you've been asked by an individual or a group? Or, should you use other
means to influence the political/economical situation in a foreign nation?
Also, your hypothesis seems to indicate that this situation would occur
*without* any prior indication of what is happening in the JNHS. I don't think
this is realistic, and in most cases (like Iraq, Panama, Cuba, etc.) de JNHS
has had indications, and even has helped to setup these "puppet" governments.
I put the word puppet in quotes, because history has shown that all these
puppet governments have backfired on the JNHS.
Maarten Sierhuis
The VERY conservative (Wim Degroot) writes:
>>Honor and family values are fine but from where do you imply "blind"
>>sacrifice? If my neighbor goes to war and I don't, and he comes back home
>>wounded (or not at all), can I look him in the eye honestly and tell him
>>"I didn't go because of conscientious objections?"
>
Rob answers:
>If your neighbor goes and jumps off a cliff, is it your patriotic duty to
>follow him? Some people went to Vietnam because they believed in it. Well,
>it is the inalienable right of the people to be stupid. Some went because
>they were forced to. Here one might argue for solidarity; however, that same
>logic would have put all of Europe in the gas chambers 50 years ago. I find
>that a sufficient flaw that I cannot object to those who do not espouse that
>logic. Your milage may vary.
My thoughts exactly Rob, I wanted to say something similar, but you've
said it all.
mw
>
>The VERY conservative (Wim Degroot) writes:
>>>Honor and family values are fine but from where do you imply "blind"
>>>sacrifice? If my neighbor goes to war and I don't, and he comes back home
>>>wounded (or not at all), can I look him in the eye honestly and tell him
>>>"I didn't go because of conscientious objections?"
*COUGH* :-/ <-- Note that's a "confusey"
===== (distorted smiley or "scheve bek")
Actually those are the words of the outlandishly liberal (as opposed to VERY
conservative) Marco from LV, NV, USA (internet: mes...@redrock.nevada.edu)
To avoid confusion between various responses to the original post, just look
for the text that makes the most sense, and that'll be mine :-)
>Rob answers:
>>If your neighbor goes and jumps off a cliff, is it your patriotic duty to
>>follow him? Some people went to Vietnam because they believed in it. Well,
>>it is the inalienable right of the people to be stupid.
The bit about the cliff is amusing, but I don't suppose there's an outside
chance that someone could *STILL* be considered in full possesion of their
faculties whilst *ALSO* believing the Vietnam War was justified? When the
US (and other nations) were present in Vietnam, the aim was to thwart the
encroachment of communism, and they were invited by non-communist Vietnam
to assist in protecting them. At that time the world-wide communist entity
appeared formidable, therefor taking action to prevent it from overwhelming
the free world was not a "stupid" idea based on available facts.
For those netters who will inevitably say that it was a bad judgement call
because Communism is considered a dying concept now, I submit that this was
certainly not achieved through pacifism (as in refusing to fight). It took
the willingness to face up to armed conflict, both internally by civilians
and externally by the intervention of other nations to achieve the marked
decline in Communism.
>>Some went [Vietnam] because
>>they were forced to. Here one might argue for solidarity; however, that same
>>logic would have put all of Europe in the gas chambers 50 years ago.
While eloquently put, your logic is entirely dissimilar to my case for
solidarity. For *ALL* of Europe to end up in the gas chambers, we would have
had to line up with the Jews voluntarily, and/or not have put up any
resistance at all. That is patently different from my standpoint. Many of
us younger Europeans have family members who experienced World War II, and
by virtue of thier presence with us today we have evidence that Rob's
interpretation of my logic is fallacious.
I'm not singling out Rob, because he did make several valid points in a
previous post. (i.e. (1) human rights should always take precedence but if a
nation also has economic reasons to help another nation then that is a happy
coincidence. (2) spare the rhetoric about human rights if 'realpolitik' (self
interest) is the motive).
Rob seems able to present opposing views without being hostile to the other
party. There are some other netters who waste no words in being hostile and
don't realize how contradictory that is when one is advocating pacifism. An
analogy to this would be a peace-protester who dodged the draft because "he
doesn't believe in violence", but when the police come to arrest him, he beats
them over the head with his sign that reads "make love, not war".
>>I find
>>that a sufficient flaw that I cannot object to those who do not espouse that
>>logic. Your milage may vary.
My milage varies considerably on that one :-)
>My thoughts exactly Rob, I wanted to say something similar, but you've
>said it all.
>Doei ... MXS
>Maarten Sierhuis NYNEX Science & Technology, Inc.
Zeg Maarten, ik dacht dat jij het zo druk had met enquettes tellen :-) ?
Zelf heb ik er geen eentje ingevuld maar wat mij betreft mag iedereen net
zo veel posten als die wil. De mensen zijn toch vrij om 'k' te drukken?
C-ya... Marco LV, NV
Wim Degroot
>
>The VERY conservative (Wim Degroot) writes:
>
Maarten, als je de volgende keer wat sneller je boutjes telt en zodoende wat
meer tijd overhoud om deze nieuwsgroep te lezen, dan kom je erachter dat ik
dit NIET gescreven heb, maar dat ik integendeel deze stelling van meneer
"messiah" uit Nevada als belachelijk beschouwde. Als je zodoende leert om
de juiste toetsen te gebruiken, dan kom je erachter dat het gebruik van de
"f" toets ertoe leid dat er een ">" voor een gequoteerde regel komt te staan.
Als het je teveel is om de originele "posting" te lezen, weerhou jezelf ervan
om kommentaar te leveren op iets wat je toch niet begrijpt. En ja, je hebt me
hier aardig kwaad gemaakt met een "label" waar ik een grote hekel aan hebt. Ik
kan begrijpen dat deze verkiezings atmosfeer met alle leugens je nogal
aangegrepen heeft, maar dat betekent nog niet dat jij het ook kan doen.
Genoeg gezegd.
_Wim
>>>Honor and family values are fine but from where do you imply "blind"
>>>sacrifice? If my neighbor goes to war and I don't, and he comes back home
>>>wounded (or not at all), can I look him in the eye honestly and
>Doei ... MXS
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Maarten Sierhuis NYNEX Science & Technology, Inc.
>Member of Technical Staff Research & Development
> Expert Systems Laboratory
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
mw
[ * munch * ]
>>>My thoughts exactly Rob, I wanted to say something similar, but you've
>>>said it all.
>>>Doei ... MXS
>>>Maarten Sierhuis NYNEX Science & Technology, Inc.
>>Zeg Maarten, ik dacht dat jij het zo druk had met enquettes tellen :-) ?
>>Zelf heb ik er geen eentje ingevuld maar wat mij betreft mag iedereen net
>>zo veel posten als die wil. De mensen zijn toch vrij om 'k' te drukken?
>>C-ya... Marco LV, NV
>Waar slaat dit nou op Marco? Wat heeft mijn enquete te maken met jou
>conservatieve gebrabbel over Vietnam?
Mijn bedoelingen hoef je heus niet te verdenken, ik wou alleen de moeite
van twee E-meeltjes eventjes in een concentreren.
>Ik heb toch niet gesuggereerd dat
>jij hier over op moet houden (alhoewel je de orginele discussie al lang
>uit het oog hebt verloren, maar goed).
Heb ik de originele discussie uit het oog verloren? Ik??? Ik zit me de hele
tijd te verdedigen tegen overdreven conclusies of misverstanden die worden
geinsinueerd uit mijn posten.
>Als jij na 20 jaar NOG achter Vietnam staat,
Al zegt men het nou nog zo duidelijk, het maakt niet uit of men het een
keer of duizend keer zegt want er zullen altijd mensen zijn die je worden
omdraaijen en er iets van maken wat niet het geval is. In een eerdere post
heb ik gezegd dat ik het *ONEENS* was met de Vietnam oorlog *MAAR* dat ik
het toch begrijpelijk vond. Na dit te hebben gezegd, heb ik verder mijn
mening gegeven over wat ik vindt van zogenoemde "gewetens bezwaarders" die
hun land genoten in de steek laten als die voor het belang van het volk
gaan vechten in een oorlog waar voor zij ook niet al te enthousiast zijn.
Ik vindt dat landgenoten die eerlijk in hun hart geloven dat zij hun
gezondheid en/of leven riskeren, om de belangen van het land te verdedigen,
de steun van het volk verdienen. Ben ik nou de enige die zo denkt? Ik durf
te beweren van niet. Volgens mij is het waarschijnlijk omdat er zoveel
netters op s.c.n. zijn die tegen de Universiteits leeftijd grens zitten
(tussen de 18 en 25 jaar), dat er bijna uitsluitend pacifistische meningen
ge-uit worden. Studenten zijn vaak idealistisch om dat hun koppen vol met
abstract studie materiaal zitten, en mischien zelfs het "uitstel" spelletje
net zo lang met de militaire dienst spelen dat het tot afstel lijdt. Maar
gooi er een tiental jaaren tegen aan en dan beginen de meeste studenten
zich ook wel te realizeren dat het niet om theorie gaat in het leven.
