This post has nothing whatsoever to do with Lisp. If you have no
patience for off-topic posts, stop reading now.
I am posting this because c.l.l. has been more than just a newsgroup
for me. It has been a community. I feel like I know and am known by
many people here despite the fact that we have never met. Indeed, in
many cases we have no idea what we look like, or what nationality we
are.
I was born in what was at the time West Germany, and am now a
naturalized citizen of the United States. My country is about to go
to war, and I wanted this community and the world to know where I
stand.
Just about everything Geroge Bush has done since before he came to
office has made me ashamed to call myself an American. No President
has ever shown more contempt for the bedrock principle of Democracy,
which is that what other people think matters. George Bush has
repeatedly demonstrated (and even explicitly stated) that he doesn't
give a damn what anyone else thinks. He is a dictator who dons the
trappings of Democracy but does not embrace its substance. When he
launches his war against Iraq he will be in my mind little different
from Osama bin Laden. The next time terrorists strike the United
States it will no longer be true that we did nothing to deserve it.
The stupidity and tragedy of this situation boggles my mind. Yes,
Saddam Hussein is an evil man. Yes, the world will be better off
without him. But Saddam is hardly unique in this regard, and solving
this problem by starting a war sets a horrible precedent. What is to
stop any country from launching a war against anyone that they judge
to be evil?
Robert Bolt said it best in "A Man for all Seasons":
Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes, what would you do? Cut a great road through the law to
get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that.
More: Oh? And when the last law was down and the Devil turned round
on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? The
country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast - man's law, not
God's - and if you cut them down - and you're the man to do it - d'you
really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow
then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's
sake.
I stand with Thomas More on this occasion.
Thank you for your forbearance on this decidedly off-topic post. When
the bombs start to fly I wanted everyone to know that they do so
without the consent of this American.
OK, I've said my peace. You can come get me now, John Ashcroft. You
know where I live.
Erann Gat
On 19 Mar 2003, Erann Gat wrote:
> Thank you for your forbearance on this decidedly off-topic post. When
> the bombs start to fly I wanted everyone to know that they do so
> without the consent of this American.
Agree 100%. See my post later in this thread directing you to declassified
US documents online showing the US government's longtime support of the
"evil dictator" Saddam Hussein, as well as video of Rumsfeld meeting with
Saddam in 1983. Hope you're in touch with your local anti-war groups. If
not, write me and I'll get you info. My hope is that this is a short war
with few casualties, but in the worst case it could be quite bad for all
concerned, so don't feel that starting now is too late. There will be many
more wars to come.
> Erann Gat
* Nick Geovanis
| IT Computing Svcs
| Northwestern Univ
| ··········@nwu.edu
+------------------->
···@flownet.com (Erann Gat) writes:
> Just about everything Geroge Bush has done since before he came to
> office has made me ashamed to call myself an American. No President
> has ever shown more contempt for the bedrock principle of Democracy,
> which is that what other people think matters. George Bush has
> repeatedly demonstrated (and even explicitly stated) that he doesn't
> give a damn what anyone else thinks. He is a dictator who dons the
> trappings of Democracy but does not embrace its substance. When he
> launches his war against Iraq he will be in my mind little different
> from Osama bin Laden. The next time terrorists strike the United
> States it will no longer be true that we did nothing to deserve it.
As an American, I agree that the war is a bad idea. But I am not
really clear on the basis for your statements about dictatorship and
the `bedrock of democracy'.
Given the world climate, especially our deeply regrettable relations
with the Arab world, I think this is one of those times where we
should step aside and let the bad thing (Iraq sponsored terrorism)
happen if it is going to happen. I don't care too much what France
and Germany think on this particular subject. But if the Arab leaders
don't want it, or if they are unwilling to say publicly that they want
it, then I think we should refrain.
Nevertheless, we elect people to exercise their judgment, not to be
poll takers of public/world opinion. I don't have any reason to
believe that Bush is doing other than what he thinks is right. It
seems to me that he has *much* more to lose than to gain by doing
this. I would guess that he knows this himself. The last thing any
nation needs is a leader that doesn't act unless a comfortable global
majority will go along.
I don't think people are sufficiently sensible that we are lucky that
*anyone* is willing to be President or Secretary of State (or Prime
Minister, Chancellor, ...) It is a huge, burdensome, impossibly
complex endeavor in which almost anything you do is sure to anger some
faction at home or abroad. The complexity one faces guarantees plenty
of mistakes. Most of us would prove decidedly inadequate in these
roles. I wish more people would think about this before bringing
forth harsh criticism against leaders (American or otherwise).
Surely, Americans have done many shameful, stupid and mean things.
Unfortunately, its a safe bet that many shameful, stupid and mean
things are going on all the time all over the globe and in every
country. This is the condition of humanity, not a peculiar property
of American government. The only way I know of to improve things is
to polish my own plate of tarnished silver.
--
John Michael Adams
Nils Kassube <····@kassube.de> writes:
> http://www.poetsforthewar.org/poems/russel01.shtml
So we invade & depose (and likely assassinate) a soverign ruler,
dissolve his government, and then occupy the country for the next
decade because to keep some semblance of order we have to supress the
tribal/ethnic divisions that will certainly arise? Plus we want their
oil in reparation for the cost of going in- so we're not getting out
of there anytime soon anyway.
The average Iraqi will probably benefit from our political and
economic subsidy (and the investment of whatever blood we shed in the
process)- which is certainly better than what they have now & I'm all
in favor to helping them. I just wonder how we're going to pay for
it, both monetarily and strategically. Dubya doesn't seem to have
much of an idea much less a plan for those issues. What if some of
the Iraqi citizenry resent us for occupying their country & we start
having to kill people to keep afloat the government we sponsor? Or
more likely, the local security forces that we form & authorize will
do the killing and terrorizing.
Regardless, our invasion has never been about rectifying anything.
This time its a politically inspired war with only the vaguest
relationship to national security.
Gregm
Nils Kassube wrote:
> http://www.poetsforthewar.org/poems/russel01.shtml
Did the Iraqi people ask for Mr. Russell's "concern"?
Pascal
--
Pascal Costanza University of Bonn
···············@web.de Institute of Computer Science III
http://www.pascalcostanza.de R�merstr. 164, D-53117 Bonn (Germany)
Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> writes:
> Nils Kassube wrote:
> > http://www.poetsforthewar.org/poems/russel01.shtml
>
> Did the Iraqi people ask for Mr. Russell's "concern"?
That probably depends on whether you ask those who are still living in
Iraq under the watchful eyes of the dreaded secret police or some of
the refugees living elsewhere.
Regards,
--
Nils G�sche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
PGP key ID 0x0655CFA0
Nils Goesche wrote:
> Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> writes:
>
>
>>Nils Kassube wrote:
>
>
>>>http://www.poetsforthewar.org/poems/russel01.shtml
>>
>>Did the Iraqi people ask for Mr. Russell's "concern"?
>
>
> That probably depends on whether you ask those who are still living in
> Iraq under the watchful eyes of the dreaded secret police or some of
> the refugees living elsewhere.
Have you talked to some of those refugees? I haven't, but according to a
radio report I have heard today, at least some of those refugees are
strictly against the war.
I can't imagine that George W. has asked any of those concernced what
they want. It's obvious that he wanted the war from the very beginning,
and that he wasn't interested in peace in that region. His only interest
is to gain control over the oil fields. That's extremely disgusting!
Pascal
--
Pascal Costanza University of Bonn
···············@web.de Institute of Computer Science III
http://www.pascalcostanza.de R�merstr. 164, D-53117 Bonn (Germany)
Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> writes:
> Nils Goesche wrote:
> > Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> writes:
> >
> >>Nils Kassube wrote:
> >
> >>>http://www.poetsforthewar.org/poems/russel01.shtml
> >>
> >>Did the Iraqi people ask for Mr. Russell's "concern"?
> > That probably depends on whether you ask those who are still living
> > in
> > Iraq under the watchful eyes of the dreaded secret police or some of
> > the refugees living elsewhere.
>
> Have you talked to some of those refugees? I haven't, but according
> to a radio report I have heard today, at least some of those
> refugees are strictly against the war.
``At least some...��? Well, as there is a great lot of such refugees,
this is hardly surprising ;-)
> I can't imagine that George W. has asked any of those concernced
> what they want. It's obvious that he wanted the war from the very
> beginning, and that he wasn't interested in peace in that
> region. His only interest is to gain control over the oil
> fields. That's extremely disgusting!
*ROFL* Yeah, right. It's the oil fields.
Look, this ``for oil�� argument is so extremely ridiculous that it is
not even worth being discussed. Even our leftist government didn't
use it, probably because they feared it would make them look all too
stupid, even through our biased media. Just think about it for a
moment (which you should have done the first time you read it in,
what, the ``taz��?) and I'm sure you'll understand.
Hint: If they want oil, they'll buy it.
If you still don't get it, I'll make a little prophecy:
I claim the US are not going to annex any part of Iraq and they are
not going to declare any oil well in Iraq to be property of the US
government.
If you think I'm wrong, please say so. I'll happily quote you over
and over again, after the war :-)
Regards,
--
Nils G�sche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
PGP key ID 0x0655CFA0
On 19 Mar 2003, Nils Goesche wrote:
> Hint: If they want oil, they'll buy it.
Buying oil is not the issue. The issue is SELLING the oil. They would
like to sell it in order to acquire the profits. Oil is no good to you if
it stays underground.
> If you still don't get it, I'll make a little prophecy:
>
> I claim the US are not going to annex any part of Iraq and they are
> not going to declare any oil well in Iraq to be property of the US
> government.
Of course not, that isn't how America's upper-class does things. They will
install a government which gives American and British firms preferential
treatment and, more importantly, does NOT give French, German and Russian
firms the same treatment. They will also negotiate pricing agreements that
are favorable to US and British firms. This is precisely what was done in
Iran in 1953 when the Mossadegh government was overthrown and the Pahlevi
family installed as the new ruling dynasty.
> Nils G�sche
* Nick Geovanis
| IT Computing Svcs
| Northwestern Univ
| ··········@nwu.edu
+------------------->
Nicholas Geovanis <·······@merle.it.northwestern.edu> writes:
> On 19 Mar 2003, Nils Goesche wrote:
>
> > Hint: If they want oil, they'll buy it.
>
> Buying oil is not the issue. The issue is SELLING the oil. They
> would like to sell it in order to acquire the profits. Oil is
> no good to you if it stays underground.
Oh yeah. How could I forget.
> > If you still don't get it, I'll make a little prophecy:
> >
> > I claim the US are not going to annex any part of Iraq and
> > they are not going to declare any oil well in Iraq to be
> > property of the US government.
>
> Of course not, that isn't how America's upper-class does
> things.
Only that the party that is usually favored by the upper-class in
America doesn't rule the White House right now.
> They will install a government which gives American and British
> firms preferential treatment and, more importantly, does NOT
> give French, German and Russian firms the same treatment. They
> will also negotiate pricing agreements that are favorable to US
> and British firms.
Ok. Let's just assume for a moment that no such thing is going
to happen. Will you change any of your opinions then? Don't
answer -- Maybe I'll ask you again after the war ;-)
Regards,
--
Nils G�sche
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
PGP key ID #xD26EF2A0
Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> writes:
> Only that the party that is usually favored by the upper-class in
> America doesn't rule the White House right now.
I see you don't understand how America's two party system works. You
see, The two parties create enough of an illusion of opposition to
keep the general voting populace interested. The truth of the matter
is that they both know the worst possible thing that could happen is
the emergence of a strong third party.
And by the way the Republican Party tends to favor the rich.
> > They will install a government which gives American and British
> > firms preferential treatment and, more importantly, does NOT
> > give French, German and Russian firms the same treatment. They
> > will also negotiate pricing agreements that are favorable to US
> > and British firms.
>
> Ok. Let's just assume for a moment that no such thing is going
> to happen. Will you change any of your opinions then? Don't
> answer -- Maybe I'll ask you again after the war ;-)
No most likely Iraq will become much like Algeria, the Balkan states,
Chile, Venezuela, and Afghanistan "Instant Democracy".
On 20 Mar 2003, Nils Goesche wrote:
> Nicholas Geovanis <·······@merle.it.northwestern.edu> writes:
> >
> > Of course not, that isn't how America's upper-class does
> > things.
>
> Only that the party that is usually favored by the upper-class in
> America doesn't rule the White House right now.
There is only one political party in America, the Rich Persons' Party.
It has two factions, one called the Democratic Party, one called the
Republican Party. While it's true that America's rich fund the Republican
Party much more heavily than the other faction, nevertheless, the rich
contribute to both.
While the party names have changed over the years, this overall situation
has remained constant since 1787. Of course there were no "official"
political parties in America until Jefferson's administration.
> Nils G�sche
* Nick Geovanis
| IT Computing Svcs
| Northwestern Univ
| ··········@nwu.edu
+------------------->
Nicholas Geovanis <·······@merle.it.northwestern.edu> writes:
> There is only one political party in America, the Rich Persons' Party.
> It has two factions, one called the Democratic Party, one called the
> Republican Party. While it's true that America's rich fund the Republican
> Party much more heavily than the other faction, nevertheless, the rich
> contribute to both.
[I don't know what this has to do with Lisp or even war, but with war
breaking out in the world, I suppose few forums are devoid of
discussing politics, so I guess I'll indulge it for a moment, too,
since it seems so civilized...]
People often cite the two-party system in the US as a strength of its system.
I always say "no, it's not the having of two parties", it's the having
of unprincipled parties.
The problem with some other countries that have lots of parties isn't
that they have a lot, but rather that each party is identified in a
principled way. If you have a party of "coal workers" and a party of
"sun worshipers", no one is going to change parties (except in the
rare situation that they intersect both party names, which probably
happens even less when parties are all religion names or social
classes). So mostly no one who is running for office in any of those
parties needs to listen to what people OUTSIDE the party wants, since
they're just not going to attract those people no matter what.
But if there's a risk that people WILL change parties--that is, if
each party is just an amorphous mass of people (divided not by
principle but by chance, history, and other "noise" effects) with
various degress of inertia who float back and forth between the
parties depending on who is saying the most rational thing, or if even
only the so-called swing voters do this, then the people running have
to moderate in order to attract the middle, which implements (in
clumsy form) a requirement that each party care about what the other
wants. And that means the overall system will tend toward the middle
instead of to the extreme, which is overall probably better for more
people.
Or so it seems to me.
Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
> [..] And that means the overall system will tend toward the middle
> instead of to the extreme, which is overall probably better for more
> people.
One problem with this is that wherever the system drifts, will almost
by definition be "the middle". Granted, it's always difficult to
position "the left", "the right", and "the middle" on an absolute
scale, but in this context it's complicated further by there being (I
believe) self-amplifying feedback loops wrt. what the population
percieves as "the middle".
--
Frode Vatvedt Fjeld
I think I'd tend to agree, at least with the points that the two
parties are largely unprincipled, and that this represents a form of
strength.
When I lived in Texas, a buddy who was actually a
multigenerational-native Texan had some really interesting comments to
this effect.
30-odd years ago, Texas was loyal "Democrat territory," to the point
to which they produced LBJ as president. Apparently, people back then
couldn't imagine voting Republican. Things have obviously changed
quite a bit.
And his point was that this was part of how the two parties work,
namely that every 30-odd years or so, they reconstruct themselves to
conform with American societal tendancies.
In the most recent 30 years, the Democrats have headed towards support
of/by "special interests" vis-a-vis such notable social policy groups
as blacks, feminists, and homosexuals, with a goodly load of
"pro-pro-choice" as well. People associated with those particular
interests couldn't /imagine/ voting Republican, and people on the
other sides of those issues are the folks that were appalled that
Clinton had a second term, and couldn't /imagine/ voting Democrat.
That's the present characteristic ways that the parties vary, and
that's /not/ the way they were 30 years ago. It doubtless won't be
the way they vary 30 years down the road, and many people currently
appalled at the Republicans will probably be appalled at the Democrats
then, and vice-versa.
The ability of the parties to "morph" has allow them to survive when
parties that are inherently tied to a particular political policy will
naturally become obsolete when people move past that particular
policy.
A party created to oppose Fidel Castro in Cuba would naturally become
obsolete as soon as conditions change. A party that depends solely on
how trade unions operate will become obsolete when the nature of labor
relations changes, particularly when manufacturing jobs get to cross
national borders.
Republicans and Democrats will likely continue to be relevant in 50
years because they are "not tied to principle" the way special
interest parties are.
--
If this was helpful, <http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=cbbrowne> rate me
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/spiritual.html
How come you don't ever hear about gruntled employees?
Nicholas Geovanis <·······@merle.it.northwestern.edu> writes:
> On 20 Mar 2003, Nils Goesche wrote:
>
> > Nicholas Geovanis <·······@merle.it.northwestern.edu> writes:
> > > Of course not, that isn't how America's upper-class does things.
> > Only that the party that is usually favored by the upper-class in
> > America doesn't rule the White House right now.
> There is only one political party in America, the Rich Persons'
> Party. It has two factions, one called the Democratic Party, one
> called the Republican Party. While it's true that America's rich
> fund the Republican Party much more heavily than the other faction
...
No, this is precisely what's /not/ true: It is the other way around,
as you can easily check if you have a look at the campaign
contributions to each party.
Regards,
--
Nils G�sche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
PGP key ID 0x0655CFA0
Nicholas Geovanis <·······@merle.it.northwestern.edu> writes:
> On 20 Mar 2003, Nils Goesche wrote:
>
> There is only one political party in America, the Rich Persons' Party.
> It has two factions, one called the Democratic Party, one called the
> Republican Party. While it's true that America's rich fund the Republican
> Party much more heavily than the other faction, nevertheless, the rich
> contribute to both.
>
> While the party names have changed over the years, this overall situation
> has remained constant since 1787. Of course there were no "official"
> political parties in America until Jefferson's administration.
>
This is why I think an authoritarian government is so short sighted,
over here in the US they have it all figured out. Create the illusion
that voters actually have a choice. Give them just enough optimism at
times to appease them, and they generally won't pay any attention to
what you do. Oh yes, i can't forget that taking control of the
commercial media strengthens everything.
"Nils Goesche" <······@cartan.de> wrote in message ···················@cartan.de...
> Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> writes:
> *ROFL* Yeah, right. It's the oil fields.
>
> Look, this ``for oil�� argument is so extremely ridiculous that it is
> not even worth being discussed. Even our leftist government didn't
> use it, probably because they feared it would make them look all too
> stupid, even through our biased media. Just think about it for a
> moment (which you should have done the first time you read it in,
> what, the ``taz��?) and I'm sure you'll understand.
>
> Hint: If they want oil, they'll buy it.
I actually heard a plausible reason for it being partially about oil. A
strong right-winger here in Canada said that we should get control
of Iraqi oil because then we can really put the screws to Saudi Arabia.
Get control of the oil so the problem of Saudi Arabia can be dealt with
without throwing the world into a temporary oil crisis. After all the
vast source of terrorists involved in 9/11 were Saudi's, right? And,
I assume the US is thinking down the road.
Wade
"Wade Humeniuk" <····@nospam.nowhere> writes:
> "Nils Goesche" <······@cartan.de> wrote in message ···················@cartan.de...
> > Hint: If they want oil, they'll buy it.
> I actually heard a plausible reason for it being partially about
> oil. A strong right-winger here in Canada said that we should get
> control of Iraqi oil because then we can really put the screws to
> Saudi Arabia. Get control of the oil so the problem of Saudi Arabia
> can be dealt with without throwing the world into a temporary oil
> crisis. After all the vast source of terrorists involved in 9/11
> were Saudi's, right? And, I assume the US is thinking down the
> road.
IMHO this only shows that the typical ``strong right winger�� is
actually a similar kind of paranoid lunatic as the strong left
winger :-)
Regards,
--
Nils G�sche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
PGP key ID 0x0655CFA0
Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> writes:
> Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> writes:
> > I can't imagine that George W. has asked any of those concernced
> > what they want. It's obvious that he wanted the war from the very
> > beginning, and that he wasn't interested in peace in that
> > region. His only interest is to gain control over the oil
> > fields. That's extremely disgusting!
>
> *ROFL* Yeah, right. It's the oil fields.
>
> Look, this ``for oil�� argument is so extremely ridiculous that it is
> not even worth being discussed. Even our leftist government didn't
> use it, probably because they feared it would make them look all too
> stupid, even through our biased media. Just think about it for a
> moment (which you should have done the first time you read it in,
> what, the ``taz��?) and I'm sure you'll understand.
>
> Hint: If they want oil, they'll buy it.
Yes and no. I don't think this argument is all that ridiculous. Does
OPEC ring a bell?
If the Americans help to establish a government in Iraq that does not
respect OPEC quotas then oil price will be down by a significant
factor, probably for a long time. I think that is one of the
objectives.
It is possible for the american government to impose an ideological
framework that would have as a consequence a "free trade" approach to
this resource.
It is not necessary to claim oil fields as "american property" (how
primitive) to actually control them in a weak sense, as a
mathematician might say.
I hope the best for the Iraqui people. Overthrowing Saddam is
something that should have been done in '91.
Mario.
Mario S. Mommer wrote:
>
> If the Americans help to establish a government in Iraq that does not
> respect OPEC quotas then oil price will be down by a significant
> factor, probably for a long time. I think that is one of the
> objectives.
Of course, even OPEC members have a very poor record of following OPEC
quotas.
> It is possible for the american government to impose an ideological
> framework that would have as a consequence a "free trade" approach to
> this resource.
>
> It is not necessary to claim oil fields as "american property" (how
> primitive) to actually control them in a weak sense, as a
> mathematician might say.
>
> I hope the best for the Iraqui people. Overthrowing Saddam is
> something that should have been done in '91.
Yes. At the time I was afraid that by our inaction (beyond freeing
Kuwait), we were just postponing things by a decade or so.
--Larry
Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> writes:
> Look, this ``for oil�� argument is so extremely ridiculous that it is
> not even worth being discussed. Even our leftist government didn't
> use it, probably because they feared it would make them look all too
> stupid, even through our biased media. Just think about it for a
> moment (which you should have done the first time you read it in,
> what, the ``taz��?) and I'm sure you'll understand.
Let me ask you this, if it's not for oil, what is it for ?
I'd really like to know if you actually believe the crap coming out
George Bush's mouth. If you do I guess the American Media propaganda
is much more far reaching than I thougt
> I claim the US are not going to annex any part of Iraq and they are
> not going to declare any oil well in Iraq to be property of the US
> government.
Wow you could claim that pigs will never fly and you'd be making more
of a bold statement. You obvoisly don't know how the American
Businessmen, I mean politicians work.
Anthony Ventimiglia <···@mongrel.dogpound> writes:
> Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> writes:
>
> > Look, this ``for oil�� argument is so extremely ridiculous
> > that it is not even worth being discussed.
> Let me ask you this, if it's not for oil, what is it for ? I'd
> really like to know if you actually believe the crap coming out
> George Bush's mouth. If you do I guess the American Media
> propaganda is much more far reaching than I thougt
In a way, it is: Our media unfortunately shows the same leftist
bias as yours.
> > I claim the US are not going to annex any part of Iraq and
> > they are not going to declare any oil well in Iraq to be
> > property of the US government.
>
> Wow you could claim that pigs will never fly and you'd be
> making more of a bold statement. You obvoisly don't know how
> the American Businessmen, I mean politicians work.
I know pretty well, however, how the leftist mind works, as I
have been studying it for decades. I could write a much better
leftist tirade than that myself, if I wanted to.
Your grade: C-
To improve, you should mention at least once each of the words
``imperialism��, ``military-industrial complex��, ``dialectics��
and ``proletariat��, for a start. And it wouldn't really be
complete until you call me an ``evil, fascist, anti-communist,
counter-revolutionary, mindless puppet of the international
monopoly capital�� or something like that.
Regards,
--
Nils G�sche
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
PGP key ID #xD26EF2A0
Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> writes:
> Anthony Ventimiglia <···@mongrel.dogpound> writes:
> > Let me ask you this, if it's not for oil, what is it for ? I'd
> > really like to know if you actually believe the crap coming out
> > George Bush's mouth. If you do I guess the American Media
> > propaganda is much more far reaching than I thougt
>
> In a way, it is: Our media unfortunately shows the same leftist
> bias as yours.
No once again the current state of our media is so right wing it
scares the hell out of me. With exception to the New York Times, and a
handful of non-commercial radio stations, it's impossible to actually
hear more than a mention of a dissenting opinion in the mass Media.
I think there are two major reasons for this:
1. Most of America has 3 full time 24 hour News Channels, here in the
New York Area we have 7 other major stations that have at least 4
to 6 hours of news a day. I think the people who work there are so
scared of saying, or doing anything controversial for the simple
reason that they can be replaced in a moments notice.
2. Once again the American Psyche post September eleventh. The general
feeling perpetrated by the mass media is that any form of
dissenting opinion is Anti-American, non-patriotic, and possibly
subversive. For people like me the real fear is not terrorism, but
impending loss of Liberty. Some of the things going on here are
almost Orwellian.
> > > I claim the US are not going to annex any part of Iraq and
> > > they are not going to declare any oil well in Iraq to be
> > > property of the US government.
> >
> > Wow you could claim that pigs will never fly and you'd be
> > making more of a bold statement. You obvoisly don't know how
> > the American Businessmen, I mean politicians work.
>
> I know pretty well, however, how the leftist mind works, as I
> have been studying it for decades. I could write a much better
> leftist tirade than that myself, if I wanted to.
>
Placing labels on people gets you a C.
Placing labels on people after you've only heard their opinion on a
single topic gets you an F.
> Your grade: C-
>
> To improve, you should mention at least once each of the words
> ``imperialism��, ``military-industrial complex��, ``dialectics��
> and ``proletariat��, for a start. And it wouldn't really be
> complete until you call me an ``evil, fascist, anti-communist,
> counter-revolutionary, mindless puppet of the international
> monopoly capital�� or something like that.
I bet you'd like that, but see the above, I don't go jumping to
conclusions about people I don't know, nor do I take it personally
when their opinion is different than mine.
It would be a boring place if everyone thought the same way as me.
Anthony Ventimiglia wrote:
>
>
> No once again the current state of our media is so right wing it
> scares the hell out of me. With exception to the New York Times, and a
> handful of non-commercial radio stations, it's impossible to actually
> hear more than a mention of a dissenting opinion in the mass Media.
What color is the sky in *your* world?
Larry Elmore <·······@attbi.com> writes:
> Anthony Ventimiglia wrote:
>
> > No once again the current state of our media is so right wing it
> > scares the hell out of me. With exception to the New York Times, and a
> > handful of non-commercial radio stations, it's impossible to actually
> > hear more than a mention of a dissenting opinion in the mass Media.
>
> What color is the sky in *your* world?
Blue, smetimes gray, and sometimes it has a reddish tint.
Your point is ?
Anthony Ventimiglia wrote:
> Larry Elmore <·······@attbi.com> writes:
>
>
>>Anthony Ventimiglia wrote:
>>
>>
>>>No once again the current state of our media is so right wing it
>>>scares the hell out of me. With exception to the New York Times, and a
>>>handful of non-commercial radio stations, it's impossible to actually
>>>hear more than a mention of a dissenting opinion in the mass Media.
>>
>>What color is the sky in *your* world?
>
>
> Blue, smetimes gray, and sometimes it has a reddish tint.
>
> Your point is ?
I was just wondering. You seemed to be from a different dimension. I was
wondering if it was a pretty pastel yellow with green polka-dots or
something. I thought you could send me some photographs. :D
--Larry
Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> wrote in message news:<··············@cartan.de>...
[snip]
> *ROFL* Yeah, right. It's the oil fields.
>
> Look, this ``for oil�� argument is so extremely ridiculous that it is
> not even worth being discussed.
Ridiculous? Just look at all the 30+ liter per 100km, 1000+
horsepowers monsters disguised as cars that were presented this time
at Detroit Motor Show.
Cheap oil is already in business plans.
--
Eugene
"Nils Goesche" <······@cartan.de> wrote in message
···················@cartan.de...
> *ROFL* Yeah, right. It's the oil fields.
>
> Look, this ``for oil�� argument is so extremely ridiculous that it is
> not even worth being discussed. Even our leftist government didn't
> use it, probably because they feared it would make them look all too
> stupid, even through our biased media. Just think about it for a
> moment (which you should have done the first time you read it in,
> what, the ``taz��?) and I'm sure you'll understand.
>
> Hint: If they want oil, they'll buy it.
Money does not grow on trees, it circulates. But of course they'll buy it,
the cheaper the better.
> If you still don't get it, I'll make a little prophecy:
>
> I claim the US are not going to annex any part of Iraq and they are
> not going to declare any oil well in Iraq to be property of the US
> government.
>
> If you think I'm wrong, please say so. I'll happily quote you over
> and over again, after the war :-)
You are right. Very few modern governments are that primitive in their
political economics. You are representing a very naive view if you think
that is how world trade works.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
"Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca> writes:
> "Nils Goesche" <······@cartan.de> wrote in message
> ···················@cartan.de...
> > If you still don't get it, I'll make a little prophecy:
> >
> > I claim the US are not going to annex any part of Iraq and they
> > are not going to declare any oil well in Iraq to be property of
> > the US government.
> >
> > If you think I'm wrong, please say so. I'll happily quote you over
> > and over again, after the war :-)
> You are right. Very few modern governments are that primitive in
> their political economics. You are representing a very naive view
> if you think that is how world trade works.
Ah. Sorry, I guess I'll have to dig out my Marcuse and Frantz Fanon
books and fresh up my knowledge a bit. Because just looking at the
world tends to make me so naiive over time.
Regards,
--
Nils G�sche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
PGP key ID 0x0655CFA0
Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> writes:
> Hint: If they want oil, they'll buy it.
>
> If you still don't get it, I'll make a little prophecy:
>
> I claim the US are not going to annex any part of Iraq and they are
> not going to declare any oil well in Iraq to be property of the US
> government.
>
> If you think I'm wrong, please say so. I'll happily quote you over
> and over again, after the war :-)
Yes I'm also sure that they won't annex any part of Iraq.
But I will also make a claim: it will be american oil companies that
will get the exploitation rights to the iraqi oil. And it will be a
good deal for them.
'Andreas
--
Wherever I lay my .emacs, there�s my $HOME.
Andreas Eder wrote:
> Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> writes:
>
> Yes I'm also sure that they won't annex any part of Iraq.
> But I will also make a claim: it will be american oil companies that
> will get the exploitation rights to the iraqi oil. And it will be a
> good deal for them.
Like the really sweet deals they signed with the French and Russians to
develop those fields at enormous discounts? I suspect France and
Russia's opposition has everything to do with oil and future arms sales.
I don't care who ends up developing the oil, just so long as the French,
Russians, Germans, Chinese and Turks are locked out.
Larry Elmore <·······@attbi.com> writes:
>
> Like the really sweet deals they signed with the French and Russians
> to develop those fields at enormous discounts? I suspect France and
> Russia's opposition has everything to do with oil and future arms
> sales. I don't care who ends up developing the oil, just so long as
> the French, Russians, Germans, Chinese and Turks are locked out.
Are you sort of a stupid nazi person? Or you just unable to stand when
someone other but not you has any discounts? And probably you think this
is a very good reason for killing people?
Aleksandr Skobelev wrote:
> Larry Elmore <·······@attbi.com> writes:
>
>
>>Like the really sweet deals they signed with the French and Russians
>>to develop those fields at enormous discounts? I suspect France and
>>Russia's opposition has everything to do with oil and future arms
>>sales. I don't care who ends up developing the oil, just so long as
>>the French, Russians, Germans, Chinese and Turks are locked out.
>
>
> Are you sort of a stupid nazi person? Or you just unable to stand when
> someone other but not you has any discounts? And probably you think this
> is a very good reason for killing people?
>
WTF???
Well, that didn't take long. Godwin's Law is in effect.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/
From the FAQ:
" As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. "
"Aleksandr Skobelev" <···········@list.ru> wrote in message
···················@machine.athome...
> Larry Elmore <·······@attbi.com> writes:
> Are you sort of a stupid nazi person? Or you just unable to stand when
> someone other but not you has any discounts? And probably you think this
> is a very good reason for killing people?
>
Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> writes:
> It's obvious that he [George Bush] wanted the war from the very
> beginning, and that he wasn't interested in peace in that region.
> His only interest is to gain control over the oil fields. That's
> extremely disgusting!
Sure we want to establish a stranglehold on Persian Gulf oil, that
goes without question. But this is just the first step in our
imperialist strategy for realizing world dominance. If we can set up
a puppet government to control the flow of Iraqi oil, then we can
control the economies of China, Russia, and the EU and create a US
economic hegemony for the benefit of our military-industrial complex.
Of course the *real* reason is to distract the American public from
domestic issues such as high unemployment and a faltering economy.
The Bush administration is facing re-election next year. Without a
highly visible success to garner public approval, even the government
controlled `free' media will be unable to persuade the unquestioning
masses that the democratic process has not been hijacked by thugs and
criminals.
But wait, I forgot the right-wing Zionist-Christian mafia's conspiracy
to humiliate and destroy Islam.
* Joe Marshall wrote:
> But wait, I forgot the right-wing Zionist-Christian mafia's conspiracy
> to humiliate and destroy Islam.
That's as opposed to the right-wing islamic mafia's conspiracy to
humiliate and destroy the Zionists, and the middle-of-the-road
fundamentalist christian islamists' conspiracy to humiliate and
destroy the vegan mafia, right? I can never keep these conspiracies
straight.
···@flownet.com (Erann Gat) writes:
> Just about everything Geroge Bush has done since before he came to
> office has made me ashamed to call myself an American. No President
> has ever shown more contempt for the bedrock principle of Democracy,
> which is that what other people think matters. George Bush has
> repeatedly demonstrated (and even explicitly stated) that he doesn't
> give a damn what anyone else thinks. He is a dictator who dons the
> trappings of Democracy but does not embrace its substance. When he
> launches his war against Iraq he will be in my mind little different
> from Osama bin Laden. The next time terrorists strike the United
> States it will no longer be true that we did nothing to deserve it.
Oh /come on/! The senate voted 77-23, the House 296-133 to authorize
the president to attack Iraq. This means that even most of the
Democrats voted for it. You can hardly call it dictatorial behavior
if the president does what he has been authorized to do by the
democratic institutions.
> The stupidity and tragedy of this situation boggles my mind. Yes,
> Saddam Hussein is an evil man. Yes, the world will be better off
> without him. But Saddam is hardly unique in this regard, and
> solving this problem by starting a war sets a horrible precedent.
I find this ``Saddam is not the only bad guy�� argument very strange.
So, would it be ok with you if the US attacked all the other bad guys,
too?
> What is to stop any country from launching a war against anyone that
> they judge to be evil?
As has always been the case for the last few millennia: Nothing but
military force. There are several countries in the world that judge
not only the US but /every/ civilized Western country to be evil. And
that would attack us the very first minute they think they can do it
without being destroyed. No, this isn't nice, but when has the world
ever been a nice place?
Also, I reject this kind of relativism. ``We say they're evil, they
say we're evil, so who is to say?��. I read a nice analogy somewhere
a while ago: This is as if you were saying that the guy who pushes an
old lady away from an approaching bus is morally equivalent to the guy
who pushes the lady /before/ the bus because both are doing the same
thing: Both of them are pushing old ladies around! ;-)
> Robert Bolt said it best in "A Man for all Seasons":
[snip nice little story]
> Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
>
> I stand with Thomas More on this occasion.
So do I, incidentally. The ``Rule of Law�� is an important principle.
However I don't think that it applies here. We are not living in one
established law system; the UN are /not/ the government of the world,
and I wouldn't want them to be, either, at least for the time being,
where most of the governments in the world don't give a /damn/ about
Western values, freedom and democracy. For many decades doing
anything sensible with UN approval has been pretty much impossible
because of the Soviet ``Nyet!��. The Korean war was one of the few
exceptions -- the Soviets were boycotting the Security Council at the
time and weren't there to give their veto :-) World isn't ripe for
this kind of world-government yet. Heck, not even the Europeans can
make up their mind whether they are for or against the war.
> Thank you for your forbearance on this decidedly off-topic post.
> When the bombs start to fly I wanted everyone to know that they do
> so without the consent of this American.
>
> OK, I've said my peace. You can come get me now, John Ashcroft.
> You know where I live.
A bit paranoid, aren't we? ;-)
Regards,
--
Nils G�sche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
PGP key ID 0x0655CFA0
In article <··············@cartan.de>, Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> wrote:
> ···@flownet.com (Erann Gat) writes:
>
> > Just about everything Geroge Bush has done since before he came to
> > office has made me ashamed to call myself an American. No President
> > has ever shown more contempt for the bedrock principle of Democracy,
> > which is that what other people think matters. George Bush has
> > repeatedly demonstrated (and even explicitly stated) that he doesn't
> > give a damn what anyone else thinks. He is a dictator who dons the
> > trappings of Democracy but does not embrace its substance. When he
> > launches his war against Iraq he will be in my mind little different
> > from Osama bin Laden. The next time terrorists strike the United
> > States it will no longer be true that we did nothing to deserve it.
>
> Oh /come on/! The senate voted 77-23, the House 296-133 to authorize
> the president to attack Iraq. This means that even most of the
> Democrats voted for it. You can hardly call it dictatorial behavior
> if the president does what he has been authorized to do by the
> democratic institutions.
Like I said, he dons the trappings of democracy when they suit him. Then
he discards then when they do not. He invokes the authority of UN
resolution 1441 as justification for war *now* despite the fact that it is
clear that the Security Council does *not* support war *now*.
One can only speculate what Bush might have done had Congress and the UN
not voted his way, but we can abserve his behavior in other cases where
democratic instutions have opposed him. For example, he has used the
power of the Federal government to nullify voter-approved initiatives in
Oregon (doctor-assisted suicide) and California (medical marijuana). He
has fought for the power to detain people indefinitely without trial or
access to counsel if they are "enemy combatants", but he gets to decide
who is and is not an enemy combatant. Clearer cases of contempt for
democracy I cannot imagine. He may not be a dictator in fact (yet), but
it is pretty clear to me that he has dictatorial aspirations.
> > The stupidity and tragedy of this situation boggles my mind. Yes,
> > Saddam Hussein is an evil man. Yes, the world will be better off
> > without him. But Saddam is hardly unique in this regard, and
> > solving this problem by starting a war sets a horrible precedent.
>
> I find this ``Saddam is not the only bad guy�� argument very strange.
> So, would it be ok with you if the US attacked all the other bad guys,
> too?
No. The point is this: if we're going to attaack Saddam because he's a
bad guy then we are hypocrites if we do not also attack all the other bad
guys. Attacking all the other bad guys is clearly a bad idea -- because
we would lose, and because we would get caught up in the tangle of
confusion trying to decide who "all the other bad guys" are.
That is really the point. It is clear to *me* that Saddam is a bad guy
and ought to be gotten rid of. And it is clear to Gearge Bush. But it is
not clear to a lot of other people in the world (including many Iraqis)
and (and this is the salient point) I believe THEIR OPINION MATTERS.
George Bush does not (and has said so explicitly).
I would actually like to see us go to war against Iraq and get rid of
Saddam. But only with the rest of the world behind us, as they were in
1991. Not like this.
> > What is to stop any country from launching a war against anyone that
> > they judge to be evil?
>
> As has always been the case for the last few millennia: Nothing but
> military force.
Yes, that is alas what we are reverting to. The whole point of the U.N.
was to get away from that "might makes right" philosophy that lead to all
the bloody wars of the 20th century. That is why I oppose this war. It
is not for lack of compassion for the Iraqi people. It is not for lack of
desire to see Saddam go. It is for the belief that we must adhere to
*principle*, because if we do not then we are indeed back to "might makes
right." Today we are the mighty ones. But great powers rise and great
powers fall. What will protect us when we are no longer the mighty ones?
> There are several countries in the world that judge
> not only the US but /every/ civilized Western country to be evil. And
> that would attack us the very first minute they think they can do it
> without being destroyed.
Yes, and why shouldn't they, when they see us doing exactly the same
thing? Why should they not follow our example?
> No, this isn't nice, but when has the world
> ever been a nice place?
Never. That is no excuse not to try to make is a nicer place.
> Also, I reject this kind of relativism. ``We say they're evil, they
> say we're evil, so who is to say?��.
That is not my brand of relativism. My brand of relativism is: we're all
a mix of good and evil. Saddam is pretty clearly towards one extreme, but
even he has done some good things for Iraq. Bush is pretty clearly
towards the other extreme, and I think in his heart of hearts his
intentions are good. But intentions don't matter -- results do. And I
believe that there is a significant danger that the results of our actions
will bring more evil than good in the long term.
> I read a nice analogy somewhere
> a while ago: This is as if you were saying that the guy who pushes an
> old lady away from an approaching bus is morally equivalent to the guy
> who pushes the lady /before/ the bus because both are doing the same
> thing: Both of them are pushing old ladies around! ;-)
No, because the resuls are what matter. A better example is giving
someone poison. Under certain circumstances that can be a compassionate
thing to do. For example, if they have cancer and the poison you give
them is a chemotherapy drug. Good and evil are not absolutes. There are
many shades of grey, and they are all colored by circumstance.
> > Robert Bolt said it best in "A Man for all Seasons":
>
> [snip nice little story]
>
> > Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
> >
> > I stand with Thomas More on this occasion.
>
> So do I, incidentally. The ``Rule of Law�� is an important principle.
> However I don't think that it applies here. We are not living in one
> established law system; the UN are /not/ the government of the world,
I agree. The "law" that is at work here is contract law, and the law of
honor. If we expect others to play by the rules then we must play by the
rules, even if the outcome of playing by the rules is not what we would
like it to be. It is hypocracy to hold up U.N. resolution 1441 as
justification for going to war, while at the same time ignoring the clear
message from the U.N. that the time for war has not yet come.
Hypocracy is the greatest evil, because once you yield to it you can
justify anything.
> > OK, I've said my peace. You can come get me now, John Ashcroft.
> > You know where I live.
>
> A bit paranoid, aren't we? ;-)
Perhaps. My grandparents lost most of their childhood friends in Nazi
concentration camps. The lesson of that experience is that it is
important to stand up to tyranny before it becomes apparent that it is
tyranny. Otherwise it may be too late.
E.
···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
> In article <··············@cartan.de>, Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> wrote:
>
> > ···@flownet.com (Erann Gat) writes:
> > > George Bush has repeatedly demonstrated (and even
> > > explicitly stated) that he doesn't give a damn what anyone
> > > else thinks. He is a dictator who dons the trappings of
> > > Democracy but does not embrace its substance.
> > Oh /come on/! The senate voted 77-23, the House 296-133 to
> > authorize the president to attack Iraq.
> For example, he has used the power of the Federal government to
> nullify voter-approved initiatives in Oregon (doctor-assisted
> suicide) and California (medical marijuana). He has fought for
> the power to detain people indefinitely without trial or access
> to counsel if they are "enemy combatants", but he gets to
> decide who is and is not an enemy combatant. Clearer cases of
> contempt for democracy I cannot imagine. He may not be a
> dictator in fact (yet), but it is pretty clear to me that he
> has dictatorial aspirations.