Somigen van ons doen dat eerder dan anderen :-)
>of wilt verdedigen dat de JNHS
>deze onzin oorlog is begonnen (wat jij natuurlijk NOOIT zal geloven - dus
>reageer hier ook maar niet op)
Ja bedankt zeg, laat zo'n opmerking maar op mijn schoot vallen en vertel mij
dan om het te negeren. Ik kijk regelmatig naar wat er op s.c.n. te vertellen
valt, dus als jij deze bewering wilt *UITBRIJDEN* zal ik het heus wel een
keertje lezen. Maar om zo iets geloofwaardig te maken moet je wel met concrete
feiten aan komen en geen subjectieve meniningen of indirecte "interpretaties."
>dan moet jij dat gezellig zelf weten. Je mag er van
>mij ook best een aantal s.c.n. paginas aan wijten, maar ga nou alsjeblieft
>geen appels met peren vergelijken. Laat mij ook lekker meedoen aan het
>jou proberen wijs te maken, dat je Vietnam moet vergeten als een 'gewonnen'
>oorlog,
Gewonnen??? Ze zijn terug gedreven met hun staart tussen hun benen. Om jou
uidrukking te gebruiken... NOU BREEKT MIJN KLOMP.
>Doei ... MXS
>PS. Waarom schrijft de 'Messiah' eigenlijk in het Engels?
Omdat iemand *ANDERS* er in het Engels mee begonen was. Dat vindt ik
overigens een goede zaak omdat het makkelijker een internationaal publiek
aantrekt. Ik denk dat iedereen toe zal geven dat s.c.n. een nogal beperkt
aantal mensen bevat die actief posten. (Gooi Maarten eruit en je bent er
zowat de helft er van kwijt. :-) )...
>Maarten Sierhuis
Marco LV, NV, USA
Maarten Sierhuis
Marco de 'messiah' (wat een hoge dunk van zichzelf :-) ) schrijft:
>>My thoughts exactly Rob, I wanted to say something similar, but you've
>>said it all.
>
>>Doei ... MXS
>>Maarten Sierhuis NYNEX Science & Technology, Inc.
>
>Zeg Maarten, ik dacht dat jij het zo druk had met enquettes tellen :-) ?
>Zelf heb ik er geen eentje ingevuld maar wat mij betreft mag iedereen net
>zo veel posten als die wil. De mensen zijn toch vrij om 'k' te drukken?
>
>C-ya... Marco LV, NV
Waar slaat dit nou op Marco? Wat heeft mijn enquete te maken met jou
conservatieve gebrabbel over Vietnam? Ik heb toch niet gesuggereerd dat
jij hier over op moet houden (alhoewel je de orginele discussie al lang
uit het oog hebt verloren, maar goed).
Als jij na 20 jaar NOG achter Vietnam staat, of wilt verdedigen dat de JNHS
deze onzin oorlog is begonnen (wat jij natuurlijk NOOIT zal geloven - dus reageer
hier ook maar niet op) dan moet jij dat gezellig zelf weten. Je mag er van
mij ook best een aantal s.c.n. paginas aan wijten, maar ga nou alsjeblieft
geen appels met peren vergelijken. Laat mij ook lekker meedoen aan het
jou proberen wijs te maken, dat je Vietnam moet vergeten als een 'gewonnen'
oorlog, of een oorlog die bewijst hoe geweldig de JNHS-se kinderen van 18 jaar
toen wel niet waren en wat een schoft Clinton wel niet is om niet mee te doen.
Doei ... MXS
PS. Waarom schrijft de 'Messiah' eigenlijk in het Engels? Is dat de taal van
de goddelijken?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maarten Sierhuis NYNEX Science & Technology, Inc.
Member of Technical Staff Research & Development
Expert Systems Laboratory
Frank Teusink
>Exactly. Is that news to you? Why is it that idealists are so naive?
>Besides, its not American oil but the international oil market that had to
>be protected. What do you suppose Royal Dutch Shell would be charging for its
>oil if Saddam Hussein had managed to corner Kuwaiti and Saudi Arabian oil
>fields permanently? Anyone who says that Shell or any other oil company
>not directly active in the Middle East would have undercut the resulting
>hyper-inflated world oil price, is out of touch with reality.
The use of energy per citizen in the US is twice as high as it is in
Europe. So the stakes where a little bit higher for the US. I wonder
if people would have agreed to an intervention if the only reason had
been Irak controling the oil market. The Arabs where certainly not in it
for a low oil-price. They just didn't like the idea of a big neighbour
with a short fuse and a lot of ammo.
Maarten Sierhuis
Ik moet hier toch even mijn excuses aanbieden aan Wimmebim. Ik had inderdaad
Mr. Messiah moeten aanvallen (wat ik inmiddels ook gedaan heb). Die discussie
over Vietnam (in het begin Mr. Clinton) is ook moeilijk te volgen. Al die quotes
van Jan en alleman die worden meegenomen. Het is soms moeilijk te achterhalen
wie nou wat schrijft. Mijn naam staat ook nog regelmatig boven deze discussie,
over dingen die 'ik' nooit geschreven heb. Ook kan ik me herinneren dat
iemand van mijn quotes verdacht werd.
Goed ik heb Wim persoonlijk mijn excuses aangeboden en wil het hier dus nog
een keer publiek doen. In het vervolg zal ik die geneste '>' toch beter
proberern te volgen
Doei ... MXS
---
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maarten Sierhuis NYNEX Science & Technology, Inc.
Member of Technical Staff Research & Development
Expert Systems Laboratory
S2LO000
>
>Ik vindt dat landgenoten die eerlijk in hun hart geloven dat zij hun
>gezondheid en/of leven riskeren, om de belangen van het land te verdedigen,
>de steun van het volk verdienen. Ben ik nou de enige die zo denkt? Ik durf
>te beweren van niet. Volgens mij is het waarschijnlijk omdat er zoveel
>netters op s.c.n. zijn die tegen de Universiteits leeftijd grens zitten
>(tussen de 18 en 25 jaar), dat er bijna uitsluitend pacifistische meningen
>ge-uit worden. Studenten zijn vaak idealistisch om dat hun koppen vol met
>abstract studie materiaal zitten, en mischien zelfs het "uitstel" spelletje
>net zo lang met de militaire dienst spelen dat het tot afstel lijdt. Maar
>gooi er een tiental jaaren tegen aan en dan beginen de meeste studenten
>zich ook wel te realizeren dat het niet om theorie gaat in het leven.
>Somigen van ons doen dat eerder dan anderen :-)
>
Je generaliseert hier niet zo'n klein beetje... Je weet kennelijk
precies mijn mening aangaande zekere zaken (ik ben een student) en
waarom ik nog steeds studeer. Gezond verstand is kennelijk iets dat
studenten (dus ik ook) per definitie niet bezitten, omdat we zoveel
theoretische kennis zouden hebben. Als je theoretisch weet hoe je
voetbal moet spelen, kan je dan niet spelen??
Is het je ooit opgevallen dat het *op deze manier* generalizeren met als
doelstelling een mening te uiten een zeer gevaarlijke bezigheid is. Ik
zal maar aannemen dat het niet je vooroordeel is dat alle studenten zo
zijn, gezien het gebruik van het woord vaak. Opmerkingen zoals deze
veroorzaken of bevestigen echter wel degelijk vooroordelen.
Ik zal hier niet mijn eigen standpunten aangaande de diensplicht en het
al dan niet ontwijken daarvan maar niet geven, aangezien je die toch
al kent (NOT!).
>Marco LV, NV, USA
>
>
Semme Dijkstra s2...@unb.ca
University of New Brunswick
Dept. of Surveying Engineering
P.O. Box 4400 Fredericton, N.B.
Canada E3B 5A3
Frank Teusink
>Consider the following hypothetical situation:
>Clinton is elected to the presidency but will not take office until several
>weeks later. In the meanwhile Bush "cancels" the election's outcome and
>refuses to give up his office. Of course it must be assumed that Bush would
>enjoy the support of an army of loyalists (somewhat unrealistic, to say the
>least). In such a scenario, would Clinton not have the right to solicit
>military aid from Eurpoe, the United Nations (or wherever) to restore the
>nation back to order? I suspect that the answer is emphatically *YES*, and
>that counts for the Panamanian invasion as well.
But how about the situation in Algiers (is this the english/american name?
In Dutch it is Algarije). There a total regime organized elections, but
broke it off when the fundamentalists appeared to be winning. What should
our reaction be if Iran supported the fundamentalists with soldiers and
arms (on a significant scale)?
>C-ya... Marco, LV NV, USA
Frank Teusink
P.S. If somebody is asking himself how this subject popped up in
soc.culture.netherlands, don't worry. You're not alone. :-)
mw
>In article <1992Nov6.1...@nevada.edu> mes...@nevada.edu (mw) writes:
>>>Rob answers:
[ * opening remarks prior post - chomped * ]
>>When the US (and other nations) were present in Vietnam, the aim was to
>>thwart the encroachment of communism, and they were invited by non-communist
>>Vietnam to assist in protecting them. At that time the world-wide communist
>>entity appeared formidable, therefor taking action to prevent it from
>>overwhelming the free world was not a "stupid" idea based on available facts.
>This is actually a good point. That is, factually it is nonsense --like,
>total lack of supporting evidence, man-- but it _is_ what at least the
>American media were propogandating (neologism to stand in for `reporting',
>a title which this crap doesn't deserve) at the time. Unless you had access
>to a lot of sources and used it, there was a fair chance to be taken in.
If what you're saying is that the underlying reasons for intervening in
Vietnam were pure fabrication then I disagree with that. On the other hand,
if you're saying that the media and white house laiason applied "selective
journalism" and allowed only "desirable" images to filter through to the
public then that is more or less my standpoint as well. However, if
"selective journalism" was fool-proof then we would never have seen the
images of flagrant war crimes commited by *some* American soldiers. Thus, a
person who stays informed and accesses data from multiple sources can
compile a reasonable picture despite the inherent bias of individual sources.
I don't think one can go so far as to say "total lack of supporting evidence"
without expessly over-exaggerating the issue (to emphasize one's point I
presume? :-) )
>OK, let me rephrase the scenario: If I hypnotize your neighbor to walk off a
>cliff, are you going to follow him because he thinks he's doing his patriotic
>duty?
If "hypnotize" is a neologism to stand in for propaganda (see I'm picking
stuff up from what you write :-) ) then the premise is biased and should
neccessarily be discarded. But to answer along those lines...
Yes, the media hypes things up.
No, I don't think all Americans believe
everything they see in the media.
Yes, I think that a "reasonable" coverage of
the situation was "available" to the Americans.
Yes, I think that soldiers deserve the support of
people for whom they are risking thier lives.
No, I don't condone war crimes. Acts of despicable
cruelty should be dealt with severely.
[ comments on rise/fall Communism *chomped* ]
>>I submit that this was certainly not achieved through pacifism (as in
>>refusing to fight). It took the willingness to face up to armed conflict,
>>both internally by civilians and externally by the intervention of other
^^^^^^^^^
>>nations to achieve the marked decline in Communism.
>The Warsaw Pact countries were
>looking at a choice between economic collapse and change. This has very
>little to do with how many MX missiles Reagan parks in his back yard.
My case was against pacifistic philosophy as an agent in producing reform,
and applied to people in general, not specically to the US as far as the
former USSR and Eastern Europe was concerned. I was thinking more along the
lines of Central America where US military support has been influential in
resisting Marxist/Communist aggression.
>>>>Some went [Vietnam] because they were forced to. Here one might argue for
>>>>solidarity; however, that same logic would have put all of Europe in the
>>>>gas chambers 50 years ago.
>>For *ALL* of Europe to end up in the gas chambers, we would have
>>had to line up with the Jews voluntarily, and/or not have put up any
>>resistance at all. That is patently different from my standpoint.
>Well, then you can accuse me of totally missing your standpoint. :-)
* Ahem * "Accuse" is such an inflammatory term, let's just say
"prone towards 'fallacious' interpretation." :-)
>The original statement was:
>]Honor and family values are fine but from where do you imply "blind"
>]sacrifice? If my neighbor goes to war and I don't, and he comes back home
>]wounded (or not at all), can I look him in the eye honestly and tell him "I
>]didn't go because of conscientious objections?"
>
>So we have a part of the people that are being forced to go to war (nailed by
>the draft) and a part that you argue should go with them.
>I had a part of the people (jews, gypsies, gays, etc) that were being forced
>to go to the gas chambers and argued that your logic would have had the rest
>follow. Where's the patent difference?
In my case above the willing soldier and the "conscientious objector" are
both on the front line covering each other's ass under gun-fire while
defending the interests of the folks back home. When you compare that to
your case for joining POWs in the gas chambers to show solidarity, those who
would voluntarily join them offer nothing to protect those heading towards
the gas chambers. If people actively parcipate in the resistence movement
against the common enemy instead, then they are much more likely to help
make a difference.
>>Many of us younger Europeans have family members who experienced World War
>>II, and by virtue of thier presence with us today we have evidence that Rob's
>>interpretation of my logic is fallacious.
>Eh? We have evidence that they did not agree that (my intepretation of) your
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hold it. My statement bases itself on thier *presence* not what
they *think* of your fallacious interpretation of my example.
>logic was binding on them. Fallaciousness is nowhere in sight.
Interesting twist you use there, first bedazzle with psuedo-confusion and
then coax them into tangling thier logic into a knot by having them
complicate the statement with more qualifications. Allow me to *SIMPLIFY*
the case instead...
Had they [WW II survivors] believed in passive sacrifice,
they would not have been with us today.
My position is analogous to the philosophy of WW II
survivors who advocated resistence.
That WW II survivors are with us today shows that they
believed in the same thing I believe today.
>SR
Marco, LV, NV, USA
Thanx... C-ya,
Marco LV, NV, USA
Rob Carriere
>In article <1992Nov6.1...@ee.eng.ohio-state.edu>
r...@amstel.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere) writes:
Sorry 'bout the bad beer, BTW.
[My previous statement: CHOMP]
>If what you're saying is that the underlying reasons for intervening in
>Vietnam were pure fabrication then I disagree with that.
Well, nothing is ever pure, but this stuff could have made the Ivory Soap
commercials. Some SE Asian country has a change of government and the whole
world inevitably goes commie. I mean, really. If you truly believe that free
democracy is _that_ inferior, why the bleep support it?
>On the other hand, if you're saying that the media and white house laiason
>applied "selective journalism" and allowed only "desirable" images to filter
>through to the public then that is more or less my standpoint as well.
Hey, we agree! Now what? :-)
>However, if "selective journalism" was fool-proof then we would never have
>seen the images of flagrant war crimes commited by *some* American soldiers.
>Thus, a person who stays informed and accesses data from multiple sources can
>compile a reasonable picture despite the inherent bias of individual sources.
True. The problem I have with American sources is that most of them are
biased in the same direction, which makes this information gathering an
exercise in frustration.
>I don't think one can go so far as to say "total lack of supporting evidence"
>without expessly over-exaggerating the issue (to emphasize one's point I
>presume? :-) )
Why else? :-)
Seriously, I meant to indicate the exageration with the valley-speak (who
takes Valley people seriously, eh?). Apparently that didn't work too well, so
let me restate:
I think that the evidence supporting any of the reasons given for involvement
in the Vietnam situation is weak, and that the evidence supporting the specific
argument of the domino theory is effectively nil. `Effectively,' because,
while there is evidence, I have never heard of non-hawks who were willing to
buy it.
>>OK, let me rephrase the scenario: If I hypnotize your neighbor to walk off a
>>cliff, are you going to follow him because he thinks he's doing his patriotic
>>duty?
>
>If "hypnotize" is a neologism to stand in for propaganda (see I'm picking
>stuff up from what you write :-) )
:-) Correct.
>then the premise is biased and should neccessarily be discarded.
Unk? How is the premise biased? I can see an argument that it doesn't
address the issue, but biased?
[minor chomp]
>Yes, I think that soldiers deserve the support of people for whom they are
>risking thier lives.
That's very true but irrelevant. The USA was never in any danger of being
overrun by the North Vietnamese, so there weren't any soldiers risking their
lives for the good ol' Us of A.
As a side note, I think that possibly the ugliest aspect of the whole domestic
political fracas around Vietnam was that many of those opposed to the war took
it out on the soldiers, who, as we have both observed, were mostly drafted and
therefore not to blame. Protest against the government, fine and proper.
Spit in the faces of returning draftees, WRONG.
>No, I don't condone war crimes. Acts of despicable cruelty should be dealt
>with severely.
Dang! We agree again. :-)
[Another chomp. My rebuttal to `Rise and Fall of the Soviet Empire' failed to
address that the comment was aimed neither specifically at the military nor
specifically at the US.]
>My case was against pacifistic philosophy as an agent in producing reform,
>and applied to people in general, not specically to the US as far as the
>former USSR and Eastern Europe was concerned. I was thinking more along the
>lines of Central America where US military support has been influential in
>resisting Marxist/Communist aggression.
1) I'm not sure if I'm comfortable defending pacifism, but I really don't see
how your claim re pacifism follows from the discussion so far.
2) While US support, military and otherwise, has certainly been influential in
resisting Communist (So far all governments that have called themselves
Marxist have been lying) incursions into South and Central America, it has
certainly been exactly as influential in propping up a number of fascist
and/or feudal regimes. Whether the net result is an improvement is open to
debate, to say the very least.
[Everybody has already read the gaschamber bit more times than they want to.
Chomped.]