Needless to say, I can't see any such aspirations, but I think
you haven't really understood how our democracies work. If the
president did anything against the rules, it is a safe bet that
the Democrats would already be calling the Supreme Court and it
will set things straight, as it did many times before in its
history. If this doesn't happen, that means that he played by
the rules and then you can't call him a dictator just because you
disagree with his measures. It would be a very, very long list
if I began to talk about all the actions of the German government
which I think are absolutely wrong, dangerous and making things
worse. But that doesn't give me any right to call our chancellor
a dictator, no matter how much I hate his guts.
> > > Yes, Saddam Hussein is an evil man. Yes, the world will be
> > > better off without him. But Saddam is hardly unique in
> > > this regard, and solving this problem by starting a war
> > > sets a horrible precedent.
> >
> > I find this ``Saddam is not the only bad guy�� argument very
> > strange. So, would it be ok with you if the US attacked all
> > the other bad guys, too?
>
> No. The point is this: if we're going to attaack Saddam
> because he's a bad guy then we are hypocrites if we do not also
> attack all the other bad guys.
That doesn't follow at all. Neither the US nor anyone else have
any /obligation/ to free /any/ country by military force. And
when they do it anyway in one or more cases, this is still better
than nothing at all.
> That is really the point. It is clear to *me* that Saddam is a
> bad guy and ought to be gotten rid of. And it is clear to
> Gearge Bush. But it is not clear to a lot of other people in
> the world (including many Iraqis) and (and this is the salient
> point) I believe THEIR OPINION MATTERS. George Bush does not
> (and has said so explicitly).
No, it doesn't. At least not so much that their disagreement is
reason enough not to fight the war. The German government, for
instance, played a strong part organizing the opposition in the
UN. Most of the politicians in our government are former sixties
radicals. During their whole life they have /hated/ the US and
been against /every single thing/ the US ever did! (Ironically,
all of their arguments, all of their protest forms /and/ their
Anti-Americanism were literally imported from the New Left in the
US ;-) Now I see them in political talk shows arguing Iraq isn't
dangerous at all. But I still lifely remember their faces when
these very same people gave interviews ten years ago, just when
Saddam had invaded Kuwait and was shooting rockets filled with
poison gas at Israel, and they /still/ opposed the war! One of
them, a well-known one, even claimed that Israel /deserved/ that
treatment. I don't have to tell you how disgusting and tasteless
such a statement is, especially when it comes from a German.
No. The ``opinion�� of these people doesn't matter one bit
because it contains exactly zero information: No matter the
circumstances, they'd oppose the war in any case.
> I would actually like to see us go to war against Iraq and get
> rid of Saddam. But only with the rest of the world behind us,
> as they were in 1991. Not like this.
Yes, it would be nice if it could be done with the world behing
the US. But so far the few occasions when it was were
exceptional. You can't always wait for that to happen and do
nothing the rest of the time.
> > > What is to stop any country from launching a war against
> > > anyone that they judge to be evil?
> >
> > As has always been the case for the last few millennia:
> > Nothing but military force.
>
> Yes, that is alas what we are reverting to. The whole point of
> the U.N. was to get away from that "might makes right"
> philosophy that lead to all the bloody wars of the 20th
> century.
Exactly. Now try to remember how effective it has been in that
regard so far.
> Today we are the mighty ones. But great powers rise and great
> powers fall. What will protect us when we are no longer the
> mighty ones?
Nobody. Absolutely nobody; least of all the UN. This is
important to keep in mind.
At least not until more of the world is governed by sane,
Western-style democracies. The ``Rule of Law�� is a Western
invention. Be careful not to expect everybody else to play by
our rules yet.
> > No, this isn't nice, but when has the world ever been a nice
> > place?
>
> Never. That is no excuse not to try to make is a nicer place.
Sometimes you can make the world a nicer place precisely by
bombing somebody. Remember when Ronald Reagan bombed Libya?
Nobody had /any/ trouble with Libya after that. I don't remember
if president Reagan asked the UN for permission but I'm pretty
sure he didn't. Still, it was the right thing to do.
> And I believe that there is a significant danger that the
> results of our actions will bring more evil than good in the
> long term.
Yes, this is precisely the question: What's more dangerous?
Removing Saddam or not removing him?
You know what? I don't know! And nobody /really/ knows. I
can't make a strong case either for or against this war because I
have absolutely no idea what's better in this case. The US
government has come to the conclusion that it is safer to remove
Saddam now. Maybe they're right, maybe they're not. All I can
say is that if they are convinced that it is the right thing to
do they should indeed go ahead and do it, with or without the UN.
And I wish them all the luck in the world.
Regards,
--
Nils G�sche
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
PGP key ID #xD26EF2A0
In article <··············@darkstar.cartan>, Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> wrote:
> ···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
>
> > it is pretty clear to me that he
> > has dictatorial aspirations.
>
> Needless to say, I can't see any such aspirations,
Here's a quote from Bush's interview with Bob Woodward:
"I'm the commander -- see, I don't need to explain -- I do not
need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being
the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say
something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."
Indeed what a beautiful thing, never having to explain yourself to anyone.
There's also this quote from Bush right after the first round of large
international protests:
"Democracy is a beautiful thing and people are allowed to express their
opinion. [but] Size of protest -- it's like deciding, well, I'm going to
decide policy based upon a focus group. The role of a leader is to decide
policy based upon the security, in this case, the security of the people."
And to steal the commentary from the Web site that I lifted this quote
from (http://www.fcnl.org/issues/int/sup/iraq_smith225-03.htm): Fair
enough -- except a very large number of "the people" believe that their
security will be further jeopardized by the war policy the White House is
pursuing.
Then there's the suspension of Habeus Corpus. The nullification of voter
initiatives. The withdrawal from Kyoto and the ABM treaty. I could go on
and on and on.
> > > > Yes, Saddam Hussein is an evil man. Yes, the world will be
> > > > better off without him. But Saddam is hardly unique in
> > > > this regard, and solving this problem by starting a war
> > > > sets a horrible precedent.
> > >
> > > I find this ``Saddam is not the only bad guy�� argument very
> > > strange. So, would it be ok with you if the US attacked all
> > > the other bad guys, too?
> >
> > No. The point is this: if we're going to attaack Saddam
> > because he's a bad guy then we are hypocrites if we do not also
> > attack all the other bad guys.
>
> That doesn't follow at all. Neither the US nor anyone else have
> any /obligation/ to free /any/ country by military force. And
> when they do it anyway in one or more cases, this is still better
> than nothing at all.
No, because it is then impossible to tell if we are really attacking
because Saddam is bad, or if we're just using that as an excuse to cover
up some ulterior motive. Also, even if it is "better than nothing" (which
is not at all clear in this case) that is compeltely orthogonal to the
issue of whether or not we are being hypocrites.
> > THEIR OPINION MATTERS.
>
> No, it doesn't. At least not so much that their disagreement is
> reason enough not to fight the war.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on that. I believe that other
people's opinions matter, and that abandoning that principle is the path
to tyranny.
> The German government, for
> instance, played a strong part organizing the opposition in the
> UN. Most of the politicians in our government are former sixties
> radicals. During their whole life they have /hated/ the US and
> been against /every single thing/ the US ever did! (Ironically,
> all of their arguments, all of their protest forms /and/ their
> Anti-Americanism were literally imported from the New Left in the
> US ;-) Now I see them in political talk shows arguing Iraq isn't
> dangerous at all. But I still lifely remember their faces when
> these very same people gave interviews ten years ago, just when
> Saddam had invaded Kuwait and was shooting rockets filled with
> poison gas at Israel, and they /still/ opposed the war! One of
> them, a well-known one, even claimed that Israel /deserved/ that
> treatment. I don't have to tell you how disgusting and tasteless
> such a statement is, especially when it comes from a German.
>
> No. The ``opinion�� of these people doesn't matter one bit
> because it contains exactly zero information: No matter the
> circumstances, they'd oppose the war in any case.
Their opinion matters. That does not mean that they should get to decide
the issue any more than George Bush should get to decide the issue.
That's the whole point. And I wold also point out that Germany joined the
1991 Gulf War coalition despite these radicals. So Germany's current
position must be a result of people whose views do have some information
content.
> > I would actually like to see us go to war against Iraq and get
> > rid of Saddam. But only with the rest of the world behind us,
> > as they were in 1991. Not like this.
>
> Yes, it would be nice if it could be done with the world behing
> the US. But so far the few occasions when it was were
> exceptional. You can't always wait for that to happen and do
> nothing the rest of the time.
Perhaps not. But we could in this case.
> > > > What is to stop any country from launching a war against
> > > > anyone that they judge to be evil?
> > >
> > > As has always been the case for the last few millennia:
> > > Nothing but military force.
> >
> > Yes, that is alas what we are reverting to. The whole point of
> > the U.N. was to get away from that "might makes right"
> > philosophy that lead to all the bloody wars of the 20th
> > century.
>
> Exactly. Now try to remember how effective it has been in that
> regard so far.
I'd say it has been resoundingly successful. I don't have the numbers in
front of me, but I believe that war-related deaths as a percentage of
world population have been lower since 1950 than at any previous time in
recorded history.
> > Today we are the mighty ones. But great powers rise and great
> > powers fall. What will protect us when we are no longer the
> > mighty ones?
>
> Nobody. Absolutely nobody; least of all the UN. This is
> important to keep in mind.
I would rather die righteously than live as a hypocrite.
> At least not until more of the world is governed by sane,
> Western-style democracies. The ``Rule of Law�� is a Western
> invention. Be careful not to expect everybody else to play by
> our rules yet.
How can we expect them to ever play by the rules when we don't do so ourselves?
> > > No, this isn't nice, but when has the world ever been a nice
> > > place?
> >
> > Never. That is no excuse not to try to make is a nicer place.
>
> Sometimes you can make the world a nicer place precisely by
> bombing somebody.
Perhaps. I don't believe that right now is one of those times.
> Yes, this is precisely the question: What's more dangerous?
> Removing Saddam or not removing him?
No one disputes that Saddam must be removed. The disagreement is over
when and how.
E.
Erann Gat wrote:
> Here's a quote from Bush's interview with Bob Woodward:
>
> "I'm the commander -- see, I don't need to explain -- I do not
> need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being
> the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say
> something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."
if he really believes that, then he is missing an important thing. the
whole point of democracy is to have leaders that *are* accountable, that
*do* have to explain themselves.
--
Joost Kremers http://baserv.uci.kun.nl/~jkremers
mail me for a bon mot
···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
> In article <··············@darkstar.cartan>, Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> wrote:
>
> > ···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
> >
> > > it is pretty clear to me that he has dictatorial
> > > aspirations.
> >
> > Needless to say, I can't see any such aspirations,
>
> Here's a quote from Bush's interview with Bob Woodward:
>
> "I'm the commander -- see, I don't need to explain -- I do not
> need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing
> about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to
> me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody
> an explanation."
>
> Indeed what a beautiful thing, never having to explain yourself
> to anyone.
The president indeed doesn't answer to anyone -- that's the point
of being in power. We vote a government into office so it will
exercise the power it is given by the constitution. That's
simply how it works. What is he supposed to do? Have a poll
taken before every decision?
> There's also this quote from Bush right after the first round
> of large international protests:
>
> "Democracy is a beautiful thing and people are allowed to
> express their opinion. [but] Size of protest -- it's like
> deciding, well, I'm going to decide policy based upon a focus
> group. The role of a leader is to decide policy based upon the
> security, in this case, the security of the people."
Sorry, I can't find anything wrong with that. See above.
> And to steal the commentary from the Web site that I lifted
> this quote from
> (http://www.fcnl.org/issues/int/sup/iraq_smith225-03.htm): Fair
> enough -- except a very large number of "the people" believe
> that their security will be further jeopardized by the war
> policy the White House is pursuing.
Sure, they may feel that way. But that doesn't mean a thing
other than they will probably vote for somebody else next time
(although most of the opponents sound as if they voted for Gore
the first time, anyway).
> Then there's the suspension of Habeus Corpus. The
> nullification of voter initiatives. The withdrawal from Kyoto
> and the ABM treaty. I could go on and on and on.
Heh. I was actually delighted when he withdrawed from the Kyoto
thing. I think the Kyoto treaty was nuts. Insane. Fine, you
may disagree. It just happens now and then that we disagree with
the government. I told you already I hate mine, too :-)
You would have a more convincing case if you could point out some
actual abuses of power. Like, if he was found hoarding secret
FBI files about his political opponents, or repeatedly sending
the IRS after them... you know the rest. Did you complain, too,
when that happened?
> > > No. The point is this: if we're going to attaack Saddam
> > > because he's a bad guy then we are hypocrites if we do not also
> > > attack all the other bad guys.
> >
> > That doesn't follow at all. Neither the US nor anyone else have
> > any /obligation/ to free /any/ country by military force. And
> > when they do it anyway in one or more cases, this is still better
> > than nothing at all.
>
> No, because it is then impossible to tell if we are really
> attacking because Saddam is bad, or if we're just using that as
> an excuse to cover up some ulterior motive.
Again -- it just doesn't follow. Wasn't it you who was just
saying shortly ago that it's not intentions that matter?
> Also, even if it is "better than nothing" (which is not at all
> clear in this case) that is compeltely orthogonal to the issue
> of whether or not we are being hypocrites.
I don't see any connection there.
> > > THEIR OPINION MATTERS.
> >
> > No, it doesn't. At least not so much that their disagreement
> > is reason enough not to fight the war.
>
> We'll just have to agree to disagree on that. I believe that
> other people's opinions matter, and that abandoning that
> principle is the path to tyranny.
Well, does Saddam's opinion matter, for instance? :-)
> > No. The ``opinion�� of these people doesn't matter one bit
> > because it contains exactly zero information: No matter the
> > circumstances, they'd oppose the war in any case.
>
> Their opinion matters. That does not mean that they should get
> to decide the issue any more than George Bush should get to
> decide the issue. That's the whole point. And I wold also
> point out that Germany joined the 1991 Gulf War coalition
> despite these radicals.
Only that the pinkoes weren't in power in Germany back then. But
they are now.
> So Germany's current position must be a result of people whose
> views do have some information content.
Nope. They were hanging moderately white bed sheets out of their
apartment windows back then, too. They also told everybody that
Saddam would light up some oil wells, the skies would darken, the
world's temperature would lower by some twenty-odd degrees and
we're all going to die because of the Evil Americans. When I
laughed at such claims back then I was called an evil fascist
right-winger. Some things never change.
> > Yes, it would be nice if it could be done with the world
> > behing the US. But so far the few occasions when it was were
> > exceptional. You can't always wait for that to happen and do
> > nothing the rest of the time.
>
> Perhaps not. But we could in this case.
Didn't you do just that for some ten years now?
> > > Yes, that is alas what we are reverting to. The whole
> > > point of the U.N. was to get away from that "might makes
> > > right" philosophy that lead to all the bloody wars of the
> > > 20th century.
> >
> > Exactly. Now try to remember how effective it has been in
> > that regard so far.
>
> I'd say it has been resoundingly successful. I don't have the
> numbers in front of me, but I believe that war-related deaths
> as a percentage of world population have been lower since 1950
> than at any previous time in recorded history.
Somehow I have a feeling that all those deaths reported in the
Blackbook of Communism weren't counted...
And how did the UN achieve that? By doing nothing? One of the
best things that happened in the 20th century is that the West,
mainly the US with an honorable mention of Maggie, wan the cold
war. The UN didn't help one bit fighting it, though, for obvious
reasons. Pretty much /every/ measure against the Communists had
to be taken /against/ the UN, /against/ the will of notable parts
of the population mainly in our universities, and especially
/against/ the will of all those Communist fronts calling
themselves ``Peace Societies�� and some such, the members of
whose were essentially the same people who so vocally oppose this
war, too.
> > Nobody. Absolutely nobody; least of all the UN. This is
> > important to keep in mind.
>
> I would rather die righteously than live as a hypocrite.
Spoken like a good Christian ;-) Well, I prefer surviving. And I
don't understand what you think is so hypocritical, anyway. I
probably never will.
> > At least not until more of the world is governed by sane,
> > Western-style democracies. The ``Rule of Law�� is a Western
> > invention. Be careful not to expect everybody else to play
> > by our rules yet.
>
> How can we expect them to ever play by the rules when we don't
> do so ourselves?
We don't? I think we do, in fact. I mean, it's not like we'd
invade Japan or France now, is it?
> > Sometimes you can make the world a nicer place precisely by
> > bombing somebody.
>
> Perhaps. I don't believe that right now is one of those times.
Ok. I can't prove this is the right time. You can't prove it's
not, either. The government has decided. I simply don't know
and you don't like it. But there is no reason to get so excited
about it :-) Well, at least Evil Saddam is removed. That's
certainly one good thing. Let's hope for the best.
Regards,
--
Nils G�sche
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
PGP key ID #xD26EF2A0
In article <··············@darkstar.cartan>, Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> wrote:
> The president indeed doesn't answer to anyone
Actually, the President answers to Congress. You need to read the Constitution.
> -- that's the point of being in power.
Yes -- if your aspirations are to be a dictator.
> You would have a more convincing case if you could point out some
> actual abuses of power.
I never said Bush has abused his power. I said he exhibited contempt for
democracy.
> > > > No. The point is this: if we're going to attaack Saddam
> > > > because he's a bad guy then we are hypocrites if we do not also
> > > > attack all the other bad guys.
> > >
> > > That doesn't follow at all. Neither the US nor anyone else have
> > > any /obligation/ to free /any/ country by military force. And
> > > when they do it anyway in one or more cases, this is still better
> > > than nothing at all.
> >
> > No, because it is then impossible to tell if we are really
> > attacking because Saddam is bad, or if we're just using that as
> > an excuse to cover up some ulterior motive.
>
> Again -- it just doesn't follow. Wasn't it you who was just
> saying shortly ago that it's not intentions that matter?
Intentions don't matter, but predictability does. The rule of law works
not because the law is necessarily more fair than human judgement but
because it is less capricious. Hypocrisy is bad not because it
necessarily leads to evil, but because it can lead *anywhere*, and there's
no way to tell until you get there, by which time it may be too late.
> > Also, even if it is "better than nothing" (which is not at all
> > clear in this case) that is compeltely orthogonal to the issue
> > of whether or not we are being hypocrites.
>
> I don't see any connection there.
There isn't any. That is the point I was trying to make.
> > > Yes, it would be nice if it could be done with the world
> > > behing the US. But so far the few occasions when it was were
> > > exceptional. You can't always wait for that to happen and do
> > > nothing the rest of the time.
> >
> > Perhaps not. But we could in this case.
>
> Didn't you do just that for some ten years now?
Yes. So? It was working, wasn't it?
> > > > Yes, that is alas what we are reverting to. The whole
> > > > point of the U.N. was to get away from that "might makes
> > > > right" philosophy that lead to all the bloody wars of the
> > > > 20th century.
> > >
> > > Exactly. Now try to remember how effective it has been in
> > > that regard so far.
> >
> > I'd say it has been resoundingly successful. I don't have the
> > numbers in front of me, but I believe that war-related deaths
> > as a percentage of world population have been lower since 1950
> > than at any previous time in recorded history.
>
> Somehow I have a feeling that all those deaths reported in the
> Blackbook of Communism weren't counted...
Those deaths weren't war-related. Figuring out a way to keep leaders from
oppressing their own people is a much different and much harder problem
from trying to prevent war.
> And how did the UN achieve that? By doing nothing? One of the
> best things that happened in the 20th century is that the West,
> mainly the US with an honorable mention of Maggie, wan the cold
> war.
Indeed, and we did it without firing a shot.
> > > Nobody. Absolutely nobody; least of all the UN. This is
> > > important to keep in mind.
> >
> > I would rather die righteously than live as a hypocrite.
>
> Spoken like a good Christian ;-)
Actually, I'm an atheist.
> > > At least not until more of the world is governed by sane,
> > > Western-style democracies. The ``Rule of Law�� is a Western
> > > invention. Be careful not to expect everybody else to play
> > > by our rules yet.
> >
> > How can we expect them to ever play by the rules when we don't
> > do so ourselves?
>
> We don't? I think we do, in fact. I mean, it's not like we'd
> invade Japan or France now, is it?
Funny, I must have missed that part in the UN charter that says it's OK to
invade other countries as long as it's not Japan or France.
> But there is no reason to get so excited about it :-)
Like I said, the best time to stand up to tyranny is before it becomes
apparent that it is tyranny. In fact, that we didn't do so with Saddam is
one of the reasons for the current mess.
> Well, at least Evil Saddam is removed. That's
> certainly one good thing. Let's hope for the best.
Indeed.
E.
On 20 Mar 2003 02:57:20 +0100, Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> wrote:
>···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
>
>> In article <··············@darkstar.cartan>, Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> wrote:
>>
>> > ···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
>> >
>> > > it is pretty clear to me that he has dictatorial
>> > > aspirations.
>> >
>> > Needless to say, I can't see any such aspirations,
>>
>> Here's a quote from Bush's interview with Bob Woodward:
>>
>> "I'm the commander -- see, I don't need to explain -- I do not
>> need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing
>> about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to
>> me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody
>> an explanation."
>>
>> Indeed what a beautiful thing, never having to explain yourself
>> to anyone.
>
>The president indeed doesn't answer to anyone -- that's the point
>of being in power. We vote a government into office so it will
>exercise the power it is given by the constitution. That's
>simply how it works. What is he supposed to do? Have a poll
>taken before every decision?
I did not read Woodward's book. However I have seen television
interviews with Woodward totaling several hours. From what Woodward
said and his tone, I would say the quote above is a lie. Either just
wrong or taken severly out of context.
In article <··································@4ax.com>,
······@interaccess.com wrote:
> >> Here's a quote from Bush's interview with Bob Woodward:
> >>
> >> "I'm the commander -- see, I don't need to explain -- I do not
> >> need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing
> >> about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to
> >> me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody
> >> an explanation."
> I did not read Woodward's book.
Then it is astonishing that from this position of self-admitted ignorance
you should claim:
> I would say the quote above is a lie. Either just
> wrong or taken severly out of context.
The interview was audio taped, and that part of the tape was broadcast on
U.S. network television on the show "60 Minutes". I heard it with my own
ears. Bush's brazen arrogance is truly extraordinary.
E.
> The president indeed doesn't answer to anyone -- that's the point of
> being in power. We vote a government into office so it will
> exercise the power it is given by the constitution. That's simply
> how it works. What is he supposed to do? Have a poll taken before
> every decision?
In particular the Constitution provides that the Congress has
war-making power, so your answer is "Yes, a poll should be taken, at
least before going to war," if you want to follow the Constitution.
The Congress has spinelessly abdicated its Constitutional duty to
decide whether to make war.
There was a recent court decision where people tried to sue to prevent
the war without Congress declaring war (as the Constitution
requires). The judge in the case made an idiot decision. He said
that the Congress and the President were not seriously at odds, so the
time wasn't right for the suit to go forward.
But the problem is that the Congress and President aren't the
interested parties here. It's not their power, nor are their lives
being risked. It's "our" power (supposedly). It is delegated through
the Constitution to the government. It can only be lawfully exercised
through the Constitutional provisions. And the Constitution provides
that the decision to go to war can not be the decision of one man.
Congress, which more closely represents the people, must decide to do
so. It's our money, our lives; therefore the decision should be made
closer to home.
It's highly likely that the Congress would have declared war if asked.
But then they'd be on record, aye and nay. And people who don't like
their decision would be able to vote them out of office. This is the
way things are supposed to work. What we have now, and have had since
the Korean War, is an imperial Presidency that unconstitutionally
abrogates the war-making powers of the Congress, a spineless Congress
shirking responsibility, and a judiciary that doesn't even understand
its own constituting document.
Personally I hope Saddaam Hussein gets ousted with a minimum of
casualties, both allied and Iraqi, since the offensive has begun.
He's a bad man. But there are a lot of bad men out there. And I fear
the long-term "blowback" consequences, both in the US and abroad.
--
Fred Gilham ······@csl.sri.com
Thou shalt not convince stupid people to try cordless bungee jumping....
Thou shalt not substitute Semtex when all the Playdough's gone....
Thou shalt not bob for hand grenades....
Fred Gilham <······@snapdragon.csl.sri.com> writes:
> > The president indeed doesn't answer to anyone -- that's the point
> > of being in power. We vote a government into office so it will
> > exercise the power it is given by the constitution. That's simply
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think I should have emphasized that point more, so I do it now ;-)
> > how it works. What is he supposed to do? Have a poll taken
> > before every decision?
>
> In particular the Constitution provides that the Congress has
> war-making power, so your answer is "Yes, a poll should be taken, at
> least before going to war," if you want to follow the Constitution.
> The Congress has spinelessly abdicated its Constitutional duty to
> decide whether to make war.
>
> There was a recent court decision where people tried to sue to
> prevent the war without Congress declaring war (as the Constitution
> requires). The judge in the case made an idiot decision. He said
> that the Congress and the President were not seriously at odds, so
> the time wasn't right for the suit to go forward.
Sometimes judges decide to our liking, sometimes they don't. If it is
so clear that what's going on is against the rules, why isn't
everybody running to the Supreme Court right now? Apparently people
have had 50 years time for doing that by now.
> But the problem is that the Congress and President aren't the
> interested parties here. It's not their power, nor are their lives
> being risked. It's "our" power (supposedly). It is delegated
> through the Constitution to the government. It can only be lawfully
> exercised through the Constitutional provisions. And the
> Constitution provides that the decision to go to war can not be the
> decision of one man.
Both the Senate and the House voted already in October to authorize
the president. So it's not like he simply decided on his own to
attack without asking anybody.
> Congress, which more closely represents the people, must decide to
> do so. It's our money, our lives; therefore the decision should be
> made closer to home.
If Congress ``must��, somebody should tell the Supreme Court.
> It's highly likely that the Congress would have declared war if
> asked.
In that case I can see even less of a problem.
> But then they'd be on record, aye and nay. And people who don't like
> their decision would be able to vote them out of office.
Come on. People who are so much against this war /will/ vote Democrat
in any case, no matter whether Congress votes, too, or not.
Regards,
--
Nils G�sche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
PGP key ID 0x0655CFA0
Erann Gat wrote:
>>That doesn't follow at all. Neither the US nor anyone else have
>>any /obligation/ to free /any/ country by military force. And
>>when they do it anyway in one or more cases, this is still better
>>than nothing at all.
>
>
> No, because it is then impossible to tell if we are really attacking
> because Saddam is bad, or if we're just using that as an excuse to cover
> up some ulterior motive.
No matter what we do or *don't* do, it *might* be an excuse to cover up
some ulterior motive. This argument can be used with equal validity to
argue against any action anyone anywhere might take about anything
whatsoever. I think that makes it a very dubious argument.
>
> Their opinion matters. That does not mean that they should get to decide
> the issue any more than George Bush should get to decide the issue.
> That's the whole point. And I wold also point out that Germany joined the
> 1991 Gulf War coalition despite these radicals. So Germany's current
> position must be a result of people whose views do have some information
> content.
George Bush has hardly decided this matter alone, despite
semi-hysterical claims I've heard by "peace" activists. Congress
could've effectively blocked this action at any time. They didn't,
though some members have tried. It's not like there hasn't been a debate
about this. I believe most Congress-critters are highly sensitive to
things that might get them un-elected.
>>>I would actually like to see us go to war against Iraq and get
>>>rid of Saddam. But only with the rest of the world behind us,
>>>as they were in 1991. Not like this.
>>
>>Yes, it would be nice if it could be done with the world behing
>>the US. But so far the few occasions when it was were
>>exceptional. You can't always wait for that to happen and do
>>nothing the rest of the time.
>
> Perhaps not. But we could in this case.
I'm glad you're so sure. Got some inside information?
>>>>>What is to stop any country from launching a war against
>>>>>anyone that they judge to be evil?
>>>>
>>>>As has always been the case for the last few millennia:
>>>>Nothing but military force.
>>>
>>>Yes, that is alas what we are reverting to. The whole point of
>>>the U.N. was to get away from that "might makes right"
>>>philosophy that lead to all the bloody wars of the 20th
>>>century.
>>
>>Exactly. Now try to remember how effective it has been in that
>>regard so far.
>
>
> I'd say it has been resoundingly successful. I don't have the numbers in
> front of me, but I believe that war-related deaths as a percentage of
> world population have been lower since 1950 than at any previous time in
> recorded history.
And was that due to the UN or was that due to a Cold War with nuclear
weapons? When has the UN actually prevented a war? It didn't stop North
Korea, it didn't stop China in Tibet, it didn't stop China from
attacking Vietnam, Vietnam from attacking Cambodia, it didn't stop any
number of Arab-Israeli or Indo-Pakistani wars, it didn't stop the
slaughter in Rwanda, nor in Yugoslavia, it didn't stop France/US in
Vietnam, France in Algeria, Britain/France in Egypt, etc., etc., etc.,
ad nauseum. It's "peacekeepers" only stay for as long as things are
peaceful, then when the going gets tough, they get gone. The UN may have
put its imprimatur upon any number of peace agreements and ceasefires,
but in the vast majority of cases, it was the US and USSR leaning on the
participants that made them stop, not the UN.
The UN certainly won't do anything about a brutal regime as long as it's
only terrorizing and slaughtering its "own" people (how many dead in
China under Mao?). You'd almost think that dictatorships form a large
voting block on some issues in the UN. Oh, wait a minute, they do. But
its important we get their agreement?
>>>Today we are the mighty ones. But great powers rise and great
>>>powers fall. What will protect us when we are no longer the
>>>mighty ones?
>>
>>Nobody. Absolutely nobody; least of all the UN. This is
>>important to keep in mind.
>
> I would rather die righteously than live as a hypocrite.
That's nice. But I support this war and I'm not a hypocrite. I also see
a quite a few anti-war people who *are* hypocrites. Proves nothing
either way.
>>At least not until more of the world is governed by sane,
>>Western-style democracies. The ``Rule of Law�� is a Western
>>invention. Be careful not to expect everybody else to play by
>>our rules yet.
>
> How can we expect them to ever play by the rules when we don't do so ourselves?
The problem here is that the "bad guys" are helping write some of the
rules. Following that set is a fool's game.
> No one disputes that Saddam must be removed. The disagreement is over
> when and how.
If not now, when? And how? Negotiations? Sanctions? Resolutions? World
condemnation? Been there. Done that. Failed miserably. Now what? More of
the same? How many more Iraqis will we let die under the current regime?
In article <······················@rwcrnsc53>, Larry Elmore
<·······@attbi.com> wrote:
> Erann Gat wrote:
>
> >>That doesn't follow at all. Neither the US nor anyone else have
> >>any /obligation/ to free /any/ country by military force. And
> >>when they do it anyway in one or more cases, this is still better
> >>than nothing at all.
> >
> >
> > No, because it is then impossible to tell if we are really attacking
> > because Saddam is bad, or if we're just using that as an excuse to cover
> > up some ulterior motive.
>
> No matter what we do or *don't* do, it *might* be an excuse to cover up
> some ulterior motive. This argument can be used with equal validity to
> argue against any action anyone anywhere might take about anything
> whatsoever. I think that makes it a very dubious argument.
No. Because if we take action with the world's consent then the opinions
of other serve as a check-and-balance against our ulterior motives. The
problem here is not really our motives, but the fact that we are doing
what we are doing without the world solidly behind us.
> George Bush has hardly decided this matter alone, despite
> semi-hysterical claims I've heard by "peace" activists. Congress
> could've effectively blocked this action at any time. They didn't,
> though some members have tried. It's not like there hasn't been a debate
> about this. I believe most Congress-critters are highly sensitive to
> things that might get them un-elected.
Indeed most Americans seem to be behind the President, though it is not
clear how many of them really think war is the right thing, and how many
of them support the President simply because they think that supporting
the President is the right thing to do. But this too is beside the
point. When we start to drop bombs beyond our own borders, the opinions
of our own citizenry are not the only ones that matter.
> I support this war and I'm not a hypocrite.
Really? Tell me, do you consider the attack on the U.S.S. Cole an act of
terrorism?
> I also see
> a quite a few anti-war people who *are* hypocrites. Proves nothing
> either way.
True, there are hypocrites on both sides. When billions of people get
into a debate there's bound to be a little of everything.
> The problem here is that the "bad guys" are helping write some of the
> rules. Following that set is a fool's game.
The French and the Germans are the bad guys now? What about the British?
Not Tony Blair, but the citizenry who overwhelmingly oppose the war. Are
they the bad guys?
> > No one disputes that Saddam must be removed. The disagreement is over
> > when and how.
>
> If not now, when?
Like I said, when the world says it's time. Not before. (Though this
point is now quite moot.)
> And how?
With force. Pretty much the way we're doing it. Actually, I'm pretty
impressed at how the war is being run so far. Perhaps Allah will be with
us after all.
E.
Erann Gat wrote:
> In article <······················@rwcrnsc53>, Larry Elmore
> <·······@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Erann Gat wrote:
>>
>
>>I support this war and I'm not a hypocrite.
>
>
> Really? Tell me, do you consider the attack on the U.S.S. Cole an act of
> terrorism?
That was an act of war. As were the attacks on our embassies.
>>The problem here is that the "bad guys" are helping write some of the
>>rules. Following that set is a fool's game.
>
>
> The French and the Germans are the bad guys now?
Not really, they're just weasels.
> What about the British?
> Not Tony Blair, but the citizenry who overwhelmingly oppose the war. Are
> they the bad guys?
No. Last I heard, they didn't vote in the UN. But *Syria* on the
Security Council? China? The old Soviet Union? The many various and
sundry thugocracies of Africa and the Middle East? Why on earth should
they have representation, let alone equal representation?
>>>No one disputes that Saddam must be removed. The disagreement is over
>>>when and how.
>>
>>If not now, when?
>
> Like I said, when the world says it's time. Not before. (Though this
> point is now quite moot.)
The "world" didn't agree on opposing Hitler when it was relatively easy
in 1936 when he repudiated the Versailles Treaty and re-occupied the
Rhineland. Nor in 1938. Instead, they sold Czechoslovakia down the
river. I think the League of Nations passed some silly resolution or
another expressing "grave concern" or some such silliness.
>>And how?
>
>
> With force. Pretty much the way we're doing it. Actually, I'm pretty
> impressed at how the war is being run so far. Perhaps Allah will be with
> us after all.
>
> E.
I hope so.
--Larry
Larry Elmore <·······@attbi.com> writes:
> But *Syria* on the Security Council? China? The old Soviet Union?
> The many various and sundry thugocracies of Africa and the Middle
> East? Why on earth should they have representation, let alone equal
> representation?
Russia certainly isn't ``the old Soviet Union��. And /of course/ they
must be represented in the Security Council. Otherwise I agree, more
or less.
Regards,
--
Nils G�sche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
PGP key ID 0x0655CFA0
Nils Goesche wrote:
> Larry Elmore <·······@attbi.com> writes:
>
>
>>But *Syria* on the Security Council? China? The old Soviet Union?
>>The many various and sundry thugocracies of Africa and the Middle
>>East? Why on earth should they have representation, let alone equal
>>representation?
>
>
> Russia certainly isn't ``the old Soviet Union��. And /of course/ they
> must be represented in the Security Council. Otherwise I agree, more
> or less.
Correct. I worded that very badly. Must be the cold medicine. The many
thugocracies should be heard, I suppose, but to give them votes really
galls me. In the real world it's necessary to let the major powers in,
but to pretend that they then have some sort of moral authority over
others is just too much.
I think there should be a minimum standard of conduct for full entry
into the UN. Or that the UN be abolished (I think it's slowly rendering
itself a laughingstock like the League of Nations did) and replaced with
a United Free Nations or something.
--Larry
Larry Elmore <·······@attbi.com> writes:
> Nils Goesche wrote:
> > Larry Elmore <·······@attbi.com> writes:
> >>But *Syria* on the Security Council? China? The old Soviet Union?
> >>The many various and sundry thugocracies of Africa and the Middle
> >>East? Why on earth should they have representation, let alone
> >>equal representation?
> > Russia certainly isn't ``the old Soviet Union��. And /of course/
> > they must be represented in the Security Council. Otherwise I
> > agree, more or less.
> Correct. I worded that very badly. Must be the cold medicine. The
> many thugocracies should be heard, I suppose, but to give them votes
> really galls me. In the real world it's necessary to let the major
> powers in, but to pretend that they then have some sort of moral
> authority over others is just too much.
That's why the UN doesn't have much or any authority right now :-)
> I think there should be a minimum standard of conduct for full entry
> into the UN.
The whole point of the UN is that everybody is in it. In a better
world, hopefully in the not too far future, it might work better. In
the nineties the UN already looked much better than before. Sure, it
is very far from working well, but we shouldn't give up hope that it
might continue improving.
> Or that the UN be abolished (I think it's slowly rendering itself a
> laughingstock like the League of Nations did) and replaced with a
> United Free Nations or something.
Only that there is no reason to believe that the United Free Nations
would do any better :-) Or if many countries are to be excluded from
it, you'd have something entirely different, like the NATO, for
instance.
Regards,
--
Nils G�sche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
PGP key ID 0x0655CFA0
Larry Elmore <·······@attbi.com> writes:
> I think there should be a minimum standard of conduct for full entry
> into the UN.
Yes, certainly. How about paying one's dues?
> Or that the UN be abolished (I think it's slowly
> rendering itself a laughingstock like the League of Nations did)
And guess who is contributing the most to this trend at the moment?
'Andreas
--
Wherever I lay my .emacs, there�s my $HOME.
Andreas Eder wrote:
> Larry Elmore <·······@attbi.com> writes:
>
>>I think there should be a minimum standard of conduct for full entry
>>into the UN.
>
> Yes, certainly. How about paying one's dues?
We are doing so. Not that the arrears were all that much, 1 billion out
of a total of 30+ billion paid over the years. IIRC, funds were withheld
from certain programs that for whatever reason had aroused the ire of
the US. Some, no doubt, over abortion issues, but others due to rampant
fraud, waste and abuse of funds in parts of the UN.
Funding UN "peacekeepers" when they turn out to be the ones involved in
sex-slavery and selling off of food aid in a couple of African countries
doesn't do too much to raise confidence in the UN. Nor when those crimes
go unpunished. Lord only knows how much money just goes down
bureaucratic ratholes never to be seen again outside a private bank account.
>>Or that the UN be abolished (I think it's slowly
>>rendering itself a laughingstock like the League of Nations did)
>
> And guess who is contributing the most to this trend at the moment?
France, Germany, Russia, and China, in particular. They won't enforce
their binding resolutions on Iraq, so someone must. The League of
Nations fell apart from nations ignoring its resolutions. In this case,
the UN is ignoring its own resolutions, but amounts to the same thing.
Making a solemn pronouncement against some nation's action, then not
doing anything about it, repeatedly, is in the eyes of a dictator worth
just as much as a handshake of formal agreement. They've become passive
accomplices. Were the UN to come out with a binding resolution against
what the US, Britain, Australia, Poland, Denmark, etc. is doing in Iraq,
and were then ignored -- then that might be comparable to the League of
Nations fiasco.
Let's face it. The UN doesn't have the balls to back up any of its
decisions, and then doesn't have the power to do so unless the US
agrees. If the UN wants it and the US doesn't, it's probably not going
to happen. If the US wants it and the UN doesn't, it's going to happen
anyway unless Russia and China get nervous on the nuclear trigger.
Go to cartoon for March 24, 2003 for the word of the day:
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/Default.aspx
And MArch 12 was a good one, too.
Larry Elmore <·······@attbi.com> writes:
> France, Germany, Russia, and China, in particular. They won't enforce
> their binding resolutions on Iraq, so someone must. The League of
> Nations fell apart from nations ignoring its resolutions. In this case,
> the UN is ignoring its own resolutions, but amounts to the same thing.
> Making a solemn pronouncement against some nation's action, then not
> doing anything about it, repeatedly, is in the eyes of a dictator worth
> just as much as a handshake of formal agreement. They've become passive
> accomplices. Were the UN to come out with a binding resolution against
> what the US, Britain, Australia, Poland, Denmark, etc. is doing in Iraq,
> and were then ignored -- then that might be comparable to the League of
> Nations fiasco.
You are right! So now all the arab nations should pull together, remind
the world of all the UN resolutions that ask Israel to pull out of
occupied palestine, then argue that the inevitable American veto is
unreasonable, that the UN is irrelevant and go ahead and liberate
palestine without UN mandate. You do not like this? Buts thats what
the US is doing right now....
hypocrisy!
Heiko
--
-----------
You won't fall for that,
Law and order is a baton in the rib.
You won't fall for that,
just like your mummy and daddy did.
Heiko Schaefer <··············@swissonline.ch> writes:
>
> You are right! So now all the arab nations should pull together, remind
> the world of all the UN resolutions that ask Israel to pull out of
> occupied palestine, then argue that the inevitable American veto is
Well request and require have different meanings.
> unreasonable, that the UN is irrelevant and go ahead and liberate
> palestine without UN mandate. You do not like this? Buts thats what
> the US is doing right now....
There have been several times when the Arab states have tried to
do just that, they did not work out as planed.
marc
>
> hypocrisy!
>
> Heiko
>
>
> --
> -----------
> You won't fall for that,
> Law and order is a baton in the rib.
> You won't fall for that,
> just like your mummy and daddy did.
Heiko Schaefer wrote:
> Larry Elmore <·······@attbi.com> writes:
>
>
>>France, Germany, Russia, and China, in particular. They won't enforce
>>their binding resolutions on Iraq, so someone must. The League of
>>Nations fell apart from nations ignoring its resolutions. In this case,
>>the UN is ignoring its own resolutions, but amounts to the same thing.
>>Making a solemn pronouncement against some nation's action, then not
>>doing anything about it, repeatedly, is in the eyes of a dictator worth
>>just as much as a handshake of formal agreement. They've become passive
>>accomplices. Were the UN to come out with a binding resolution against
>>what the US, Britain, Australia, Poland, Denmark, etc. is doing in Iraq,
>>and were then ignored -- then that might be comparable to the League of
>>Nations fiasco.
>
>
> You are right! So now all the arab nations should pull together, remind
> the world of all the UN resolutions that ask Israel to pull out of
> occupied palestine, then argue that the inevitable American veto is
> unreasonable, that the UN is irrelevant and go ahead and liberate
> palestine without UN mandate. You do not like this? Buts thats what
> the US is doing right now....
>
> hypocrisy!
Which one of the UN resolutions you're talking about is a binding
resolution? AFAIK, none of them are, they're all of the non-binding type.
--Larry
In article <·······················@rwcrnsc54>,
Larry Elmore <·······@attbi.com> wrote:
> >>Or that the UN be abolished (I think it's slowly
> >>rendering itself a laughingstock like the League of Nations did)
> >
> > And guess who is contributing the most to this trend at the moment?
>
> France, Germany, Russia, and China, in particular. They won't enforce
> their binding resolutions on Iraq, so someone must.