>>Well, then you can accuse me of totally missing your standpoint. :-)
>
>* Ahem * "Accuse" is such an inflammatory term, let's just say
> "prone towards 'fallacious' interpretation." :-)
Ah. More than 4 syllables and li'l Robby won't be able to follow the meaning,
eh? :-)
[And chomped again. Time to burp. :-]
>In my case above the willing soldier and the "conscientious objector" are
>both on the front line covering each other's ass under gun-fire while
>defending the interests of the folks back home. When you compare that to
>your case for joining POWs in the gas chambers to show solidarity, those who
>would voluntarily join them offer nothing to protect those heading towards
>the gas chambers. If people actively parcipate in the resistence movement
>against the common enemy instead, then they are much more likely to help
>make a difference.
OK, now I see what you mean.
Let me go through this backwards (fits my personality :)
1) There was no common enemy in the case of the Vietnam war. The US military
personel in Vietnam had an enemy, the country at large did not.
2) Active participation in the WW2 resistance, while laudable, did not help
the people who were already _in_ the deathcamps.
3) Very fortunately I have no direct experience with the WW2 deathcamps, but
it is my understanding that the inmates _did_ cover for each other as best
as they were able to. That's not very well, of course, but that makes the
comparison _better_, not worse. Consider: what do you think protects a
US trooper in Vietnam better: another warm body with a gun, or political
action that stops the war and gets his ass out of the frying pan?
>>>Many of us younger Europeans have family members who experienced World War
>>>II, and by virtue of thier presence with us today we have evidence that
>>>Rob's interpretation of my logic is fallacious.
>
>>Eh? We have evidence that they did not agree that (my intepretation of) your
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Hold it. My statement bases itself on thier *presence* not what
> they *think* of your fallacious interpretation of my example.
So does mine. They are there, therefore, they cannot have thought in certain
ways (which would have led to their self-destuction.)
You on the other hand seem to be arguing that because some people survived
WW2, it cannot be true that `lining up for the gaschambers is equivalent to
submitting to Vietnam draft against your consience.' Forgive the stupidity,
but would you _please_ expose the intermediate steps in this leap-o-logic?
I'm sure I'll find them fascinating beyond compare. ;->
>>logic was binding on them. Fallaciousness is nowhere in sight.
>
>Interesting twist you use there, first bedazzle with psuedo-confusion and
>then coax them into tangling thier logic into a knot by having them
>complicate the statement with more qualifications. Allow me to *SIMPLIFY*
>the case instead...
Who's this hapless `them'?
>Had they [WW II survivors] believed in passive sacrifice,
>they would not have been with us today.
Agreed. Not relevant, but agreed anyway. :-)
>My position is analogous to the philosophy of WW II
>survivors who advocated resistence.
Disagreed. (see 9 paragraphs above.)
>That WW II survivors are with us today shows that they
>believed in the same thing I believe today.
And that doesn't follow either. They could (and some of them did) equally
well have believed in hiding in their homes until the whole thing blew over.
>Marco LV, NV, USA
SR, CMH, OH, USA :-)
---
S2LO000
>In article <07NOV92.16...@UNBVM1.CSD.UNB.CA> S2LO000 <S2...@UNB.CA> writes:
>>> [deleted]
>
>>>Ik vindt dat landgenoten die eerlijk in hun hart geloven dat zij hun
>>>gezondheid en/of leven riskeren, om de belangen van het land te verdedigen,
>>>de steun van het volk verdienen. Ben ik nou de enige die zo denkt? Ik durf
>>>te beweren van niet. Volgens mij is het waarschijnlijk omdat er zoveel
>>>netters op s.c.n. zijn die tegen de Universiteits leeftijd grens zitten
>>>(tussen de 18 en 25 jaar), dat er bijna uitsluitend pacifistische meningen
>>>ge-uit worden. Studenten zijn vaak idealistisch om dat hun koppen vol met
>>>abstract studie materiaal zitten, en mischien zelfs het "uitstel" spelletje
>>>net zo lang met de militaire dienst spelen
>
>>Je generaliseert hier niet zo'n klein beetje... Je weet kennelijk
>>precies mijn mening aangaande zekere zaken (ik ben een student) en
>>waarom ik nog steeds studeer.
>
>generalisatie zou zijn, dan zou ik er ook onder vallen.
>
>>Gezond verstand is kennelijk iets dat
>>studenten (dus ik ook) per definitie niet bezitten, omdat we zoveel
>>theoretische kennis zouden hebben. Als je theoretisch weet hoe je
>>voetbal moet spelen, kan je dan niet spelen??
>
>luidt: mensen die het "kennen" zijn een tientje waard en mensen die het
>"kunnen" zijn ook een tientje waard, maar mensen die het "kennen *EN*
>kunnen" zijn honderd waard.
>
>>Is het je ooit opgevallen dat het *op deze manier* generalizeren met als
>>doelstelling een mening te uiten een zeer gevaarlijke bezigheid is.
>
>er meerdere qualificaties bij gezet die het duidelijk maakten dat het niet
>voor *iedere* student of zelfs de meerderheid geld, maar wel dat de trend
>duidelijk zichtbaar is. Als dat niet het geval is, waar komen al die
>responses die het zo oneens zijn met Iraq, Vietnam, Panama, etc. dan
>vandaan?
>
Je mag er dan wel qualificaties bij hebben gezet die aangeven dat het
niet om iedere student gaat, maar het woordgebruik was zodanig dat de
indruk werd gewekt dat afwijkende meningen de uitzondering op de regel
zouden zijn. De responses van diegenen die het zo oneens met je zijn
komen niet alleen van studenten. Zo meen ik me te herinneren dat Maarten
Sierhuis iets te maken heeft met boutjes tellen bij NYNEX :-).
1>Ik zal maar aannemen dat het niet je vooroordeel is dat alle studenten zo
>>zijn, gezien het gebruik van het woord vaak. Opmerkingen zoals deze
>>veroorzaken of bevestigen echter wel degelijk vooroordelen.
>
>Het is mijn persoonlijke mening dat men toch een hogere graad van pacifisme
>en idealisme onder de studenten bevolking vindt dan elders in de maatschapij.
>De redenen die ik hier voor gaf (jeugdigheid en frequent te maken heben met
>theoretische begripen) waren niet onredelijk. Op de universiteiten hebben
>mensen in deze group dan iets eerder dan de doorsnee Nederlander kans om
>gratis hun meningen te uiten via internet, dus komt men het vaker tegen in
>responses dan anders representief voor de hele bevolking zou zijn. Vindt ik
>best wel een redelijke conclusie :-)
>
Mijn ervaring is dat de meerderheid van de studenten waar ik persoonlijk
mee te maken heb niet pacifistisch is. door de mondigheid van die-
genen die wel pacifistisch zijn kreeg ik echter wel als eerste indruk
dat de meerderheid pacifistisch zou zijn. Ik hoop niet dat als al de
studenten die nu niet pacifistisch zijn ouder en wijzer worden hun
standpunten veranderen en pacifisten zouden worden. Het is trouwens het
goed recht om van pacifisten om ruim gebruik te maken van alle mogelijke
communicatie middelen en je ze niet kwalijk kan nemen als ze dat dan ook
doen.
>
>Marco, LV, NV, USA
>
Semme Dijkstra s2...@unb.ca
University of New Brunswick
Dept. of Surveying Engineering
P.O. Box 4400, Fredericton, N.B.
Canada E3B 5A3
Tim Van Der Avoird
[wat materiaal weggelaten]
>>Is het je ooit opgevallen dat het *op deze manier* generalizeren met als
>>doelstelling een mening te uiten een zeer gevaarlijke bezigheid is.
>
>Volgens mij is deze generalizatie echt niet van zo'n grote omvang. Ik heb
>er meerdere qualificaties bij gezet die het duidelijk maakten dat het niet
>voor *iedere* student of zelfs de meerderheid geld, maar wel dat de trend
>duidelijk zichtbaar is. Als dat niet het geval is, waar komen al die
>responses die het zo oneens zijn met Iraq, Vietnam, Panama, etc. dan
>vandaan?
Zeg, meneer de messiah, in plaats van met leukigheid en halfzachte
argumenten te proberen deze *terechte* aanval te weerstaan, zou je er
beter aan doen om of gewoon je hoofd te houden als je toch alleen maar
ongefundeerde meningen en vooroordelen uit kunt kramen of met
gegevens, onderzoeken, etc. op de proppen te komen waaruit blijkt dat
veel studenten zijn zoals jij beschrijft dat ze zijn.
"Als dat niet het geval is, waar komen al die responses die het zo
oneens zijn met Iraq, Vietnam, Panama, etc. dan vandaan?" Dus omdat
een paar mensen hier op s.c.n. iets beweren, zie jij er gelijk een
trend in dat veel studenten deze mening hebben.
Ergo: ik zie neo-nazi's in Duitsland vluchtelingen molesteren, dus
alle Duitsers zijn neo-nazi's!?