Yes, they would, but with more civilized means than those stupid
Americans. [1]
Pascal
[1] I am terribly sorry, but I can't stand this extreme stupidity
anymore. Of course, I dan't mean all Americans, but you know who you
are. I have relatives who fought in the second world war and at first
thought they were right in what they were doing. If you don't care about
the Iraqi people who are dying _just now_ [2] then think about the
extreme psychological damages you are inflicting on your own people.
Heck, haven't you learned anything useful in Vietnam?
[2] Yes, realize this, you are killing the people you purport to help!
--
"If I could explain it, I wouldn't be able to do it."
A.M.McKenzie
Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> writes:
> Yes, they would, but with more civilized means than those stupid
> Americans. [1]
> [1] I am terribly sorry,
No you are not. A fanatical hatred towards Americans has always been
typical for leftist lunatics all over the world.
> but I can't stand this extreme stupidity anymore. Of course, I dan't
> mean all Americans, but you know who you are. I have relatives who
> fought in the second world war and at first thought they were right
> in what they were doing. If you don't care about the Iraqi people
> who are dying _just now_ [2]
What were they doing before, I wonder...
> then think about the extreme psychological damages you are
> inflicting on your own people. Heck, haven't you learned anything
> useful in Vietnam?
And haven't you learned anything from what happened after the
Americans withdrawed from Vietnam?
> [2] Yes, realize this, you are killing the people you purport to
> help!
Do you know how many Germans were killed by the Allies in WWII? If
the Allies had been pacifists like you, we'd all work for some
Reichsministerium f�r Rechenmaschinen or some such, now. But then, as
you seem to have a tendency for mindlessly repeating government
propaganda without thinking about it, you'd probably be much happier
then.
Regards,
--
Nils G�sche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
PGP key ID 0x0655CFA0
In article <··············@cartan.de>, Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de>
wrote:
> Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> writes:
>
> > Yes, they would, but with more civilized means than those stupid
> > Americans. [1]
>
> > [1] I am terribly sorry,
>
> No you are not. A fanatical hatred towards Americans has always been
> typical for leftist lunatics all over the world.
I am not a fanatical hater of Americans and I am not a leftist.
> > but I can't stand this extreme stupidity anymore. Of course, I dan't
> > mean all Americans, but you know who you are. I have relatives who
> > fought in the second world war and at first thought they were right
> > in what they were doing. If you don't care about the Iraqi people
> > who are dying _just now_ [2]
>
> What were they doing before, I wonder...
In my ethical system, it matters who is actually doing the killing of
people.
> > [2] Yes, realize this, you are killing the people you purport to
> > help!
>
> Do you know how many Germans were killed by the Allies in WWII? If
> the Allies had been pacifists like you, we'd all work for some
> Reichsministerium f�r Rechenmaschinen or some such, now. But then, as
> you seem to have a tendency for mindlessly repeating government
> propaganda without thinking about it, you'd probably be much happier
> then.
I am not a pacifist. There are situations when military actions are
appropriate. In World War II, the Germans have attacked other countries.
Of course, those countries had every right to defend themselves and ask
for help from other countries.
In the current situation, the Iraqi people haven't even asked for help.
Pascal
--
"If I could explain it, I wouldn't be able to do it."
A.M.McKenzie
Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> writes:
> I am not a pacifist. There are situations when military actions are
> appropriate. In World War II, the Germans have attacked other countries.
> Of course, those countries had every right to defend themselves and ask
> for help from other countries.
So by your ethical system it would not have been justified to go
to war with Germany if they only murdered there own Jews, Gypsies,
retarded, homosexuals and political prisoners, because they did
not invade another country? What about the people in the camps?
I think that they were asking for help, even if no one was able
to hear them.
>
> In the current situation, the Iraqi people haven't even asked for help.
>
Yes they did, Kurds in the north and the uprising in the south. We
should have helped them then, we did encourage them to revolt after
all. This was durring Gulf War 1.
marc
In article <··············@bogomips.optonline.net>,
Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> wrote:
> Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> writes:
>
> > I am not a pacifist. There are situations when military actions are
> > appropriate. In World War II, the Germans have attacked other countries.
> > Of course, those countries had every right to defend themselves and ask
> > for help from other countries.
>
> So by your ethical system it would not have been justified to go
> to war with Germany if they only murdered there own Jews, Gypsies,
> retarded, homosexuals and political prisoners, because they did
> not invade another country?
No. The example I have given describes a sufficient condition, not a
necessary one.
> What about the people in the camps?
> I think that they were asking for help, even if no one was able
> to hear them.
It was possible to hear them.
> > In the current situation, the Iraqi people haven't even asked for help.
> >
>
> Yes they did, Kurds in the north and the uprising in the south. We
> should have helped them then, we did encourage them to revolt after
> all. This was durring Gulf War 1.
Yes, you should have helped them then.
Pascal
--
"If I could explain it, I wouldn't be able to do it."
A.M.McKenzie
Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> writes:
> In article <··············@bogomips.optonline.net>,
> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> writes:
> >
> > > I am not a pacifist. There are situations when military actions are
> > > appropriate. In World War II, the Germans have attacked other countries.
> > > Of course, those countries had every right to defend themselves and ask
> > > for help from other countries.
> >
> > So by your ethical system it would not have been justified to go
> > to war with Germany if they only murdered there own Jews, Gypsies,
> > retarded, homosexuals and political prisoners, because they did
> > not invade another country?
>
> No. The example I have given describes a sufficient condition, not a
> necessary one.
>
> > What about the people in the camps?
> > I think that they were asking for help, even if no one was able
> > to hear them.
>
> It was possible to hear them.
Almost all things are possible, but as it worked out Germans, as a
country, did not listen neither did the French(choembourg(sp?) was
the exception).
>
> > > In the current situation, the Iraqi people haven't even asked for help.
> > >
> >
> > Yes they did, Kurds in the north and the uprising in the south. We
> > should have helped them then, we did encourage them to revolt after
> > all. This was durring Gulf War 1.
>
> Yes, you should have helped them then.
>
And we are. So since we should help them and we now are helping them it
appears that this is a just war under your rules.
marc
In article <··············@bogomips.optonline.net>,
Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> wrote:
> > > > In the current situation, the Iraqi people haven't even asked for help.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes they did, Kurds in the north and the uprising in the south. We
> > > should have helped them then, we did encourage them to revolt after
> > > all. This was durring Gulf War 1.
> >
> > Yes, you should have helped them then.
> >
>
> And we are. So since we should help them and we now are helping them it
> appears that this is a just war under your rules.
No, it's not, and I have made that very clear several times.
Pascal
--
"If I could explain it, I wouldn't be able to do it."
A.M.McKenzie
Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> writes:
> In article <··············@bogomips.optonline.net>,
> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > In the current situation, the Iraqi people haven't even
> > > > > asked for help.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes they did, Kurds in the north and the uprising in the
> > > > south. We should have helped them then, we did encourage them
> > > > to revolt after all. This was durring Gulf War 1.
> > >
> > > Yes, you should have helped them then.
> > >
> >
> > And we are. So since we should help them and we now are helping
> > them it appears that this is a just war under your rules.
>
> No, it's not, and I have made that very clear several times.
But above you say the US should have helped the Kurds and the
southern Iraqis. The only effective way to do that is to continue the
current war with Iraq, which if you want to get accurate is a
continuation of the Gulf War. It really is not a new war but a
continuation of the original, the US just decided to resume combat
operations because Iraq repeatedly violated the term of the cease fire
agreement.
marc
Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
> So by your ethical system it would not have been justified to go
> to war with Germany if they only murdered there own Jews, Gypsies,
> retarded, homosexuals and political prisoners, because they did
> not invade another country?
Some days ago I posted this:
Instead of leaving the decision of whether to intervent to the
dangerous "think tank" around Bush (who are following vice defense
minister Wolfowitz's doctrine of "preemptive intervention" (*)),
have a look at the report from The International Commission on
Intervention and State Sovereignty:
http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/iciss-ciise/report2-en.asp
I think you should read that before drawing your unjustified conclusions
on other people's ethical systems.
--
(espen)
Folks, this thread is off topic, and at least for me it is boring and
annoying. Why don't you all take this discussion to misc.writing, for
instance?
That this thread was started by the resident rocket scientist doesn't
make it less off topic, nor less boring, nor more interesting. Please
stop.
Mario.
In article <··············@cupid.igpm.rwth-aachen.de>, Mario S. Mommer
<········@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Folks, this thread is off topic,
And is clearly marked as such.
> and at least for me it is boring and annoying.
Why do you read it then? Is someone holding a gun to your head? Do you
need some help in how to use killfiles?
E.
--
The opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily
reflect the views of JPL or NASA.
Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> writes:
> In article <··············@cartan.de>, Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de>
> wrote:
>
> > Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> writes:
> >
> > > Yes, they would, but with more civilized means than those stupid
> > > Americans. [1]
> >
> > > [1] I am terribly sorry,
> >
> > No you are not. A fanatical hatred towards Americans has always
> > been typical for leftist lunatics all over the world.
>
> I am not a fanatical hater of Americans and I am not a leftist.
``What leftists?�� said the leftists. -- P.J. O'Rourke
;-)
> > > If you don't care about the Iraqi people who are dying _just
> > > now_ [2]
> >
> > What were they doing before, I wonder...
>
> In my ethical system, it matters who is actually doing the killing
> of people.
Yes -- when Saddam or anybody else kills lots of people you obviously
don't give a shit; only whenever the Americans do anything about it,
all those mummies from the old ``peace movement�� awake, show their
ugly heads to television cameras once more, and all of a sudden
remember that they don't like it when people die.
> > > [2] Yes, realize this, you are killing the people you purport to
> > > help!
> >
> > Do you know how many Germans were killed by the Allies in WWII?
> > If the Allies had been pacifists like you, we'd all work for some
> > Reichsministerium f�r Rechenmaschinen or some such, now. But
> > then, as you seem to have a tendency for mindlessly repeating
> > government propaganda without thinking about it, you'd probably be
> > much happier then.
>
> I am not a pacifist. There are situations when military actions are
> appropriate. In World War II, the Germans have attacked other
> countries.
So did Saddam, BTW. Twice. This is all still about the last time.
Did you /read/ resolution 1441? Just two paragraphs:
# Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with
# its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to
# terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its
# civilian population and to provide access by international
# humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq,
# and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to
# return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country
# nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property
# wrongfully seized by Iraq,
# Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared
# that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the
^^^^^^^^^
# provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq
# contained therein,
> Of course, those countries had every right to defend themselves and
> ask for help from other countries.
>
> In the current situation, the Iraqi people haven't even asked for help.
How is the people of Iraq supposed to express its wishes to anybody?
This is really silly. The refugees seem to be quite happy now, OTOH.
And you might find this article interesting:
http://www.henryk-broder.de/html/tb_totalfrieden.html
Regards,
--
Nils G�sche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
PGP key ID 0x0655CFA0
In article <··············@cartan.de>, Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de>
wrote:
> Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> writes:
>
> > In article <··············@cartan.de>, Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de>
> > wrote:
> > > No you are not. A fanatical hatred towards Americans has always
> > > been typical for leftist lunatics all over the world.
> >
> > I am not a fanatical hater of Americans and I am not a leftist.
>
> ``What leftists?�� said the leftists. -- P.J. O'Rourke
>
> ;-)
:)
> > > > If you don't care about the Iraqi people who are dying _just
> > > > now_ [2]
> > >
> > > What were they doing before, I wonder...
> >
> > In my ethical system, it matters who is actually doing the killing
> > of people.
>
> Yes -- when Saddam or anybody else kills lots of people you obviously
> don't give a shit;
I don't see how you can read this into my statement about my ethical
system.
> only whenever the Americans do anything about it,
> all those mummies from the old ``peace movement�� awake, show their
> ugly heads to television cameras once more, and all of a sudden
> remember that they don't like it when people die.
I am not a "mummy of the old peace movement". I don't like television.
Could you please stop drawing simplistic conclusions from just a few
statements of mine?
> > Of course, those countries had every right to defend themselves and
> > ask for help from other countries.
> >
> > In the current situation, the Iraqi people haven't even asked for help.
>
> How is the people of Iraq supposed to express its wishes to anybody?
By going there and asking the people. (Think twice before reacting to
that statement.)
> This is really silly. The refugees seem to be quite happy now, OTOH.
>
> And you might find this article interesting:
>
> http://www.henryk-broder.de/html/tb_totalfrieden.html
Yeah, sure, arguing by citing only the extreme opposite statements...
Pascal
--
"If I could explain it, I wouldn't be able to do it."
A.M.McKenzie
>>>>> "Nils" == Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> writes:
Nils> Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> writes:
>> Yes, they would, but with more civilized means than those
>> stupid Americans. [1]
>> [1] I am terribly sorry,
Nils> No you are not. A fanatical hatred towards Americans has
Nils> always been typical for leftist lunatics all over the world.
Fanatical hatred is what distinguishes most pacifist from normal
people.
Immanuel
In article <··············@enfocus.be>,
Immanuel Litzroth <·········@enfocus.be> wrote:
> Fanatical hatred is what distinguishes most pacifist from normal
> people.
> Immanuel
This might be true, but how is this related to the current discussion?
Pascal
--
"If I could explain it, I wouldn't be able to do it."
A.M.McKenzie
"Larry Elmore" <·······@attbi.com> wrote in message ···························@rwcrnsc53...
> Erann Gat wrote:
>
> >>That doesn't follow at all. Neither the US nor anyone else have
> >>any /obligation/ to free /any/ country by military force. And
> >>when they do it anyway in one or more cases, this is still better
> >>than nothing at all.
> >
> >
> > No, because it is then impossible to tell if we are really attacking
> > because Saddam is bad, or if we're just using that as an excuse to cover
> > up some ulterior motive.
>
> No matter what we do or *don't* do, it *might* be an excuse to cover up
> some ulterior motive. This argument can be used with equal validity to
> argue against any action anyone anywhere might take about anything
> whatsoever. I think that makes it a very dubious argument.
>
Then there is only one way to know. Actually do it, try with
all your virtues but remain aware of what happens and
what happened. If you find yourself about to do
something bad, stay your own hand. But this takes
great effort and involvement on one's part, and enough
self honesty to change one's behaviour in mid course.
You cannot zone out and go on automatic pilot.
Wade
Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> writes:
> Needless to say, I can't see any such aspirations, but I think
> you haven't really understood how our democracies work. If the
> president did anything against the rules, it is a safe bet that
> the Democrats would already be calling the Supreme Court and it
> will set things straight, as it did many times before in its
> history. If this doesn't happen, that means that he played by
> the rules and then you can't call him a dictator just because you
> disagree with his measures. It would be a very, very long list
> if I began to talk about all the actions of the German government
> which I think are absolutely wrong, dangerous and making things
> worse. But that doesn't give me any right to call our chancellor
> a dictator, no matter how much I hate his guts.
I don't think you understand the American Psyche post
9/11. Unfortunatley there a a lot of people filled with misdirected
anger, and for a politician to take and hold a strong stand on this
would pretty much be seen as political suicide at this point.
The word "patriotism" has taken on a whole new meaning here in
America, it means you are supposed to blindly support your president
no matter how foolish and reckless he is. At least thats the implied
definition in the eyes of the media and General public.
Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> writes:
> No, it doesn't. At least not so much that their disagreement is
> reason enough not to fight the war. The German government, for
> instance, played a strong part organizing the opposition in the
> UN. Most of the politicians in our government are former sixties
> radicals. During their whole life they have /hated/ the US and
> been against /every single thing/ the US ever did! (Ironically,
> all of their arguments, all of their protest forms /and/ their
> Anti-Americanism were literally imported from the New Left in the
> US ;-) Now I see them in political talk shows arguing Iraq isn't
> dangerous at all. But I still lifely remember their faces when
> these very same people gave interviews ten years ago, just when
> Saddam had invaded Kuwait and was shooting rockets filled with
> poison gas at Israel, and they /still/ opposed the war! One of
> them, a well-known one, even claimed that Israel /deserved/ that
> treatment. I don't have to tell you how disgusting and tasteless
> such a statement is, especially when it comes from a German.
Who was that? (Sorry, I don't remember every extremist position of the
last decades.)
BTW, I'm not of your opinion in this matter. I see the points which Bush
has on his side, but also the position of the others can be understood. In
a question of war/peace I think that every country should be allowed to
choose _not_ to participate. Bush and Blair started with beating the war
drums, and it is rather probable that from the beginning Bush wanted the
total defeat of Saddam and control over Iraq. I simply want that France
and Germany are allowed to choose the other way without being regarded as
an enemy (like Rumsfeld who put us Germany in one line with Lybia and Cuba
or Bush who does not speak to Schroeder any more). I find it also
completely normal that other countries in Europe are of differing opinions
in this delicate question. And I think that every country in the UN should
be allowed to vote freely on this topic without any economical or other
pressure.[1]
Unfortunately, keeping out of Bush's war is not accepted. Even now, the US
have got NATO (with some members not agreeing with a war) so far that it
protects Turkey (from which an attack against another state is launched - I
wonder if this is covered by the treaty), and the UN (most of the members
disagreeing with the war) is expected to give humanitary aid during the
war. And I'm curious who will do the cleaning-up afterwards. I guess the
UN will do most of it again.[2]
Nicolas.
[1] As much as I understand it the reason why France threatened to veto is
because very unfair pressure was exerted from the US on members of the
council.
[2] BTW, did the US pay their UN debts in the meantime?
Nicolas Neuss <·············@iwr.uni-heidelberg.de> writes:
> Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> writes:
>
> > I don't have to tell you how disgusting and tasteless such a
> > statement is, especially when it comes from a German.
>
> Who was that?
Stroebele. Made for quite a scandal at the time. Apparently the
Isrealis disagreed a bit.
> (Sorry, I don't remember every extremist position of the last
> decades.)
Heh. Well, I do. Sometimes I wish I wouldn't, but more often I wish
more people would. I am always amazed at what a short memory span
many people seem to have.
> BTW, I'm not of your opinion in this matter.
That's ok. I can't stress enough that I am not even convinced myself
that this war is such a great idea. I merely dislike the kind of
paranoia and hysteria we can see everywhere now that reminds me all
too strongly of what we saw in the years around 1982 (mostly featuring
the very same people).
> I see the points which Bush has on his side, but also the position
> of the others can be understood.
That's true.
> In a question of war/peace I think that every country should be
> allowed to choose _not_ to participate.
Of course. I only said that the Americans shouldn't worry too much
when some old sixties radicals who happen to be in the German
government right now disagree with them.
> I simply want that France and Germany are allowed to choose the
> other way without being regarded as an enemy
I don't think the Americans regard us as an enemy now. Rumsfeld said
so himself in an interview with Sandra Maischberger: Sometimes foreign
governments disagree with them, then the differences will be forgotten
some day and they'll act together again. That's normal and has been
so all the time.
> (like Rumsfeld who put us Germany in one line with Lybia and Cuba
Rumsfeld was /asked/ which countries had this position. And he
correctly named those countries to answer the question. There was no
reason to be so upset about it -- people should rather have asked how
it could be that those were /indeed/ the /only/ countries (at the
time) that were following the German line.
> or Bush who does not speak to Schroeder any more).
Why would he talk to Schroeder? Schroeder didn't consult him, either,
when he announced last year (before the election, of course) that
Germany would be against /any/ military action in Iraq, /no matter/
what happens, /no matter/ what the UN finds. Moreover, a German
minister compared Bush to Hitler in public. France didn't do any such
thing, BTW, they also notably didn't rule out military action in every
case, no matter what the UN inspectors would find, no matter what
Saddam was going to do. Only we did. Oh, and Cuba, maybe.
> Unfortunately, keeping out of Bush's war is not accepted.
Of course it is: They are doing it without us, now.
> Even now, the US have got NATO (with some members not agreeing with
> a war) so far that it protects Turkey (from which an attack against
> another state is launched - I wonder if this is covered by the
> treaty),
Treaty or not, I think protecting Turkey is a good thing in any case,
and even our government seems to agree on that point now (they didn't
always which I hope you remember) :-)
> and the UN (most of the members disagreeing with the war) is
> expected to give humanitary aid during the war. And I'm curious who
> will do the cleaning-up afterwards. I guess the UN will do most of
> it again.[2]
We'll see.
> [2] BTW, did the US pay their UN debts in the meantime?
Heh :-)
Regards,
--
Nils G�sche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
PGP key ID 0x0655CFA0
Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> writes:
> Nicolas Neuss <·············@iwr.uni-heidelberg.de> writes:
>
> > Nils Goesche <···@cartan.de> writes:
> >
> > > I don't have to tell you how disgusting and tasteless such a
> > > statement is, especially when it comes from a German.
> >
> > Who was that?
>
> Stroebele. Made for quite a scandal at the time. Apparently the
> Isrealis disagreed a bit.
I expected this answer. If you take the largest asshole as a measure, you
can easily discredit every single party. (Choose Moellemann for the
liberals, and Koch or Glos for the CDU/CSU.)
> > (like Rumsfeld who put us Germany in one line with Lybia and Cuba
>
> Rumsfeld was /asked/ which countries had this position. And he
> correctly named those countries to answer the question. There was no
> reason to be so upset about it -- people should rather have asked how
> it could be that those were /indeed/ the /only/ countries (at the
> time) that were following the German line.
I happen to have heard this at BBC World in English. It was partially based
on a very silly lie, namely that Germany, Cuba and Libya, would not allow
the US air force to use their air space for fighting terrorism/Iraq. This
is more or less ridiculous (why should they want to fly over Cuba or
Libya?), and untrue because Germany never disallowed it. Sure, Stroebele
and his sort discussed this (and I have read somewhere that the oppositions
candidate Stoiber did want to top Schroeder by taking this up), but I'm
quite sure that it would even not be legally possible given the existing
treaties.