Tim
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim van der Avoird `The "brief quotation" is often some kind of
NEC Research Institute, Inc. disclaimer, stating that the author's
Princeton, NJ, USA opinions aren't the views of his employer.'
mw
>>Ik vindt dat landgenoten die eerlijk in hun hart geloven dat zij hun
>>gezondheid en/of leven riskeren, om de belangen van het land te verdedigen,
>>de steun van het volk verdienen. Ben ik nou de enige die zo denkt? Ik durf
>>te beweren van niet. Volgens mij is het waarschijnlijk omdat er zoveel
>>netters op s.c.n. zijn die tegen de Universiteits leeftijd grens zitten
>>(tussen de 18 en 25 jaar), dat er bijna uitsluitend pacifistische meningen
>>ge-uit worden. Studenten zijn vaak idealistisch om dat hun koppen vol met
>>abstract studie materiaal zitten, en mischien zelfs het "uitstel" spelletje
>>net zo lang met de militaire dienst spelen
>Het spijt me erg Marco, maar ik neem aanstoot aan het bovenstaande.
>Je generaliseert hier niet zo'n klein beetje... Je weet kennelijk
>precies mijn mening aangaande zekere zaken (ik ben een student) en
>waarom ik nog steeds studeer.
Ik ben ook student (University of Nevada, LV) dus als het een te algemene
generalisatie zou zijn, dan zou ik er ook onder vallen.
>Gezond verstand is kennelijk iets dat
>studenten (dus ik ook) per definitie niet bezitten, omdat we zoveel
>theoretische kennis zouden hebben. Als je theoretisch weet hoe je
>voetbal moet spelen, kan je dan niet spelen??
Er is een oude gezegde die ik wel eens meer in Nederland heb gehoord die
luidt: mensen die het "kennen" zijn een tientje waard en mensen die het
"kunnen" zijn ook een tientje waard, maar mensen die het "kennen *EN*
kunnen" zijn honderd waard.
>Is het je ooit opgevallen dat het *op deze manier* generalizeren met als
>doelstelling een mening te uiten een zeer gevaarlijke bezigheid is.
Volgens mij is deze generalizatie echt niet van zo'n grote omvang. Ik heb
er meerdere qualificaties bij gezet die het duidelijk maakten dat het niet
voor *iedere* student of zelfs de meerderheid geld, maar wel dat de trend
duidelijk zichtbaar is. Als dat niet het geval is, waar komen al die
responses die het zo oneens zijn met Iraq, Vietnam, Panama, etc. dan
vandaan?
>Ik zal maar aannemen dat het niet je vooroordeel is dat alle studenten zo
>zijn, gezien het gebruik van het woord vaak. Opmerkingen zoals deze
>veroorzaken of bevestigen echter wel degelijk vooroordelen.
Het is mijn persoonlijke mening dat men toch een hogere graad van pacifisme
en idealisme onder de studenten bevolking vindt dan elders in de maatschapij.
De redenen die ik hier voor gaf (jeugdigheid en frequent te maken heben met
theoretische begripen) waren niet onredelijk. Op de universiteiten hebben
mensen in deze group dan iets eerder dan de doorsnee Nederlander kans om
gratis hun meningen te uiten via internet, dus komt men het vaker tegen in
responses dan anders representief voor de hele bevolking zou zijn. Vindt ik
best wel een redelijke conclusie :-)
>Semme Dijkstra s2...@unb.ca
Marco, LV, NV, USA
eric
writes (among many other things):
> het toch begrijpelijk vond. Na dit te hebben gezegd, heb ik verder mijn
> mening gegeven over wat ik vindt van zogenoemde "gewetens bezwaarders" die
> hun land genoten in de steek laten als die voor het belang van het volk
> gaan vechten in een oorlog waar voor zij ook niet al te enthousiast zijn.
> Ik vindt dat landgenoten die eerlijk in hun hart geloven dat zij hun
> gezondheid en/of leven riskeren, om de belangen van het land te verdedigen,
> de steun van het volk verdienen. Ben ik nou de enige die zo denkt? Ik durf
> te beweren van niet. Volgens mij is het waarschijnlijk omdat er zoveel
> netters op s.c.n. zijn die tegen de Universiteits leeftijd grens zitten
> (tussen de 18 en 25 jaar), dat er bijna uitsluitend pacifistische meningen
> ge-uit worden. Studenten zijn vaak idealistisch om dat hun koppen vol met
> abstract studie materiaal zitten, en mischien zelfs het "uitstel" spelletje
> net zo lang met de militaire dienst spelen dat het tot afstel lijdt. Maar
> gooi er een tiental jaaren tegen aan en dan beginen de meeste studenten
> zich ook wel te realizeren dat het niet om theorie gaat in het leven.
> Somigen van ons doen dat eerder dan anderen :-)
Ik weet niet of het wel verstandig is om me in deze discussie te
mengen, het gaat nogal hard allemaal, maar nu ga je toch echt te ver
vader.
1. Het is een verwerpelijke discussietechniek om mensen die het niet
met je eens zijn voor onvolwassen te verslijten, en om ze te bestoken
met verdachtmakingen over het ontduiken van de militaire dienst. Ben
je soms aan het studeren om ooit presidentskandidaat te worden voor de
republikeinen?
2. Op zich ben ik het er wel mee eens dat studenten vaak
idealistischer zijn dan de doorsnee burger, en ook dat die idealen na
het afstuderen opvallend vaak onder een stropdas verdwijnen. Dat wil
echter nog niet zeggen dat dat laatste een goede zaak is.
En, smiley of geen smiley, de opmerking "sommigen van ons doen dat
eerder dan anderen" druipt van de zelfingenomenheid. Bah.
3. Het is ook onzindelijk om aanhalingstekens te zetten om
"gewetensbezwaarden" (is "gewetens bezwaarders" trouwens een
woordgrapje van jou (zo ja, vind ik 'm aardig gevonden), of gewoon een
fout?). Het is niet aan jou om te oordelen over andermans motivaties.
Hoewel er vast en zeker mensen zijn geweest die de draft uit puur
egoistische overwegingen hebben ontdoken (het gaat dan met name om
degenen die het wel eens waren met de oorlog op zich, zoals Quayle),
gaat het niet aan om bijvoorbeeld Clinton ook op die hoop te gooien.
Misschien hoort hij er ook wel bij, dat weet ik niet, maar dat weet
jij ook niet dus heb je je hoofd te houden --- tenzij je harde
bewijzen hebt, maar die heb ik nog niet gezien en zijn uit de aard van
de zaak ook moeilijk te vinden.
Ik ben zelf overigens de studentenleeftijd al jaren te boven. Aan de
andere kant werk ik wel in een lab, dus misschien ben ik toch nog
steeds een luchtfietser.
> ...
> hun land genoten in de steek laten als die voor het belang van het volk
> gaan vechten in een oorlog waar voor zij ook niet al te enthousiast zijn.
> Ik vindt dat landgenoten die eerlijk in hun hart geloven dat zij hun
> gezondheid en/of leven riskeren, om de belangen van het land te verdedigen,
> de steun van het volk verdienen. ...
Nog even specifiek over dit stukje. Rob's analogie van de klif leek
bij jou niet aan te komen, dus nu maar een andere: volgens jouw logica
zaten de Duitsers die in WW II niet aan de kant van de Nazi's
meevochten fout. Zie ik dat verkeerd, of wil je misschien zo
vriendelijk zijn om deze stelling ook voor je rekening te nemen?
Overigens moet ik zeggen dat hoewel ik het faliekant met je oneens
bent, ik vind dat jij en Rob tot nu toe een interessante discussie
hebben gevoerd. En in uitstekend Engels, niet te vergeten: daar kunnen
veel "native speakers" nog een puntje aan zuigen. Maar je moet
oppassen dat je geen rare dingen gaat zeggen als je in een hoek
gemanoeuvreerd wordt.
Groetjes,
Eric.
-
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric M. Visser email: er...@flab.fujitsu.co.jp
Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd. phone: 044 - 754 - 2671
Kawasaki, Japan fax : 044 - 754 - 2570
de Yeti
Ev'rybody's talkin' 'bout
Bagism, Shagism, Dragism, Madism, Ragism, Tagism
This-ism, that-ism, ism ism ism
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance
(C'mon)
Ev'rybody's talkin' 'bout
Minister, Sinister, Banisters and Canisters,
Bishops, Fishops, Rabbis, and Pop Eyes, Bye bye, Bye byes
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance
(Let me tell you now)
Ev'rybody's talkin' 'bout
Revolution, Evolution, Masturbation, Flagellation, Regulation,
Integrations, mediations, United Nations, congratulations
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance
Ev'rybody's talkin' 'bout
John and Yoko, Timmy Leary, Rosemary,
Tommy Smothers, Bobby Dylan, Tommy Cooper,
Derek Taylor, Norman Mailer, Alan Ginsberg, Hare Krishna
Hare Hare Krishna
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance
(Repeat 'til the tape runs out)
Maarten Sierhuis
The Messiah writes:
>No, I don't think all Americans believe
>everything they see in the media.
Can you quantify this statement? No, not ALL *Americans* believe
everything they see! I have an American co-worker, and he doesn't
believe everything the media says, but that's only 1 American.