> > or Bush who does not speak to Schroeder any more).
>
> Why would he talk to Schroeder? Schroeder didn't consult him, either,
> when he announced last year (before the election, of course) that
> Germany would be against /any/ military action in Iraq, /no matter/
> what happens, /no matter/ what the UN finds.
I think it would have been very difficult to participate in this war,
because our constitution imposes very high restrictions on anything that is
not self defense. And I'm quite glad that we did not have a conservative
government which would have tried to take part in spite of that. The
demonstrations happening in this case would surely have been much larger
than they are now.
With respect to this election business: IMO this is a misinterpretation
which is very common in the American/English media, because it is also
sustained by people from our opposition (Angela Merkel) sliming in front of
George W. Bush. It is not really true. At least for the Green party, it
would be complete suicide at any time _not_ to rule out participation in
this war. Therefore, it was not simply a trick before election, instead
they are convinced of their opinion. (OK, Schroeder himself has said it
very directly with the elections in mind, probably to the same extent that
Bush leads this war for putting his overblown military to a use.)
> Moreover, a German minister compared Bush to Hitler in public.
As you know she was dismissed. And rightly so.
> > Even now, the US have got NATO (with some members not agreeing with
> > a war) so far that it protects Turkey (from which an attack against
> > another state is launched - I wonder if this is covered by the
> > treaty),
>
> Treaty or not, I think protecting Turkey is a good thing in any case,
> and even our government seems to agree on that point now (they didn't
> always which I hope you remember) :-)
Recent news: no they are not. If Turkey sends own troops into Iraq this is
clearly not defense against an attack, so that I guess that they could very
well draw back from Turkey. I'm sorry, but I find this interpretation
completely understandable even if it will piss off Bush and co very much
again.
Nicolas.
P.S.:
1. What a pity that Erik is not posting anymore, because he probably would
fight this war much more eloquently than I can. If he should read this:
thank you for your clear words last year. At that time I thought they
were too drastic, but I have adjusted my opinion.
2. Don't expect further messages from me in this thread. I'll be away at a
conference next week.
Nicolas Neuss <·············@iwr.uni-heidelberg.de> writes:
> Bush leads this war for putting his overblown military to a use.)
^^^^^^^^^
oversized
Sorry, I did not consult the dictionary early enough. I hope there are not
many more stupid mistakes in my message.
Nicolas.
From: Bulent Murtezaoglu
Subject: Re: Against war (off topic)
Date:
Message-ID: <87n0jm9l2u.fsf@acm.org>
[...]
NN> Recent news: no they are not. If Turkey sends own troops into
NN> Iraq this is clearly not defense against an attack, so that I
NN> guess that they could very well draw back from Turkey. I'm
NN> sorry, but I find this interpretation completely
NN> understandable even if it will piss off Bush and co very much
NN> again. [...]
As the resident Turk here lemme chime in with another angle. This
thing is so incompetently and ineptly run politically that the
decision you refer to that makes sense on its own puts the ties that
Turkey has with both NATO and Germany at considerable strain. We have a
recently-elected government here that is seriously suspect of leaning
towards radical Islam, and that a western alliance would actively
_withdraw_ support due to something Turkish army has pretty much
continously done since 1991 will give the populace and elements within
the parliament ammunition to question any and all western ties. Far
be it from me to expect foreign governments to actually fix flawed
perceptions in my country, but why set a fire first and then throw
fuel onto it? (especially when none was really needed in this
instance of a few awacs and a few patriot batteries?)
(BTW I miss Erik too.)
cheers,
BM
Bulent Murtezaoglu <··@acm.org> writes:
> [...]
> NN> Recent news: no they are not. If Turkey sends own troops into
> NN> Iraq this is clearly not defense against an attack, so that I
> NN> guess that they could very well draw back from Turkey. I'm
> NN> sorry, but I find this interpretation completely
> NN> understandable even if it will piss off Bush and co very much
> NN> again. [...]
>
> As the resident Turk here lemme chime in with another angle. This
> thing is so incompetently and ineptly run politically that the
> decision you refer to that makes sense on its own puts the ties that
> Turkey has with both NATO and Germany at considerable strain. We have a
> recently-elected government here that is seriously suspect of leaning
> towards radical Islam, and that a western alliance would actively
> _withdraw_ support due to something Turkish army has pretty much
> continously done since 1991 will give the populace and elements within
> the parliament ammunition to question any and all western ties. Far
> be it from me to expect foreign governments to actually fix flawed
> perceptions in my country, but why set a fire first and then throw
> fuel onto it? (especially when none was really needed in this
> instance of a few awacs and a few patriot batteries?)
>
> (BTW I miss Erik too.)
>
> cheers,
>
> BM
[I found a terminal at Padova:]
Yes, you and Nils are right and I was wrong. Withdrawing would be too
destructive. Fortunately, my government appears to be more clever than me
in this respect - at least for the moment.
And I want to say also that I feel very sorry for the losses the Americans
and British have had in this war and will still suffer. The goal of these
young people is a noble one, and I have still some hope that the world will
become a better place through their braveness. I am mostly angry of Bush
and co: this matter really should have been handled with more time. After
12 years of no pressure one could have afforded building up pressure more
slowly and within UN structures. It did work in Gulf War I, so why not
this time...
Nicolas.
From: Bulent Murtezaoglu
Subject: Re: Against war (off topic)
Date:
Message-ID: <877kancr3t.fsf@acm.org>
>>>>> "NN" == Nicolas Neuss <·············@iwr.uni-heidelberg.de> writes:
[...]
NN> Yes, you and Nils are right and I was wrong. Withdrawing
NN> would be too destructive.
Thank you.
NN> Fortunately, my government appears
NN> to be more clever than me in this respect - at least for the
NN> moment.
So it seems. The past day or so has been intreresting in that regard and
maybe there's stuff going on in the background and people in power are
becoming slightly statesman-like. Surely we aren't one only people who
can see non-blatant but potentially immensely destructive consequences
of ineptitude.
NN> And I want to say also that I feel very sorry for the losses
NN> the Americans and British have had in this war and will still
NN> suffer.
As am I. But I will stick my neck out and say I would be absolutely
frightened if war became even more lopsided than it is now. That is, if
side A _just_ spends money and employs first rate professionals and
equipment and side B suffers huge casualties, I fear the public on
side A will be desensitized to the extent that war will become just an
option as opposed to being the _last_ option. Incidentally, this is
roughly why I think conscription, as painful as it is, migh be a good
thing.
NN> The goal of these young people is a noble one, and I
NN> have still some hope that the world will become a better place
NN> through their braveness.
Maybe. That we have doubts about that does imply that it probably was
premature to start the war.
NN> I am mostly angry of Bush and co:
NN> this matter really should have been handled with more time.
I would like to know why, out of the blue, he came up with the axis of
evil idea in the first place. (I was living in the US at the time, and
I believe the first we heard of that was a state of the union address).
NN> After 12 years of no pressure one could have afforded building
NN> up pressure more slowly and within UN structures. It did work
NN> in Gulf War I, so why not this time...
I have my doubts on what exactly GW-I accomplished. But that probably is
for another forum...
cheers and happy lisping,
BM
In article <··············@acm.org>, Bulent Murtezaoglu <··@acm.org> wrote:
> But I will stick my neck out and say I would be absolutely
> frightened if war became even more lopsided than it is now.
It is ironic, but Saddam Hussein won the first gulf war (and make no
mistake, he did win it) precisely because it was so lopsided. The U.S.
adopted the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming military force. It was so
successful that Bush the elder saw the destruction on the so-called
"highway of death" and was so horrified that he called off the war. In
other words, Hussein won by essentially rolling over and playing dead
until we lost our stomach for war. There are indications that he's trying
that same tactic again, particularly since he hasn't used any of the WOMD
that he's supposed to have. (My God, can you imagine how fucked we will
be if it turns out he really doesn't have any?)
> I would like to know why, out of the blue, he came up with the axis of
> evil idea in the first place. (I was living in the US at the time, and
> I believe the first we heard of that was a state of the union address).
Bush almost certainly didn't come up with this idea on his own. It was
probably fed to him by either Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, or Paul
Wolfowitz, or perhaps all three working in concert. Wolfowitz was the
originator of the preventive war doctrine during the first Bush
administration. Bush the elder never adopted the doctrine (and indeed is
reported to have been quite horrified by it). Alas, Bush the younger
seems to have poorer judgement than his father.
E.
--
The opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily
reflect the views of JPL or NASA.
···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
> In article <··············@acm.org>, Bulent Murtezaoglu <··@acm.org> wrote:
>
> > I would like to know why, out of the blue, he came up with the
> > axis of evil idea in the first place. (I was living in the US at
> > the time, and I believe the first we heard of that was a state of
> > the union address).
>
> Bush almost certainly didn't come up with this idea on his own. It
> was probably fed to him by either Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, or
> Paul Wolfowitz, or perhaps all three working in concert. Wolfowitz
> was the originator of the preventive war doctrine during the first
> Bush administration. Bush the elder never adopted the doctrine (and
> indeed is reported to have been quite horrified by it). Alas, Bush
> the younger seems to have poorer judgement than his father.
I think that you're right about Wolfowitz and crew, but I would say
that "fed" wouldn't characterize how it was handed to Bush. Wolfowitz
and other neoconservatives have been hot to invade Iraq for years, but
made little headway with 43. Remember, 43 ran on a "humble America"
program of reluctant and multilateral intervention, preferring to
focus upon the economy. Condi Rice was probably his most trusted
advise with regards to foreign policy, and Powell was a powerful voice
for the "realist" approach of 41's administration. Rumsfeld was
brought in, in my opinion, not because 43 was awed by his ideas, but
to provide some contrast to Powell. I think the neoconservative
motivations are largely idealogical, wanting to cash in on what they
perceived as a peace dividend at the end of the Cold War.
Jay Bookman of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution summarized much of
this in a prescient opinion piece back in September:
http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0902/29bookman.html
It is as good as any "starting point" in digging for information.
It's been on American TV, too:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/
It's in no way definitive, and there are folks who claim that it is
propaganda (surprise!). There are several interviews with people who
helped shaped the thinking behind what's happening. I find it
interesting because the neoconservatives featured through out the
program are quite open about their intentions and thinking. None of
this would have been possible without the "catalyzing event" of 11
September.
The Frontline link will inevitably lead you to the neoconservative
group Project for the New American Century:
http://www.newamericancentury.org
Be sure to check out the signatories to their "Statement of
Principles". I don't think there is any conspiracy here, but I do
think that many of their ideas are reflected in the current policy.
--
George Demmy
My opinions are my own.
···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
> In article <··············@cartan.de>, Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> wrote:
>
> > ···@flownet.com (Erann Gat) writes:
> >
> > > Just about everything Geroge Bush has done since before he came to
> > > office has made me ashamed to call myself an American. No President
> > > has ever shown more contempt for the bedrock principle of Democracy,
> > > which is that what other people think matters. George Bush has
> > > repeatedly demonstrated (and even explicitly stated) that he doesn't
> > > give a damn what anyone else thinks. He is a dictator who dons the
> > > trappings of Democracy but does not embrace its substance. When he
> > > launches his war against Iraq he will be in my mind little different
> > > from Osama bin Laden. The next time terrorists strike the United
> > > States it will no longer be true that we did nothing to deserve it.
> >
> > Oh /come on/! The senate voted 77-23, the House 296-133 to authorize
> > the president to attack Iraq. This means that even most of the
> > Democrats voted for it. You can hardly call it dictatorial behavior
> > if the president does what he has been authorized to do by the
> > democratic institutions.
>
> Like I said, he dons the trappings of democracy when they suit him. Then
> he discards then when they do not. He invokes the authority of UN
> resolution 1441 as justification for war *now* despite the fact that it is
> clear that the Security Council does *not* support war *now*.
As far as I know the UN has no sovereignty over the US so its resolutions
are not binding. This is not democracy, it is a debating club.
>
> One can only speculate what Bush might have done had Congress and the UN
> not voted his way, but we can abserve his behavior in other cases where
> democratic instutions have opposed him. For example, he has used the
Well you seem to need some remedial civics courses if you are saying that
the UN has the same binding powers as the Congress of the United States.
> power of the Federal government to nullify voter-approved initiatives in
> Oregon (doctor-assisted suicide) and California (medical marijuana). He
I seem to remember another President who used the Army to enforce the
integration of schools in the south, Eisenhower if I remember correctly.
Was he also a dictator in sheep's cloths?
> has fought for the power to detain people indefinitely without trial or
> access to counsel if they are "enemy combatants", but he gets to decide
> who is and is not an enemy combatant. Clearer cases of contempt for
Well I have a great deal of contempt for democracy also, so did Ben
Franklin. He said "Democracy is 2 wolfs and a sheep voting on what
is for dinner and freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the decision".
I may have gotten the exact words wrong, but not the sentiment.
As to the prisoners of war, we are treating them much better then they
would treat us if the situation was reversed.
> democracy I cannot imagine. He may not be a dictator in fact (yet), but
> it is pretty clear to me that he has dictatorial aspirations.
>
> > > The stupidity and tragedy of this situation boggles my mind. Yes,
> > > Saddam Hussein is an evil man. Yes, the world will be better off
> > > without him. But Saddam is hardly unique in this regard, and
> > > solving this problem by starting a war sets a horrible precedent.
> >
> > I find this ``Saddam is not the only bad guy�� argument very strange.
> > So, would it be ok with you if the US attacked all the other bad guys,
> > too?
>
> No. The point is this: if we're going to attaack Saddam because he's a
> bad guy then we are hypocrites if we do not also attack all the other bad
> guys. Attacking all the other bad guys is clearly a bad idea -- because
> we would lose, and because we would get caught up in the tangle of
> confusion trying to decide who "all the other bad guys" are.
So instead of do what good you can, do nothing because it is not fair
to all the other victims of evil people? And I could say the WE(US) have
a greater responsibility to clean this one up because WE helped make it.
>
> That is really the point. It is clear to *me* that Saddam is a bad guy
> and ought to be gotten rid of. And it is clear to Gearge Bush. But it is
> not clear to a lot of other people in the world (including many Iraqis)
> and (and this is the salient point) I believe THEIR OPINION MATTERS.
> George Bush does not (and has said so explicitly).
In this case not unless it is backed with arms. How many are going back
to Iraq to defend it from the US?
>
> I would actually like to see us go to war against Iraq and get rid of
> Saddam. But only with the rest of the world behind us, as they were in
> 1991. Not like this.
So talk him into invading Kuwait again.
>
> > > What is to stop any country from launching a war against anyone that
> > > they judge to be evil?
> >
> > As has always been the case for the last few millennia: Nothing but
> > military force.
>
> Yes, that is alas what we are reverting to. The whole point of the U.N.
> was to get away from that "might makes right" philosophy that lead to all
> the bloody wars of the 20th century. That is why I oppose this war. It
It sounds like you are saying the reason for war is that the people
who are invaded fight back. And I prefer the idea of "Might in the
service of right", which has nothing to do with the UN.
> is not for lack of compassion for the Iraqi people. It is not for lack of
> desire to see Saddam go. It is for the belief that we must adhere to
> *principle*, because if we do not then we are indeed back to "might makes
> right." Today we are the mighty ones. But great powers rise and great
> powers fall. What will protect us when we are no longer the mighty ones?
What principal are you talking about? Opinion polls are policy?
The UN is now the world government
>
> > There are several countries in the world that judge
> > not only the US but /every/ civilized Western country to be evil. And
> > that would attack us the very first minute they think they can do it
> > without being destroyed.
>
> Yes, and why shouldn't they, when they see us doing exactly the same
> thing? Why should they not follow our example?
>
What in the name of reason are you talking about?!?!?!?!!!
If they could and survive they would. Now how is our example
going to have them change their minds?
The fact that we are going to destroy a government that is
evil and needs to die may send a message to other governments
that are evil but have not convinced us that they need to die
that it might not be such a good idea to really make us want
them to go away. For the simple reason that we have done it
and if needed, by *our* standards, we can and will do it again.
> > No, this isn't nice, but when has the world
> > ever been a nice place?
>
> Never. That is no excuse not to try to make is a nicer place.
>
It is also no excuse to stick your head in the sand and refuse
to look at the world as it is. And one way to try to make the
world nicer is to remove evil from it, we are in the process of
doing just that.
> > Also, I reject this kind of relativism. ``We say they're evil, they
> > say we're evil, so who is to say?��.
>
> That is not my brand of relativism. My brand of relativism is: we're all
> a mix of good and evil. Saddam is pretty clearly towards one extreme, but
> even he has done some good things for Iraq. Bush is pretty clearly
> towards the other extreme, and I think in his heart of hearts his
> intentions are good. But intentions don't matter -- results do. And I
> believe that there is a significant danger that the results of our actions
> will bring more evil than good in the long term.
>
> > I read a nice analogy somewhere
> > a while ago: This is as if you were saying that the guy who pushes an
> > old lady away from an approaching bus is morally equivalent to the guy
> > who pushes the lady /before/ the bus because both are doing the same
> > thing: Both of them are pushing old ladies around! ;-)
>
> No, because the resuls are what matter. A better example is giving
> someone poison. Under certain circumstances that can be a compassionate
> thing to do. For example, if they have cancer and the poison you give
> them is a chemotherapy drug. Good and evil are not absolutes. There are
> many shades of grey, and they are all colored by circumstance.
First I see no difference in the logic here. So fine the US is egg shell
on this and Iraq is dark brown.
>
> > > Robert Bolt said it best in "A Man for all Seasons":
> >
> > [snip nice little story]
> >
> > > Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
> > >
> > > I stand with Thomas More on this occasion.
> >
> > So do I, incidentally. The ``Rule of Law�� is an important principle.
> > However I don't think that it applies here. We are not living in one
> > established law system; the UN are /not/ the government of the world,
>
> I agree. The "law" that is at work here is contract law, and the law of
> honor. If we expect others to play by the rules then we must play by the
> rules, even if the outcome of playing by the rules is not what we would
> like it to be. It is hypocracy to hold up U.N. resolution 1441 as
> justification for going to war, while at the same time ignoring the clear
> message from the U.N. that the time for war has not yet come.
Then I guess the US and the UN have agreed to disagree.
>
> Hypocracy is the greatest evil, because once you yield to it you can
> justify anything.
You realize that this does not reflect well on some of your above
comments.
>
> > > OK, I've said my peace. You can come get me now, John Ashcroft.
> > > You know where I live.
> >
> > A bit paranoid, aren't we? ;-)
>
> Perhaps. My grandparents lost most of their childhood friends in Nazi
> concentration camps. The lesson of that experience is that it is
> important to stand up to tyranny before it becomes apparent that it is
> tyranny. Otherwise it may be too late.
And do not forget own lots of guns, so that when they do come in the
night you can kill them.
marc
>
> E.
Marc Spitzer wrote:
>As to the prisoners of war, we are treating them much better then they
>would treat us if the situation was reversed.
>
>
>
Sure, *they* just die in custody - a little 'smacky' is always in order.
Nico <·······@stargate.net> writes:
> Marc Spitzer wrote:
>
> > As to the prisoners of war, we are treating them much better then
> > they would treat us if the situation was reversed.
>
> >
> >
>
>
> Sure, *they* just die in custody - a little 'smacky' is always in order.
what percentage die in US custody? how many die out of the total? From
what little I know about it most of the deaths happened in Afgan hands.
marc
* Marc Spitzer wrote:
> what percentage die in US custody? how many die out of the total? From
> what little I know about it most of the deaths happened in Afgan hands.
That's not the point, and neither is the point whether the bad guys
would do worse. The point is being able to hold `enemy combatants'
indefinitely with no overview, where you (the government) get to
define someone as an `enemy combatant' as suits you. If the bad guys
can push you into laws like that, then they *have won*.
--tim
>>>>> "Tim" == Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> writes:
Tim> * Marc Spitzer wrote:
>> what percentage die in US custody? how many die out of the total? From
>> what little I know about it most of the deaths happened in Afgan hands.
Tim> That's not the point, and neither is the point whether the bad guys
Tim> would do worse. The point is being able to hold `enemy combatants'
Tim> indefinitely with no overview, where you (the government) get to
Tim> define someone as an `enemy combatant' as suits you. If the bad guys
Tim> can push you into laws like that, then they *have won*.
Hear hear!!!!!!
Ray
Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> writes:
> That's not the point, and neither is the point whether the bad guys
> would do worse. The point is being able to hold `enemy combatants'
> indefinitely with no overview, where you (the government) get to
> define someone as an `enemy combatant' as suits you. If the bad guys
> can push you into laws like that, then they *have won*.
Ben Franklin said something that
was often repeated during the American Revolutionary War: "They that can
give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve
neither liberty nor safety."
'Andreas
--
Wherever I lay my .emacs, there�s my $HOME.
* Andreas Eder wrote:
> Ben Franklin said something that
> was often repeated during the American Revolutionary War: "They that can
> give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve
> neither liberty nor safety."
If only the current US leadership understood this. My favourite quote
was from Freeman Dyson: `It's better to get mugged than to live a life
of fear'.
--tim
Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
> [Franklin said]: "Democracy is 2 wolfs and a sheep voting on what is
> for dinner and freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the
> decision".
Parlamentary democracy is when they decide to have "McWabbit Stoo" for
dinner. This is hard to swallow for the sheep, but it is generally
regarded in the media as a reasonable compromise.
Mario.
Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
> As far as I know the UN has no sovereignty over the US so its resolutions
> are not binding. This is not democracy, it is a debating club.
Oh, UN decisions are binding! Go read up on your own laws and
regulations.
'Andreas
--
Wherever I lay my .emacs, there�s my $HOME.
Andreas Eder <············@t-online.de> writes:
> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
>
>> As far as I know the UN has no sovereignty over the US so its resolutions
>> are not binding. This is not democracy, it is a debating club.
>
> Oh, UN decisions are binding!
and who's enforcing them?
--
All ITS machines now have hardware for a new machine instruction --
BOT
Branch On Tree.
Please update your programs.
Erann Gat wrote:
> In article <··············@cartan.de>, Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> wrote:
>
>
>>···@flownet.com (Erann Gat) writes:
>>
> That is really the point. It is clear to *me* that Saddam is a bad guy
> and ought to be gotten rid of. And it is clear to Gearge Bush. But it is
> not clear to a lot of other people in the world (including many Iraqis)
> and (and this is the salient point) I believe THEIR OPINION MATTERS.
> George Bush does not (and has said so explicitly).
So if there's a crack den in the neighborhood, nothing should be done
about it unless a majority of the local citizens, many of whom are also
crackheads, agree to it?
> I would actually like to see us go to war against Iraq and get rid of
> Saddam. But only with the rest of the world behind us, as they were in
> 1991. Not like this.
>
>
>>>What is to stop any country from launching a war against anyone that
>>>they judge to be evil?
>>
>>As has always been the case for the last few millennia: Nothing but
>>military force.
>
> Yes, that is alas what we are reverting to. The whole point of the U.N.
> was to get away from that "might makes right" philosophy that lead to all
> the bloody wars of the 20th century. That is why I oppose this war. It
> is not for lack of compassion for the Iraqi people. It is not for lack of
> desire to see Saddam go. It is for the belief that we must adhere to
> *principle*, because if we do not then we are indeed back to "might makes
> right." Today we are the mighty ones. But great powers rise and great
> powers fall. What will protect us when we are no longer the mighty ones?
Well, certainly not Europe. They were politically and militarily
incapable of doing much of anything during any of the assorted
ex-YugoSlavian troubles. The UN wasn't willing to do anything, either.
If the US hadn't pushed NATO into it, nothing would've been done except
endless hand-wringing, a score of worthless "resolutions" condemning
Milosevich, and if he were really unlucky maybe they'd throw some fierce
scowls in his general direction.
Most of the UN representatives represent no one except thugs. They sure
don't represent the populations of those countries except in a symbolic
fantasy-world kind of way. Giving rulers of countries like Iraw, Syria,
Iran, Libya, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, etc., etc., etc.,
representation on a more-or-less equal basis in the UN (except for a
veto in the Security Council) is like giving John Gotti or Al Capone
representation in the city police commission because "all voices need to
be heard." Yeah. Right.
>>There are several countries in the world that judge
>>not only the US but /every/ civilized Western country to be evil. And
>>that would attack us the very first minute they think they can do it
>>without being destroyed.
>
> Yes, and why shouldn't they, when they see us doing exactly the same
> thing? Why should they not follow our example?
As if the only reason they haven't and don't is because they can't
without fatal consequences. As if they don't do what they think they can
whenever they think they can get away with it. And let's face, they can
nearly always get away with as far as the UN is concerned. The UN
reminds of those parents with little monsters for children, who're
always threatening to count and promising dire consequences if they
reach 10. But they never follow through, and the kids _know_ they won't
follow through and don't pay any attention to them.
>>No, this isn't nice, but when has the world
>>ever been a nice place?
>
>
> Never. That is no excuse not to try to make is a nicer place.
I think that's what the goal is in Iraq...
>>Also, I reject this kind of relativism. ``We say they're evil, they
>>say we're evil, so who is to say?��.
>
>
> That is not my brand of relativism. My brand of relativism is: we're all
> a mix of good and evil. Saddam is pretty clearly towards one extreme, but
> even he has done some good things for Iraq. Bush is pretty clearly
> towards the other extreme, and I think in his heart of hearts his
> intentions are good. But intentions don't matter -- results do. And I
> believe that there is a significant danger that the results of our actions
> will bring more evil than good in the long term.
There's also a significant danger that doing anything else will have
dire consequences. Personally, I think that what we're doing now in Iraq
will do a great deal "pour encourager les autres" when it comes to
other nasty regimes. Including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt,
erstwhile "allies" of ours.
>>So do I, incidentally. The ``Rule of Law�� is an important principle.
>>However I don't think that it applies here. We are not living in one
>>established law system; the UN are /not/ the government of the world,
>
> I agree. The "law" that is at work here is contract law, and the law of
> honor. If we expect others to play by the rules then we must play by the
> rules, even if the outcome of playing by the rules is not what we would
> like it to be. It is hypocracy to hold up U.N. resolution 1441 as
> justification for going to war, while at the same time ignoring the clear
> message from the U.N. that the time for war has not yet come.
No, it is dishonorable for the UN to issue so-called resolutions, then
when push comes to shove, refuse to enforce them. That sends a clear
message of spinelessness and powerlessness. The UN is emasculating itself.
> Hypocracy is the greatest evil, because once you yield to it you can
> justify anything.
Well, that pretty much sums up the UN, alright.
>>>OK, I've said my peace. You can come get me now, John Ashcroft.
>>>You know where I live.
>>
>>A bit paranoid, aren't we? ;-)
>
>
> Perhaps. My grandparents lost most of their childhood friends in Nazi
> concentration camps. The lesson of that experience is that it is
> important to stand up to tyranny before it becomes apparent that it is
> tyranny. Otherwise it may be too late.
As long as we're talking hypotheticals, opposing a tyranny that doesn't
actually exist is at best a waste of time and at worst may open the way
for a real tyranny to move in. Comparing the Bush administration to
Nazis (the clear implication here) is moral equivalence of the silliest
sort.
In article <······················@rwcrnsc54>, Larry Elmore
<·······@attbi.com> wrote:
> > That is really the point. It is clear to *me* that Saddam is a bad guy
> > and ought to be gotten rid of. And it is clear to Gearge Bush. But it is
> > not clear to a lot of other people in the world (including many Iraqis)
> > and (and this is the salient point) I believe THEIR OPINION MATTERS.
> > George Bush does not (and has said so explicitly).
>
> So if there's a crack den in the neighborhood, nothing should be done
> about it unless a majority of the local citizens, many of whom are also
> crackheads, agree to it?
You've left out a lot of details. Are the crackheads doing anything
illegal other than using crack? Are they having a negative impact outside
of their neighborhood? Are they economically self sufficient despite
being crackheads? The answer to all these questions is unlikely to be
"yes" given what crack does to people's brains, but if you're willing to
suspend your disbelief to that extent then, yes, IMO nothing should be
done.
> >>No, this isn't nice, but when has the world
> >>ever been a nice place?
> >
> >
> > Never. That is no excuse not to try to make is a nicer place.
>
> I think that's what the goal is in Iraq...
Of course that's the goal. Whether that will be the net effect remains to
be seen.
> >>Also, I reject this kind of relativism. ``We say they're evil, they
> >>say we're evil, so who is to say?��.
> >
> >
> > That is not my brand of relativism. My brand of relativism is: we're all
> > a mix of good and evil. Saddam is pretty clearly towards one extreme, but
> > even he has done some good things for Iraq. Bush is pretty clearly
> > towards the other extreme, and I think in his heart of hearts his
> > intentions are good. But intentions don't matter -- results do. And I
> > believe that there is a significant danger that the results of our actions
> > will bring more evil than good in the long term.
>
> There's also a significant danger that doing anything else will have
> dire consequences.
That is now a moot point.
> No, it is dishonorable for the UN to issue so-called resolutions, then
> when push comes to shove, refuse to enforce them. That sends a clear
> message of spinelessness and powerlessness. The UN is emasculating itself.
I agree, but that had not yet happened. Push had not yet come to shove.
The inspectors were on the ground. Progress was being made. Yes, it was
slower than many people, including myself, would have liked. Sometimes
the price of civilization is inefficiency.
> > Hypocracy is the greatest evil, because once you yield to it you can
> > justify anything.
>
> Well, that pretty much sums up the UN, alright.
I don't disagree with that. What concerns me is not so much the UN as the
millions of people marching in the streets.
> > Perhaps. My grandparents lost most of their childhood friends in Nazi
> > concentration camps. The lesson of that experience is that it is
> > important to stand up to tyranny before it becomes apparent that it is
> > tyranny. Otherwise it may be too late.
>
> As long as we're talking hypotheticals, opposing a tyranny that doesn't
> actually exist is at best a waste of time and at worst may open the way
> for a real tyranny to move in. Comparing the Bush administration to
> Nazis (the clear implication here) is moral equivalence of the silliest
> sort.
I did not mean to imply that the Bush Administration is in any way
remotely comparable to the Nazis, or that I think it's plausible that they
ever will be. But the Nazis in their early days did not look very much
like what they ultimately became (or showed themselves to be). My point
was only that these things are better dealt with sooner rather than
later. It is better to be overly vigilant and wrong than overly
complacent and wrong.
E.
Erann Gat wrote:
> In article <······················@rwcrnsc54>, Larry Elmore
> <·······@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>>>That is really the point. It is clear to *me* that Saddam is a bad guy
>>>and ought to be gotten rid of. And it is clear to Gearge Bush. But it is
>>>not clear to a lot of other people in the world (including many Iraqis)
>>>and (and this is the salient point) I believe THEIR OPINION MATTERS.
>>>George Bush does not (and has said so explicitly).
>>
>>So if there's a crack den in the neighborhood, nothing should be done
>>about it unless a majority of the local citizens, many of whom are also
>>crackheads, agree to it?
>
>
> You've left out a lot of details. Are the crackheads doing anything
> illegal other than using crack? Are they having a negative impact outside
> of their neighborhood? Are they economically self sufficient despite
> being crackheads? The answer to all these questions is unlikely to be
> "yes" given what crack does to people's brains, but if you're willing to
> suspend your disbelief to that extent then, yes, IMO nothing should be
> done.
Given all those conditions, no, nothing should be done. Given all those
very unlikely conditions.
>
>>No, it is dishonorable for the UN to issue so-called resolutions, then
>>when push comes to shove, refuse to enforce them. That sends a clear
>>message of spinelessness and powerlessness. The UN is emasculating itself.
>
> I agree, but that had not yet happened. Push had not yet come to shove.
> The inspectors were on the ground. Progress was being made. Yes, it was
> slower than many people, including myself, would have liked. Sometimes
> the price of civilization is inefficiency.
I don't think any progress was being made. Saddam gave up a few tokens
to say, "See? I'm complying!" and the gullible buy it. The *only* reason
inspectors were on the ground was the certainty that if he didn't let
them in, he was going to be overthrown by force. We've been down this
garden path before. As soon as our forces were withdrawn, he'd get
extremely uncooperative again (not that he's ever been anything but
uncooperative). We'd have to withdraw our forces sooner or later, and he
knew that. He was playing for time and time was on his side.
I've seen how effective the inspectors were. They sure didn't find the
Scuds he's been firing, and they're not exactly small.
>>>Hypocracy is the greatest evil, because once you yield to it you can
>>>justify anything.
>>
>>Well, that pretty much sums up the UN, alright.
>
>
> I don't disagree with that. What concerns me is not so much the UN as the
> millions of people marching in the streets.
Millions also marched in anti-nuclear protests in the 80's. They were
wrong, too.
>>>Perhaps. My grandparents lost most of their childhood friends in Nazi
>>>concentration camps. The lesson of that experience is that it is
>>>important to stand up to tyranny before it becomes apparent that it is
>>>tyranny. Otherwise it may be too late.
>>
>>As long as we're talking hypotheticals, opposing a tyranny that doesn't
>>actually exist is at best a waste of time and at worst may open the way
>>for a real tyranny to move in. Comparing the Bush administration to
>>Nazis (the clear implication here) is moral equivalence of the silliest
>>sort.
>
>
> I did not mean to imply that the Bush Administration is in any way
> remotely comparable to the Nazis, or that I think it's plausible that they
> ever will be. But the Nazis in their early days did not look very much
> like what they ultimately became (or showed themselves to be). My point
> was only that these things are better dealt with sooner rather than
> later. It is better to be overly vigilant and wrong than overly
> complacent and wrong.
It was perfectly clear just what the Nazis were from their very
beginning. They were violent totalitarians with very public goals,
except for the mass-murder part. They were going to "cleanse" Germany
and ultimately Europe of the undesirables, and the real failure was that
of most people to think they'd actually try to do it.
Saddam should've been dealt with sooner rather than later, and
definitely better now than sometime in the future after he's managed to
acquire nuclear weapons. I believe he would've eventually, because the
UN is spineless and ineffective when it comes to dealing with people
like him. They've got a horrendous track record of both pompousassity
and impotence.
I think the 'peace' protesters and actions of France, Germany, et al,
actually made this war more likely in the end. Saddam *might* have
backed down if he was faced with a united front and certain
consequences, but he saw obvious divisions and thought he could take
advantage of them. He was wrong. History is full of similar examples.
--Larry
In article <·······················@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>, Larry
Elmore <·······@attbi.com> wrote:
> Millions also marched in anti-nuclear protests in the 80's. They were
> wrong, too.
Hm, I actually engaged in a debate on this very topic in "Nuclear News" a
few years back. Let me see if I can dig that up.
> It was perfectly clear just what the Nazis were from their very
> beginning. They were violent totalitarians with very public goals,
> except for the mass-murder part.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ROTFLMAO! "The mass murder part" is not exactly a trivial detail.
> They were going to "cleanse" Germany
> and ultimately Europe of the undesirables, and the real failure was that
> of most people to think they'd actually try to do it.
Substitute "terrorist" (or "potential terrorist") for "undesirable" and it
starts to sound eerily familiar.
> I think the 'peace' protesters and actions of France, Germany, et al,
> actually made this war more likely in the end. Saddam *might* have
> backed down if he was faced with a united front and certain
> consequences, but he saw obvious divisions and thought he could take
> advantage of them. He was wrong. History is full of similar examples.
I actually agree with that. It would have been better if the whole world
had united like they did in 1991 and gotten the job done once and for
all. But they didn't. And because they didn't we should have waited.
E.
In article <····················@192.168.1.51>, ···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann
Gat) wrote:
> In article <·······················@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>, Larry
> Elmore <·······@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> > Millions also marched in anti-nuclear protests in the 80's. They were
> > wrong, too.
>
> Hm, I actually engaged in a debate on this very topic in "Nuclear News" a
> few years back. Let me see if I can dig that up.
Here it is:
Response to Betsy Tompkins, April 2000
Erann Gat
25 May 2000
In her April 2000 essay, "Measurably Illogical," Betsy Tompkins asks, "Why
does there seem to be a complete absense of logic where radiation is
concerned?" I submit that there is substantial logic in the public
reaction to tiny amounts of radiation released into the environment, and
the nuclear community is undermining its own cause by failing to recognize
this.
Assessing risk is a black art, and the blackest corner of this art is
assessing risks where the probability of undesirable events is low, but
the consequences are catastrophic. When undesirable consequences of a
risky activity are common (e.g. getting lung cancer from smoking) we can
obtain a large amount of real data about both the probability of the event
and the seriousness of the consequences. When the probability of failure
is low we have a lot less hard data, and we have to rely on extrapolations
and engineering judgement. The problem is that engineers can rely on
their own engineering judgement while the non-engineering public has to
rely on the engineering judgement of others. This introduces human
factors into their reasoning. A member of the general public has to ask
not only the question of whether the risks are worth the benefits, but
whether the risks are really what the engineers say they are. The
apparently overblown reaction to the release of a small amount of
radioactive steam is not a reaction to the release of the steam per se.
It is instead a reaction to the fact that this event was unexpected. Any
unexpected event, even one with zero negative consequences in and of
itself, undermines a layman's faith that the engineers know what they are
doing.
Here is an analogy to put the situation in perspective. Imagine that one
day your local bank installs a new kind of ATM machine. This machine
doesn't require an ATM card or even an account. It dispenses $100 to
anyone who cares to walk up and push the button. The catch is that above
the cash dispenser is the barrel of a gun pointing straight at you. The
bank assures you that the machine is perfectly safe despite the fact that
some people have been wounded or killed by similar machines in the past.
This machine is the new and improved model. It conforms to all the latest
government safety regulations. So you start to use the machine, a little
nervously at first, then with increasing confidence, until one day you
push the button and you hear the hammer of the gun go "click!"
If you decided to stop using the machine after that experience would that
be an irrational decision? No. Risk has to be assessed not only on the
basis of the probability of an event and the gravity of the consequences,
but also on the reliability of the avialable information. When
information comes from other humans rather than firsthand experience the
assessment of its reliability necessarily involves a certain amount of
subjectivity. There is nothing illogical about this. There is no purely
objective way of deciding whether another human is trustworthy or not.
Logic and objectivity are not the same thing.
Ironically, ranting about a "complete absence of logic" is much more
illogical then the overblown reactions to the release of some radioactive
steam. It is also very counterproductive because the problem is not that
the general public is being illogical, the problem is that they don't
trust the engineers. We say the plants are safe, but they simply don't
believe us. And from their point of view, not having the technical
foundation to make such assessments for themselves, this is a perfectly
logical position. What's more, this position is actually reinforced when
engineers take extreme positions and start bandying about phrases like
"complete absence of logic."
The debate over nuclear power in this country will have the outcome that
the nuclear engineering community wants only if that community is able to
maintain the highest level of credibility with the public. Taking extreme
positions and ranting about "complete absence of logic" does more to
undermine the cause than to promote it.
···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
> The debate over nuclear power in this country will have the outcome
> that the nuclear engineering community wants only if that community
> is able to maintain the highest level of credibility with the
> public. Taking extreme positions and ranting about "complete
> absence of logic" does more to undermine the cause than to promote
> it.
Interesting, thanks. At the small, subjective risk of bringing this
thread on topic, let me point out that the father of Lisp, John
McCarthy, has written about nuclear energy, too:
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclearnow.html
Regards,
--
Nils G�sche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
PGP key ID 0x0655CFA0
Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> writes:
> ···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
>
> > The debate over nuclear power in this country will have the outcome
> > that the nuclear engineering community wants only if that community
> > is able to maintain the highest level of credibility with the
> > public. Taking extreme positions and ranting about "complete
> > absence of logic" does more to undermine the cause than to promote
> > it.
>
> Interesting, thanks. At the small, subjective risk of bringing this
> thread on topic, let me point out that the father of Lisp, John
> McCarthy, has written about nuclear energy, too:
>
> http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclearnow.html
>
McCarthy is talking primarily about breeder reactors, which as far as
I know, only one experimental one has ever been built (at Princeton)
and now it's been buried in concrete.
The truth is that the only feasible answer we have to the impending
energy crisis is Nuclear power.
As for getting OT, I recommend we all take this to alt.america or
alt.freedom.
Erann Gat wrote:
> In article <·······················@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>, Larry
> Elmore <·······@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>
>>It was perfectly clear just what the Nazis were from their very
>>beginning. They were violent totalitarians with very public goals,
>>except for the mass-murder part.
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> ROTFLMAO! "The mass murder part" is not exactly a trivial detail.
Okay, I worded that really badly. It was certainly implicit in their
rantings, though, and many people understood that before the fact.
>>They were going to "cleanse" Germany
>>and ultimately Europe of the undesirables, and the real failure was that
>>of most people to think they'd actually try to do it.
>
> Substitute "terrorist" (or "potential terrorist") for "undesirable" and it
> starts to sound eerily familiar.
Let's see. Innocent men, women and children who have committed no crime
except for being of the wrong ancestry versus stone-cold mass murderers
who target innocent men, women and children. I don't think that flies.
>>I think the 'peace' protesters and actions of France, Germany, et al,
>>actually made this war more likely in the end. Saddam *might* have
>>backed down if he was faced with a united front and certain
>>consequences, but he saw obvious divisions and thought he could take
>>advantage of them. He was wrong. History is full of similar examples.
>
>
> I actually agree with that. It would have been better if the whole world
> had united like they did in 1991 and gotten the job done once and for
> all. But they didn't. And because they didn't we should have waited.
Maybe. I don't really think so, though.
--Larry
"Erann Gat" <···@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote in message
·························@k-137-79-50-101.jpl.nasa.gov...
> In article <······················@rwcrnsc54>, Larry Elmore
> <·······@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> > >>No, this isn't nice, but when has the world
> > >>ever been a nice place?
> > >
> > > Never. That is no excuse not to try to make is a nicer place.
> >
> > I think that's what the goal is in Iraq...
>
> Of course that's the goal.
I don't think so. There are many countries that are not nice places. Iraq
is not the worst.
Wars are always about economics. It is a remarkable feat of
marketing/social programming/propagandizing whatever you want to call it
that so many people swallow so easily the notion that the US sails into
countries around the world to deliver democracy and liberty. It is just not
the case, nor are they worse than any other powerful nation in history, they
are just the most effective at this time.
> I did not mean to imply that the Bush Administration is in any way
> remotely comparable to the Nazis, or that I think it's plausible that they
> ever will be. But the Nazis in their early days did not look very much
> like what they ultimately became (or showed themselves to be). My point
> was only that these things are better dealt with sooner rather than
> later. It is better to be overly vigilant and wrong than overly
> complacent and wrong.
Very well put. It is foolish to think what you have now can not disappear
very quickly. I think that was Erann's point.
The general apathy that the American populace showed when their very
precious democratic process was subverted by the highest court in the land
is not much of a deterrent to some hypothetical political leader who might
chose to combine mass fear of terrorism, a loyal supreme court demonstrably
unafraid of betraying their own constitution and war-time issues of security
to do something unprecedented like postponing indefinately the next
election.