The trouble is that a *LARGE* amount of Americans (and yes I can't
quantify this better) *DO* believe in what they see in the media.
The reason why I believe that it is more important to quantify the
amount of people that *DO NOT* believe everything in the media is;
Because if it shows that there still is a large number of people that
*DO* believe everything in the media in the JNHS, than your claims
following this statement are made on very 'glad ijs'.
Doei ... MXS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maarten Sierhuis NYNEX Science & Technology, Inc.
Member of Technical Staff Research & Development
Expert Systems Laboratory
Maarten Sierhuis
> In article <1992Nov6.1...@nynexst.com> sier...@nynexst.com writes:
>
> [ * munch * ]
>
> >>>My thoughts exactly Rob, I wanted to say something similar, but you've
> >>>said it all.
>
> >>>Doei ... MXS
> >>>Maarten Sierhuis NYNEX Science & Technology, Inc.
>
> >>Zeg Maarten, ik dacht dat jij het zo druk had met enquettes tellen :-) ?
> >>Zelf heb ik er geen eentje ingevuld maar wat mij betreft mag iedereen net
> >>zo veel posten als die wil. De mensen zijn toch vrij om 'k' te drukken?
> >>C-ya... Marco LV, NV
>
> >Waar slaat dit nou op Marco? Wat heeft mijn enquete te maken met jou
> >conservatieve gebrabbel over Vietnam?
>
> Mijn bedoelingen hoef je heus niet te verdenken, ik wou alleen de moeite
> van twee E-meeltjes eventjes in een concentreren.
Oh ja, zo lust ik er ook nog wel 1-tje :-)
>
> >Ik heb toch niet gesuggereerd dat
> >jij hier over op moet houden (alhoewel je de orginele discussie al lang
> >uit het oog hebt verloren, maar goed).
>
> Heb ik de originele discussie uit het oog verloren? Ik??? Ik zit me de hele
> tijd te verdedigen tegen overdreven conclusies of misverstanden die worden
> geinsinueerd uit mijn posten.
>
> >Als jij na 20 jaar NOG achter Vietnam staat,
>
> Al zegt men het nou nog zo duidelijk, het maakt niet uit of men het een
> keer of duizend keer zegt want er zullen altijd mensen zijn die je worden
> omdraaijen en er iets van maken wat niet het geval is. In een eerdere post
> heb ik gezegd dat ik het *ONEENS* was met de Vietnam oorlog *MAAR* dat ik
> het toch begrijpelijk vond. Na dit te hebben gezegd, heb ik verder mijn
> mening gegeven over wat ik vindt van zogenoemde "gewetens bezwaarders" die
> hun land genoten in de steek laten als die voor het belang van het volk
> gaan vechten in een oorlog waar voor zij ook niet al te enthousiast zijn.
>
Kijk, het probleem met dit misschien vooroordeel zit zo in elkaar:
Jij hebt al tig meeltjes verstuurd waar je toch duidelijk de Vietnam
oorlog in verdediging neemt, althans de mensen die in deze oorlog gevochten
hebben. Inderdaad, je hebt ook 1 keertje vermeld dat je het oneens was
met deze oorlog.
Het probleem is, dat mensen na zoveel meeltjes dit al lang vergeten zijn
en het er toch verdacht veel op begint te lijken dat je deze oorlog
niet eens zo *VERKEERD* vindt.
> Ik vindt dat landgenoten die eerlijk in hun hart geloven dat zij hun
> gezondheid en/of leven riskeren, om de belangen van het land te verdedigen,
> de steun van het volk verdienen. Ben ik nou de enige die zo denkt? Ik durf
> te beweren van niet. Volgens mij is het waarschijnlijk omdat er zoveel
> netters op s.c.n. zijn die tegen de Universiteits leeftijd grens zitten
> (tussen de 18 en 25 jaar), dat er bijna uitsluitend pacifistische meningen
> ge-uit worden. Studenten zijn vaak idealistisch om dat hun koppen vol met
> abstract studie materiaal zitten, en mischien zelfs het "uitstel" spelletje
> net zo lang met de militaire dienst spelen dat het tot afstel lijdt. Maar
> gooi er een tiental jaaren tegen aan en dan beginen de meeste studenten
> zich ook wel te realizeren dat het niet om theorie gaat in het leven.
> Somigen van ons doen dat eerder dan anderen :-)
Nou staat in de laatste zin wel een ':-)', maar dit slaat volgens mij op
het "volwassen" worden of zijn van sommige mensen (zoals de Messiah?). Het slaat
niet op het "onvoorstelbare" vooroordeel dat je hier naar voren brengt en
daarmee de *HELE* discussie en *JOUW* argumenten over "STERVEN VOOR MOEDER
EN VADERLAND" toch wel in een kwaad daglicht stelt.
Nou ben ik de 25 al gepasseerd en ben ik ook geen student meer, maar hier
gaan mijn haren toch wel weer van rechtop staan. Wat geeft een OUDE LUL
als jij het recht om al de studenten tussen beneden 25, pacifisten en al
die mensen die je in je statement betrekt, op 1 berg te gooien?
Als het leven zoveel serieuzer wordt na het 25-ste levensjaar, wat doe je
dan in godsnaam met zulke idealistische ideeen over "STERVEN VOOR MOEDER
EN VADERLAND". Of bedoel je dat het vechten TEGEN HET COMMUNISTISCH KWAAD
geen idealistisch waanbeeld is/was/whatever?
Trouwens, wat me helemaal woedend maakt, is het feit dat al die arme
sloebers die voor VOOR MOEDER EN VADERLAND gestorven zijn, voor het grootste
deel tussen de 18 en 25 jaar waren/zijn/whatever.
Koot en de Bie hadden een liedje, wat ik al op vroege leeftijd aan mijn
zoontje heb geleerd, dat is getiteld "OUDE LULLEN MOETEN WEG". Dit slaat
zeker op de Messiah, als die met zulke waanideeen rondloopt.
...
Oude lullen moeten weg,
Oude lullen moeten weg,
Oude lullen staan alleen maar in de weg,
Waar je om je heen kijkt,
Als maar oude lullen,
Als maar oude lullen,
die hun zakken vullen,
etc, etc.
>
> >of wilt verdedigen dat de JNHS
> >deze onzin oorlog is begonnen (wat jij natuurlijk NOOIT zal geloven - dus
> >reageer hier ook maar niet op)
>
> Ja bedankt zeg, laat zo'n opmerking maar op mijn schoot vallen en vertel mij
> dan om het te negeren. Ik kijk regelmatig naar wat er op s.c.n. te vertellen
> valt, dus als jij deze bewering wilt *UITBRIJDEN* zal ik het heus wel een
> keertje lezen. Maar om zo iets geloofwaardig te maken moet je wel met concrete
> feiten aan komen en geen subjectieve meniningen of indirecte "interpretaties."
Waarom? Dit is oud nieuws en ik had immers al gevraagd om hier niet op te
reageren, want dat is na mijns inziens een ZINLOZE discussie.
>
> >dan moet jij dat gezellig zelf weten. Je mag er van
> >mij ook best een aantal s.c.n. paginas aan wijten, maar ga nou alsjeblieft
> >geen appels met peren vergelijken. Laat mij ook lekker meedoen aan het
> >jou proberen wijs te maken, dat je Vietnam moet vergeten als een 'gewonnen'
> >oorlog,
>
> Gewonnen??? Ze zijn terug gedreven met hun staart tussen hun benen. Om jou
> uidrukking te gebruiken... NOU BREEKT MIJN KLOMP.
En al die arme mensen dan? Is er nou iemand beter van geworden? Het enige
voordeel van die oorlog is/was/whatever, dat de rest van de wereld eindelijk
eens het ware gezicht van de JNHS te zien kreeg en dat een groot deel van
de JNHS-se bevolking dit ook zag (onder wie Clinton, want daar ging het
toch over :-) ) en hier dan ook tegen af ging geven.
>
> >Doei ... MXS
>
> >PS. Waarom schrijft de 'Messiah' eigenlijk in het Engels?
>
> Omdat iemand *ANDERS* er in het Engels mee begonen was. Dat vindt ik
> overigens een goede zaak omdat het makkelijker een internationaal publiek
Dit ben ik met je eens en vind ik van een goede beleefdheid. Dat probeer ik
ook te doen. Dit is een uitzondering, maar deze discussie heeft niets meer
te maken met de originele Engelse meel over de elections. Vandaar dat ik dus
maar overgegaan ben op NLs. Des te meer omdat deze discussie nu inmiddels
lijkt op, allen tegen de Messiah en de Messiah spreekt NLs (en waarschijnlijk
alle talen van de wereld, want anders kannie geen Messiah zijn :-) ).
> aantrekt. Ik denk dat iedereen toe zal geven dat s.c.n. een nogal beperkt
> aantal mensen bevat die actief posten. (Gooi Maarten eruit en je bent er
> zowat de helft er van kwijt. :-) )...
>
> >Maarten Sierhuis
>
> Marco LV, NV, USA
>
>
Doei ... MXS
---
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maarten Sierhuis NYNEX Science & Technology, Inc.
Gerard Stafleu
toch echt wel uit de hand te lopen. Tot nu toe heb ik me heldhaftig
onthouden van opmerkingen betreffende posting stijl, maar het gaat nu
toch te ver.
Het eerste artikel dat ik vandaag onder ogen kreeg was 184 regels lang.
En niet dat iemand nu eens een leuk verhaal had bedacht. Nee hoor, de
meeste van die 184 regels begonnen met ">", of met ">", of met ">>>".
Kijk eens kameraden, er zijn algemeen aanvaarde normen betrefende hoe en
wat men citeert. Het schijnt echter dat die algemeen aanvaarde normen
niet al te algemeen aanvaard worden. Of wellicht zijn ze gewoon
onbekend. Laat ik dus eens proberen een lijstje te maken (de kans dat
het helpt lijkt me een goede benadering van -oneindig, maar goed).
1) Citeer alleen die regels uit een posting die absoluut nodig zijn om
duidelijk te maken waarop je antwoordt.
2) Vermijd (n-)dubbel citeren als de pest. Doe het alleen bij hoge
uitzondering, en dun een citaat met n>1 dan nog veel strenger uit dan
een normaal citaat.
3) Citeer het volgende DUS NOOIT:
a) De rest van het artikel, als je alleen op iets in het begin
reageert.
b) DE SIGNATURE FILE!!!! We zien die signature allemaal onder het
originele artikel, die hoeft echt niet herhaalt te worden (de
referentie wordt verzorgt door de regel "In article such and such
so and so writes").
Kijk dus in je editor handboekje, en zoek op hoe je characters, woorden
en regels verwijdert. Leer hoe je kan uittrekken en samenvaten. Doe
iets!
----
Gerard "for quoting values on the net" Stafleu
email: ger...@uwo.ca
CCS, NSC 202, University of Western Ontario,
London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5B7
(519)661-2151
Tim Van Der Avoird
Hier kan ik het alleen maar helemaal mee eens zijn...
Aswin van den Berg
>Tim
Ik ook
Aswin
Nils Gokemeijer
>In article <1992Nov10...@uwovax.uwo.ca> ger...@uwovax.uwo.ca (Gerard Stafleu) writes:
>>>>>>1) Citeer alleen die regels uit een posting die absoluut nodig zijn om
>>>>>> duidelijk te maken waarop je antwoordt.
-Nils
Dik T. Winter
Even wat bandbreedte gebruiken.
In article <1992Nov10...@uwovax.uwo.ca> ger...@uwovax.uwo.ca (Gerard Stafleu) writes:
> Ik wil het niet over iemand in het bijzonder hebben, maar het begint nu
> toch echt wel uit de hand te lopen. Tot nu toe heb ik me heldhaftig
> onthouden van opmerkingen betreffende posting stijl, maar het gaat nu
> toch te ver.
Waarom alleen in scn? Andere groepen zijn minstens net zo erg.
>
> Het eerste artikel dat ik vandaag onder ogen kreeg was 184 regels lang.
> En niet dat iemand nu eens een leuk verhaal had bedacht. Nee hoor, de
> meeste van die 184 regels begonnen met ">", of met ">", of met ">>>".
Zie boven, of onder.
>
> Kijk eens kameraden, er zijn algemeen aanvaarde normen betrefende hoe en
> wat men citeert. Het schijnt echter dat die algemeen aanvaarde normen
> niet al te algemeen aanvaard worden. Of wellicht zijn ze gewoon
> onbekend. Laat ik dus eens proberen een lijstje te maken (de kans dat
> het helpt lijkt me een goede benadering van -oneindig, maar goed).
Het helpt niet. Wanneer ze posten krijgen ze al dergelijke informatie
voor hun neus. (Wil je dat echt? Wil je dat echt echt?) Het helpt niet.
>
> 1) Citeer alleen die regels uit een posting die absoluut nodig zijn om
> duidelijk te maken waarop je antwoordt.
Moet je wel je editor kennen natuurlijk.
> 2) Vermijd (n-)dubbel citeren als de pest. Doe het alleen bij hoge
> uitzondering, en dun een citaat met n>1 dan nog veel strenger uit dan
> een normaal citaat.
Wat is nu "dubbel citeren"?
> 2) Vermijd (n-)dubbel citeren als de pest. Doe het alleen bij hoge
> uitzondering, en dun een citaat met n>1 dan nog veel strenger uit dan
> een normaal citaat.
Is dit dat?
> 3) Citeer het volgende DUS NOOIT:
> a) De rest van het artikel, als je alleen op iets in het begin
> reageert.
Of het begin van het artikel als je alleen op iets in de rest reageert.
> b) DE SIGNATURE FILE!!!! We zien die signature allemaal onder het
> originele artikel, die hoeft echt niet herhaalt te worden (de
> referentie wordt verzorgt door de regel "In article such and such
> so and so writes").
Sommige signatures zijn echt de moeite waard om herhaald en opnieuw herhaald
te worden. Ik voel mij echt beperkt door de limiet van vier regels op een
signature.
>
> Kijk dus in je editor handboekje, en zoek op hoe je characters, woorden
> en regels verwijdert. Leer hoe je kan uittrekken en samenvaten. Doe
> iets!
Je bent aan het posten! Je kan niet kijken naar de online handleiding!
>
> ----
> Gerard "for quoting values on the net" Stafleu
> email: ger...@uwo.ca
> CCS, NSC 202, University of Western Ontario,
> London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5B7
> (519)661-2151
Dus dit is de moeite waard om gequote to worden? Ziehier:
> Gerard "for quoting values on the net" Stafleu
> email: ger...@uwo.ca
> CCS, NSC 202, University of Western Ontario,
> London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5B7
> (519)661-2151
Ja ik weet dat een betere referentie voor het afc artikel is:
<1992Nov10....@pony.Ingres.COM>
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; e-mail: d...@cwi.nl
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; e-mail: d...@cwi.nl
Gerard Stafleu
> Waarom alleen in scn? Andere groepen zijn minstens net zo erg.
Jawel, maar wij nederlanders weten toch alles beter? Ik had gehoopt dat
we het soms misschien ook beter zouden kunnen doen. Aan de andere kant,
warrige citeerstijl is natuurlijk wel een fenomeen dat diep geworteld
is in de nederlandse conversatiecultuur: En ik zeg nog, ik zeg "Mien,"
zeg ik, "dat zeg je nou wel, maar ik zou dat niet zeggen, zeg."
> Het helpt niet. Wanneer ze posten krijgen ze al dergelijke informatie
> voor hun neus. (Wil je dat echt? Wil je dat echt echt?) Het helpt niet.
Wat gebruikt de gemiddelde computerilliteraat als editor? WordPerfect.
Daar zal het wel door komen. De enige manier om WP te gebruiken is
blindelings op alle vragen Y te antwoorden. Probeer maar eens om WP uit
te komen:
Do you want to save the document (Y/N)? Y
Do you want to overwrite the old version (Y/N)? Y
Do you want to leave WordPerfect (Y/N)? Y
Do you want to leave WordPerfect even though it is Tuesday (Y/N) ? Y
What do you mean you want to leave WordPerfect even though
it is Tuesday. It is raining. Wouldn't you rather stay
inside and not get wet (Y/N)? Y
En dan hebben ze je dus, je komt er nooit meer uit.
> > 2) Vermijd (n-)dubbel citeren als de pest. Doe het alleen bij hoge
> > uitzondering, en dun een citaat met n>1 dan nog veel strenger uit dan
> > een normaal citaat.
> Wat is nu "dubbel citeren"?
Dit dus.
> Je bent aan het posten! Je kan niet kijken naar de online handleiding!
Er was een tijd dat handboekjes van papier waren. Maar ja, je moest
natuurlijk wel weten hoe een bladzijde om te slaan. Er transit een hoop
sic deze dagen.
----
Gerard "ik bedenk tenminste mijn eigen netvervuiling" Stafleu
C.Laffra
-MELD JE AAN-MELD JE AAN-MELD JE AAN-MELD JE AAN-MELD JE AAN-MELD JE AAN-
-MELD JE AAN-MELD JE AAN-MELD JE AAN-MELD JE AAN-MELD JE AAN-MELD JE AAN-
-MELD JE AAN-MELD JE AAN-MELD JE AAN-MELD JE AAN-MELD JE AAN-MELD JE AAN-
Stand (11 November 1992) Oostelijk US Internetfeest:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
5 December (st.klaas) 29 December (kerst) 9 Januari (schaatsen)
bij Leon en Chris bij Maarten bij Leon en Chris
---------------------------------------------------------------------
laf...@watson.ibm.com laf...@watson.ibm.com laf...@watson.ibm.com
st...@watson.ibm.com sier...@nynexst.com st...@watson.ibm.com
ni...@eta.pha.jhu.edu sier...@nynexst.com
TG...@PSUVM.PSU.EDU
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris en Leon wonen in Putnam Valley, in Putnam County, 1 a 1,5 uur ten
noorden van NY City. Ze wonen in een groot huis met veel slaapplaatsen, een
grote huiskamer, en direct aan een mooi (schaats-)meer.
Maarten woont in Poughkeepsie ("Klein Utrecht"), ongeveer 45 minuten ten
noorden van Putnam Valley. Maarten's "basement" is bijna af, zodat slapen
daar ook geen probleem is. Volgens Maarten is het vanaf zijn huis 1,5 uur
naar NY City, maar dat is wel wat optimistisch. Maarten rijdt wel wat harder
in zijn "amerikaanse bolide" dan de gemiddelde Hollandse immigrant.
Ik heb nog een aantal andere namen gezien, maar die mensen worden verzocht
direct contact met mij op te nemen. Bij alledrie de feesten geldt: Het is
op zaterdag, blijven slapen is ALTIJD mogelijk, zodat je zondag weer veilig
naar huis kunt. Maak je keuze bekend. Partners (indien voorradig) of
introducees zijn van harte welkom!
Bij voldoende belangstelling hebben we gewoon drie feesten :-).
-MELD JE AAN-MELD JE AAN-MELD JE AAN-MELD JE AAN-MELD JE AAN-MELD JE AAN-
-MELD JE AAN-MELD JE AAN-MELD JE AAN-MELD JE AAN-MELD JE AAN-MELD JE AAN-
-MELD JE AAN-MELD JE AAN-MELD JE AAN-MELD JE AAN-MELD JE AAN-MELD JE AAN-
-MELD JE AAN-MELD JE AAN-MELD JE AAN-MELD JE AAN-MELD JE AAN-MELD JE AAN-
Namens de feestcommissie,
Chris Laffra, laf...@watson.ibm.com
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Laffra Work: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
P.O.Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
Tel: (914) 784 7642 Fax: (914) 784 7455
Email: laf...@watson.ibm.com
Home: 16 Noswal Park
Putnam Valley, NY 10579
Tel: (914) 526 3753
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jimmy Malcolm Pierce
I guess I'll put my two cents worth in on this minor topic.
{ And yes, I do considor it minor. Bush needed to care more about
the recession in the US than something that happened 20 plus
years ago. }
I volunteered for duty in the US Navy even though I was against the
VietNam War. Here in the US, political disagreement is allowed by
the Constitution. I have no problem with Clinton trying to get out
of going to VietNam, other veterns don't like it. As for letting
other people die for him, I realized long ago that old politicians
declare war and the young die in battle. This is something that has gone
on for centuries and in most civilizations. My High School Graduating
Class doesn't hold class reunions as its too painful too look and see
all of those empty chairs. I was never sent to the Pacific Ocean by
the Navy. The destroyer I was on went to the Atlantic Ocean and the
Mediterranian Sea. Don't let politicians get you depressed.
{ Yes, I voted for Clinton. Trickle down economics means that the
taxes are lowered on the rich, they supposedly invest in the US
economics, and the poor find jobs. It didn't work. The US rich
invested in other countries. Bush also got in trouble over his
refusal to help solve problems at home. He would spend billions
overseas, and refuse to spend millions here in the US. Not the
way to get votes. He also refused to acknowledge that we were
having a recession. }
Perot was considered to be a 'song-and-dance-man.' In Texas, that
that means a politician or salesman who is all talk and no substance.
Sound-bites, and good looks have been a factor in US elections for
some decades now. Probably why Perot didn't get elected. He refused
to give sound bites.
In case anyone is wondering, I fulfilled my military obligations.
Which means I served for 6 years active duty and received an honorable
discharge under honorable conditions. { So you wouldn't think I was
a dodger along with my other faults... }
--
Jim Pierce Bach. of Sci. in Applied Computer Science USM - Gulf Park Campus
jmpi...@whale.st.usm.edu Disclaimer: Standard.
"Kill the Wabbit ! " Elmer Fudd.
Gilbert Man-Fai Lau
My friend is working on a marketing research in Europe. I will be
very appreciated if any of you can answer the following questions?
1. Does any chain-store like Blockbuster exists in Europe?
2. Do Europeans accept American idea and culture?
3. Do Europeans influenced by Americans?
4. How's the entertainment business in Europe compared to America?
5. How's laser disc selling in Europe? (little, moderate or great) If
possible, please give me some statistics?
6. How about video game rental business? Do European children like to play
video game as American children?
7. How often do you go to video stores or theaters in Europe?
Please reply to my email addr: gl...@cory.berkeley.edu
Thanks in advance!!
Gilbert
C.Laffra
|> Hi,
|> My friend is working on a marketing research in Europe. I will be
|> very appreciated if any of you can answer the following questions?
First of all: This newsgroup is NOT MEANT FOR PURSUING COMMERCIAL PURPOSES.
Second, I can not resist the temptation to reply anyway.....
|> 1. Does any chain-store like Blockbuster exists in Europe?
Maybe explain what Blockbuster is??? (answer is NO - (at least I hope so)).
|> 2. Do Europeans accept American idea and culture?
HA! HA! HA!
|> 3. Do Europeans influenced by Americans?
Unfortunately, they are!
|> 4. How's the entertainment business in Europe compared to America?
Oooh, much better!
|> 5. How's laser disc selling in Europe? (little, moderate or great) If
|> possible, please give me some statistics?
OEf, that's a tough one. A statistic? I'd say 10% of the users use them
for 90% of the time. Or was it the other way around?
|> 6. How about video game rental business? Do European children like to play
|> video game as American children?
No, they rather play as as Superman, or Batman.
|> 7. How often do you go to video stores or theaters in Europe?
Not enough, it's too far away....
|> Please reply to my email addr: gl...@cory.berkeley.edu
|> Thanks in advance!!
|> Gilbert
he.lekker.
Piet van Oostrum
AvdB> t...@research.nj.nec.com (Tim Van Der Avoird) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10...@uwovax.uwo.ca> ger...@uwovax.uwo.ca (Gerard Stafleu) writes:
>>>>>>Ik wil het niet over iemand in het bijzonder hebben, maar het begint nu
>>>>>>London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5B7
>>>>>>(519)661-2151
[lang verhaal weggelaten]
>Hier kan ik het alleen maar helemaal mee eens zijn...
>Tim
[...........]
AvdB> Ik ook
AvdB> Aswin
Ongelooflijk origineel deze laatste twee reakties. Ik neem aan dat we
allemaal dubbel gelegen hebben van het lachen.
--
Piet van Oostrum <pi...@cs.ruu.nl>
Karel Stokkermans
Ik dus niet. Een kans van -oneindig, zelfs bij benadering. Wat een onzin.
1/oneindig zul je bedoelen.
Karel
--
-- Karel Stokkermans, RISC-Linz, Schloss Hagenberg, Austria, Europa
-- email: ksto...@risc.uni-linz.ac.at
"O hoe vergeefs / des doelmans hand / zich strekte naar de bal [ 21-6-88, ]
die 'een minuut / voor tijd de Duitse / doellijn kruiste..." [ J. Deelder ]
Tim Van Der Avoird
>In article <1992Nov12.0...@watson.ibm.com> laf...@watson.ibm.com
>(C.Laffra) writes:
>>In article <1ds4vk...@aludra.usc.edu>, gilb...@aludra.usc.edu (Gilbert
> Man-Fai Lau) writes:
>>|> 1. Does any chain-store like Blockbuster exists in Europe?
>>Maybe explain what Blockbuster is??? (answer is NO - (at least I hope so)).
>
>`What a Difference it Makes!') is een keten van video verhuur zaken.
Heb ik het goed begrepen dat ons aller Philips een tijd terug
grootaandeelhouder is geworden in deze keten en dat na een paar jaar
bleek dat ze daarmee een geweldige kat in de zak gekocht hadden?
Ik geloof dat Philips het drama met de eerste beeldplaten (prachtige
kwaliteit, maar Philips bleek geen middelen/wegen te hebben om die
platen ook maar aan de straatstenen kwijt te raken) niet nog eens
wilde zien gebeuren en zich daarom maar inkocht in een grote
videoketen in de JNHS zodat ze in ieder geval een vinger in de pap
hadden.
Ik huur hier nooit een videootje (in Nederland trouwens ook niet, maar
daar heb ik de beschikking ook niet over een stuk of drie video's),
maar zie in het voorbijrijden weleens zo'n zaak van Blockbuster. Wat
is nu precies het probleem met die zaken dat ze zoveel verlies maken?
Groeten,
Rob Carriere
Man-Fai Lau) writes:
>|> 1. Does any chain-store like Blockbuster exists in Europe?
>Maybe explain what Blockbuster is??? (answer is NO - (at least I hope so)).
Ter culturele edificatie (?): Blockbuster Video (Koor in de achtergrond:
`What a Difference it Makes!') is een keten van video verhuur zaken.
SR
---