I do not predict this, but I would not be surprised by it either. Others
are of course free to predict "it will not happen" but it is very naive to
say "it can not happen"
The world changes very quickly. The US is showing that very dangerous
combination of self-righteousness, arrogance and conceit together with
faltering economics, deteriorating social structures and distorted self
image that quite often precedes the collapse of great powers such as theirs.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
In article <···········@otis.netspace.net.au>, "Coby Beck"
<·····@mercury.bc.ca> wrote:
> "Erann Gat" <···@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote in message
> ·························@k-137-79-50-101.jpl.nasa.gov...
> > In article <······················@rwcrnsc54>, Larry Elmore
> > <·······@attbi.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >>No, this isn't nice, but when has the world
> > > >>ever been a nice place?
> > > >
> > > > Never. That is no excuse not to try to make is a nicer place.
> > >
> > > I think that's what the goal is in Iraq...
> >
> > Of course that's the goal.
>
> I don't think so. There are many countries that are not nice places. Iraq
> is not the worst.
True. Nonetheless, I believe that the intention of Bush et al. is to make
the world ultimately a nicer place. I think that is also the intention of
most, though not all, terrorists. That is why I think those intentions
are largely irrelevant in both cases.
E.
"Nils Goesche" <······@cartan.de> wrote in message
···················@cartan.de...
> For many decades doing
> anything sensible with UN approval has been pretty much impossible
> because of the Soviet ``Nyet!��.
Which decades are you talking about? USSR/Russia has indeed cast more vetos
than any other nation, 121, but 80 of those were before 1955! 106 of them
were before 1965! Russia (as opposed to the Soviet Union which no longer
exists by the way) has used its veto less than two times.[1]
I'm curious as to why you have formed an opinion so radically opposed to
easily verifiable facts. You should carefully reconsider just what is and
isn't an impediment to an effective United Nations.
This is really one of the most upsetting things for me about the illegal
actions of the "Coalition of the Willing", the severe damage it will do to
UN authority at a time when the UN was becoming a more effective body.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
[1] from http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/data/vetotab.htm
Period | China* | France | Britain | U.S. | USSR/Russia | Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 | - | - | - | 2 | - | 2
2001 | - | - | - | 2 | - | 2
2000 | - | - | - | - | - | 0
1999 | 1 | - | - | - | - | 1
1998 | - | - | - | - | - | 0
1997 | 1 | - | - | 2 | - | 3
1996 | - | - | - | - | - | 0
1986-95 | - | 3 | 8 | 24 | 2 | 37
1976-85 | - | 9 | 11 | 34 | 6 | 60
1966-75 | 2 | 2 | 10 | 12 | 7 | 33
1956-65 | - | 2 | 3 | - | 26 | 31
1946-55 | (1*) | 2 | - | - | 80 | 83
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All Time | 4-5 | 18 | 32 | 76 | 121 | 252
"Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca> writes:
> "Nils Goesche" <······@cartan.de> wrote in message
> ···················@cartan.de...
> > For many decades doing anything sensible with UN approval has been
> > pretty much impossible because of the Soviet ``Nyet!��.
>
> Which decades are you talking about? USSR/Russia has indeed cast
> more vetos than any other nation, 121, but 80 of those were before
> 1955! 106 of them were before 1965!
Doh! As the single most important thing, as you seem to have
forgotten, was to fight Communist aggressions all over the globe,
nobody cared to ask the UN anymore. Guess why.
> Russia (as opposed to the Soviet Union which no longer exists by the
> way)...
Do you think I don't know that? I have lived in Berlin when the Wall
came down (I still do). I have been in the Soviet Union and now
Russia several times. I have always loved Russian literature, Russian
music, Russian art, the Russian language and the Russian people in
general. That has always been one reason for me to hate the
Communists even more, for what they did to the Russian people, as well
as all those so called ``intellectuals�� and ``peace lovers�� who
spent so much time defending and/or outright denying their crimes.
Incidentally, I am reading Shalamov's ``Kolyma Tales�� right now.
Fascinating stuff. Maybe you should give it a try, too, just in case
you have forgotten that hell on earth actually existed, who was
responsible for it and what exactly it was Western ``intellectuals��
and ``progressives�� have been praising, defending and pardoning for
so many decades.
So, when I say ``Soviet��, you can safely assume that I mean what I
say.
> has used its veto less than two times.[1]
Ten years isn't exactly much by historical standards. Yes, the world
has become a better place since the Communists have mostly been
defeated (much to the dismay and despite the efforts and propaganda of
numerous leftist intellectuals who are still teaching in our
universities and writing editorials for the New York Times, BTW). It
is indeed nice that it has become possible to revive the UN somewhat
and take a few steps towards a world order where international
relations are ruled by laws instead of nothing but military power and
force.
However, there is still a long way to go. Most countries in this
world are /still/ ruled by thugs and dictators whose representatives
are sitting and voting in the UN. It is too early to give up our
sovereignty by giving more power to the UN (and thus, to those thugs,
too). Only when most parts of the world are governed by sane,
Western-style democracies that might indeed become an alternative. I
guess it is going to happen some day. I hope so. But that time has
not come yet.
Regards,
--
Nils G�sche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
PGP key ID 0x0655CFA0
In article <····························@posting.google.com>, Erann Gat
<···@flownet.com> wrote:
The whole tone of this and much of the other rhetoric coming from the
left really reminds me of the sort of cr*p the wacko right was spewing
during the Clinton administration. But that sort of paranoid hysteria
was self-defeating for them, and it is not pretty to see it coming from
the left. It is unpursuasive, devoid of logic, and corrosive to public
discourse.
>
> Just about everything Geroge Bush has done since before he came to
> office has made me ashamed to call myself an American.
Sorry to hear that. He doesn't make me ashamed.
> No President
> has ever shown more contempt for the bedrock principle of Democracy,
> which is that what other people think matters.
You're sort-of right here, but a bit off the mark. A couple of points:
(a) the US is not strictly speaking a democracy. What people think
only directly matters at election time, with only an indirect influence
the rest of the time. This was considered a feature by the founding
fathers as a way around the instability and lack of focus that plagued
the classical democracies of ancient Greece.
(b) What non-citizens think *doesn't* matter, except as a courtesy.
(c) What citizens think does indeed matter, subject to the restrictions
I mentioned in (a). But the demonstrations thus far aren't significant
as an expression of public opinion, except to the extent that they sway
the greater public to their side and thereby effect an indirect
influence, which has notably failed to happen. Depth of feeling does
not equal breadth of opinion. And opinion polls are not convertible
with elections. As for the foreign demonstrations, (c) applies to
their governments, (b) applies to ours.
> George Bush has
> repeatedly demonstrated (and even explicitly stated) that he doesn't
> give a damn what anyone else thinks.
I agree with him, at least wrt foreign opinion. I didn't vote for him
so he would listen to foreigners (actually, I didn't vote for him at
all, which I have since come to regret). As for U.S. opinion, the
majority seem to support him.
> He is a dictator who dons the
> trappings of Democracy but does not embrace its substance.
You're really out on a limb here -- what exactly makes him a dictator?
A handful of people claiming so does not make it true.
> When he
> launches his war against Iraq he will be in my mind little different
> from Osama bin Laden.
Don't really know what to say here -- I think we're just on different
planets somehow.
> The next time terrorists strike the United
> States it will no longer be true that we did nothing to deserve it.
Was it even true the last time? Most of the people I've heard making
this claim were claiming last time that we must have done something to
deserve it, the claimed reasons being kyoto, missile ban, etc.
> The stupidity and tragedy of this situation boggles my mind. Yes,
> Saddam Hussein is an evil man. Yes, the world will be better off
> without him.
So what's the problem?
> But Saddam is hardly unique in this regard, and solving
> this problem by starting a war sets a horrible precedent.
What precedent? That liberating people from a horrible evil man is not
only possible, but even desirable? How exactly is this horrible?
> What is to
> stop any country from launching a war against anyone that they judge
> to be evil?
What has *ever* kept any country from launching a war? This is nothing
new -- the U.S. didn't suddenly pull the concept of war out of a hat.
> Thank you for your forbearance on this decidedly off-topic post. When
> the bombs start to fly I wanted everyone to know that they do so
> without the consent of this American.
He does so with the consent of this American. But thank you for your
opinion. Feel free to register it officially next election.
> OK, I've said my peace. You can come get me now, John Ashcroft. You
> know where I live.
Oh please, join the crowd. What have you said here that many americans
from congress, the press, celebrities on down haven't said? How many
of them has Ashcroft gone after?
I know, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're *not* out to
get you, but you really need to calm down.
I remember listening to a call-in show on the radio back in the mid
90's, and this one "militia" guy called in ranting, cowering in his
basement with his pistol claiming Reno was coming after him. Your
paranoia is no less absurd, and no less amusing, than his.
In article <································@earthlink.net>, Michael
Parker <·············@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > No President
> > has ever shown more contempt for the bedrock principle of Democracy,
> > which is that what other people think matters.
>
> You're sort-of right here, but a bit off the mark. A couple of points:
>
> (a) the US is not strictly speaking a democracy.
True. I'm referring to "democracy" in the sense that is meant when we
refer to ridding the world of dictators and tyrants.
> > George Bush has
> > repeatedly demonstrated (and even explicitly stated) that he doesn't
> > give a damn what anyone else thinks.
>
> I agree with him, at least wrt foreign opinion. I didn't vote for him
> so he would listen to foreigners (actually, I didn't vote for him at
> all, which I have since come to regret). As for U.S. opinion, the
> majority seem to support him.
Yes, but this is merely a convenient coincidence. It is clear that he
would not be the least bit deterred if this were not so. He has said so
explicitly.
> > He is a dictator who dons the
> > trappings of Democracy but does not embrace its substance.
>
> You're really out on a limb here -- what exactly makes him a dictator?
> A handful of people claiming so does not make it true.
You're right, I was being overly dramatic here. He is not a dictator
(yet) but he does seem to have dictatorial ambitions. I cite once again
his invokation of Federal power to quash voter initiatives, and his
unilateral assertion of the power to detain anyone he deems to be an
"enemy combatant" indefinitely.
> > When he
> > launches his war against Iraq he will be in my mind little different
> > from Osama bin Laden.
>
> Don't really know what to say here -- I think we're just on different
> planets somehow.
Perhaps I was being overly dramatic here too. But really, what is the
difference? Both men think that they are right, that they have God on
their side, and to hell with what anyone else thinks. The only
difference, it seems to me, is that bin Laden targets civilians
intentionally, whereas Bush doesn't, but again I say that it is the
results that matter, not intentions. How many civilians have we already
killed? How many more will die? I don't know -- those numbers aren't
regularly recited in the American press. But I'll be surprised if the
final tally is less than 2795.
> > The next time terrorists strike the United
> > States it will no longer be true that we did nothing to deserve it.
>
> Was it even true the last time?
Last time it was arguable. Next time it may not be.
> > The stupidity and tragedy of this situation boggles my mind. Yes,
> > Saddam Hussein is an evil man. Yes, the world will be better off
> > without him.
>
> So what's the problem?
The problem is that my opinion is not the only one that matters.
> > But Saddam is hardly unique in this regard, and solving
> > this problem by starting a war sets a horrible precedent.
>
> What precedent? That liberating people from a horrible evil man is not
> only possible, but even desirable? How exactly is this horrible?
The precedent I fear is that it is OK for one country to launch a war
against another country simply because the one country judges that there
is sufficient reason to do so.
> > What is to
> > stop any country from launching a war against anyone that they judge
> > to be evil?
>
> What has *ever* kept any country from launching a war? This is nothing
> new -- the U.S. didn't suddenly pull the concept of war out of a hat.
Principle. Self-preservation. A desire to do the Right Thing. And yes,
as a matter of fact, the United States did pull the concept of this war
out of a hat. Before 9/11 there was nothing in George Bush's rhetoric
about Iraq. After 9/11 it's suddenly Job 1, despite the fact that Iraq's
connection with 9/11 is tenuous at best. That's part of the problem. I
don't understand why we're going to war *now*. It really does seem
completely irrational to me, particularly since North Korea seems to be a
much more credible and emininent threat to U.S. and world security.
> I remember listening to a call-in show on the radio back in the mid
> 90's, and this one "militia" guy called in ranting, cowering in his
> basement with his pistol claiming Reno was coming after him. Your
> paranoia is no less absurd, and no less amusing, than his.
<shrug> I don't suppose this person was calling from Waco Texas?
You know, I would like nothing better than to be proven wrong about all
this. If we attack Iraq and everything turns out all hunky dory, I will
happily eat the biggest serving of crow you can dish up. I will say, "Mr.
President, you were right, and I was wrong, and I'm damn glad you were
leading the country and not me." I honestly hope that I will some day be
able to say that.
But right now I'm saying that IMO this is not the time for war.
E.
In article <····················@k-137-79-50-101.jpl.nasa.gov>, Erann
Gat <···@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> > I agree with him, at least wrt foreign opinion. I didn't vote for him
> > so he would listen to foreigners (actually, I didn't vote for him at
> > all, which I have since come to regret). As for U.S. opinion, the
> > majority seem to support him.
>
> Yes, but this is merely a convenient coincidence. It is clear that he
> would not be the least bit deterred if this were not so. He has said so
> explicitly.
I agree that he would not likely be deterred, not unless the polls were
strongly against him. But if that were the case, congress would likely
have intervened and refused to give its ok (or retracted its ok).
But this does not mean that he is undemocratic (in the U.S. sense) --
he is only beholden to the american voters at election time. Again,
this was a deliberate decision on the part of the founding fathers.
If the americans really oppose his decision, then they can toss him out
next election, or yank him out via proxy using the impeachment process.
> You're right, I was being overly dramatic here. He is not a dictator
> (yet) but he does seem to have dictatorial ambitions. I cite once again
> his invokation of Federal power to quash voter initiatives, and his
> unilateral assertion of the power to detain anyone he deems to be an
> "enemy combatant" indefinitely.
Sorry, I hadn't read this when I replied to your post below. I'm not
familiar with his attempting to quash voter initiatives, could you give
more detail? As to the enemy combatant thing, I'm only aware of one
case in this area, and that's Padilla, who I understand (though I could
be wrong) is now getting his due process. Are there more cases I'm not
aware of? Non-citizens don't count for this argument, since holding
non-citizens doesn't seem to threaten the democratic fabric -- they
can't vote, after all. I'm not claiming that it's ethical or moral,
but I really don't see that it threatens the democracy until we start
seeing due process violated for citizens (and more than just one or two
cases). Keep in mind that Lincoln suspended habeus corpus during the
Civil War without any long-term problems, so slippery slope arguments
are on shaky ground as well.
> Perhaps I was being overly dramatic here too. But really, what is the
> difference? Both men think that they are right, that they have God on
> their side, and to hell with what anyone else thinks. The only
> difference, it seems to me, is that bin Laden targets civilians
> intentionally, whereas Bush doesn't
That's a heck of a difference :-)
> , but again I say that it is the
> results that matter, not intentions. How many civilians have we already
> killed? How many more will die? I don't know -- those numbers aren't
> regularly recited in the American press. But I'll be surprised if the
> final tally is less than 2795.
Does the fact that Saddam won't be able to top that death toll annually
help your conscience any?
> > What precedent? That liberating people from a horrible evil man is not
> > only possible, but even desirable? How exactly is this horrible?
>
> The precedent I fear is that it is OK for one country to launch a war
> against another country simply because the one country judges that there
> is sufficient reason to do so.
But that has always been the case that any country could launch an
attack just because it wants to. The U.S. is setting no precedent
here.
> > > What is to
> > > stop any country from launching a war against anyone that they judge
> > > to be evil?
> >
> > What has *ever* kept any country from launching a war? This is nothing
> > new -- the U.S. didn't suddenly pull the concept of war out of a hat.
>
> Principle. Self-preservation. A desire to do the Right Thing. And yes,
> as a matter of fact, the United States did pull the concept of this war
> out of a hat. Before 9/11 there was nothing in George Bush's rhetoric
> about Iraq. After 9/11 it's suddenly Job 1, despite the fact that Iraq's
> connection with 9/11 is tenuous at best. That's part of the problem. I
> don't understand why we're going to war *now*. It really does seem
> completely irrational to me, particularly since North Korea seems to be a
> much more credible and emininent threat to U.S. and world security.
This is another place where I think somehow we've been living on
different planets, and maybe it's just a difference in which newspapers
we read. But Iraq has been an issue in the U.S. ever since the first
gulf war, whether the press treated it as a top issue or not. We and
the British have been running regular missions over the "no-fly zones"
nearly every day. And it was not "job 1" after 9/11 -- it didn't
become job 1 until well after afghanistan, nearly 6 months after 9/11.
Bush has never claimed that Iraq was deeply involved in 9/11 (at least
not that I'm aware of). The Czech's claimed that one of the 9/11 guys
met with an Iraqi, but Bush has never made this a centerpiece of his
argument. He has claimed that Iraq is friendly with, and also sponsors
terror organizations including Al Quaeda.
Bush's case for taking out Saddam seems to be basically that since he
is friendly with terrorists, and had chemical and biological weapons
before the inspectors were kicked out, and was working on nukes, and
has resisted all attempts to disarm, that he presents an unacceptable
future risk. As for why now instead of later, that may simply come
down to "why not now?".
> > I remember listening to a call-in show on the radio back in the mid
> > 90's, and this one "militia" guy called in ranting, cowering in his
> > basement with his pistol claiming Reno was coming after him. Your
> > paranoia is no less absurd, and no less amusing, than his.
>
> <shrug> I don't suppose this person was calling from Waco Texas?
Michigan, I think he was part of the so-called "michigan militia". But
as the far-right discovered during that time period, it's all too easy
to get sucked into the paranoia trap. The "militia" guys became
convinced after Ruby Ridge that the government was out to get them, and
Waco confirmed it. In their paranoia, they never noticed the obvious
counterindications. In Popper's theory, they had an unfalsifiable
hypothesis -- the government was out to get them. There was no way for
the government to prove them wrong that they would accept as valid,
because of their intense suspicion.
This is something I see beginning to happen on the far left today, and
i don't know if it's because of the polarizing affect of the 2000
election or what. I'm pretty sure that the far right's paranoia was in
part due to the polarizing effect of Clinton -- they calmed down quite
a bit once the Republicans swept the '94 congressional elections,
although it took years for the paranoia to subside.
But for the left now as for the right then, it's a very dangerous
attitude because of the way it warps your perception of events. Yes
their fears are confirmed by the curtailment of civil liberties in the
patriot act, but they fail to realize the significance of the lack of
mass detainment of muslim and arab citizens. Yes middle-eastern
looking people are getting searched more at airports, but all of the
9/11 terrorists were middle-eastern. Perspective, I guess is what I'm
asking for.
> You know, I would like nothing better than to be proven wrong about all
> this. If we attack Iraq and everything turns out all hunky dory, I will
> happily eat the biggest serving of crow you can dish up. I will say, "Mr.
> President, you were right, and I was wrong, and I'm damn glad you were
> leading the country and not me." I honestly hope that I will some day be
> able to say that.
I hope it comes out ok as well. I had to eat crow after Serbia -- it's
not a lot of fun.
> But right now I'm saying that IMO this is not the time for war.
That's one of the nice things about both an open society and open
source -- there's a lot of eyeballs looking at things. Unfortunately,
the big blue room isn't nearly so clear-cut and logical as code so
there's lots more room for disagreement.
You and I are looking at the same world, yet by assigning slightly
different weights to certain events, and evaluating the risks slightly
differently, come up with a very different set of conclusions.
If you've read Meade's analysis of the philosophical schools in
american foreign policy
(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0415935369/qid=1048125019/sr=2-1
/ref=sr_2_1/104-4599810-9701544), you may have guessed that I'm a
"Jacksonian" like Bush II (at least Meade thinks he is, and most
self-acknowledged Jacksonians tend to agree). If you haven't read
Meade, "Jacksonians" are basically pugnacious introverts -- they are
deeply isolationist, but come out fighting (and fighting hard) if their
security is threatened, and they take their security very seriously.
This may partly be why I'm less worried about where Bush is taking the
U.S. Most Jacksonians I know (and they're pretty thick here in middle-
america) are deeply isolationist at heart. We really don't want these
foreign adventures. Before 9/11, Bush was disentangling the U.S. from
the rest of the world. Kyoto, International Court, etc, we wanted
nothing to do with it. It wasn't so much arrogance as simple
isolationism. The nuclear test ban thing and the whole missile defense
project was part of this disengagement as well, because we couldn't
disengage successfully without a good defensive solution for ourselves
and our close allies. Meade (a "Jeffersonian" in his typology)
described the "star wars" project as a Jacksonian's orgasm, because it
would finally allow them to withdraw from the rest of the world without
fear for the U.S.'s security.
9/11 snapped Jacksonians into a 180 degree turn. We could not after
all disengage from the world in safety, *at least not yet*.
It is this last bit that I think is critical. I do not think that the
"Emperialist America" hypothesis is true, unfortunately I don't think
it is falsifiable either. There are, however, a great many
contraindications, including the recent talk from the government that
the U.S. will not be returning to Germany, the claims from Bush that
the U.S. will not be engaging in a long-term occupation of Iraq, the
recent statements from Rumsfeld about the possibility of withdrawal
from S. Korea.
I do believe that once things settle down a bit, there will once again
be a shift to isolationism within the U.S. I don't know how long it
will be before the world will "settle down". But it probably won't be
until the middle east is fairly stable (Iraq is probably just the first
step there, though we may just try to do something about the
Israeli-palestinian problem and then bail), and N. Korea is contained
(possibly by Japan, Thailand, and S. Korea) or regime-changed, and some
sort of framework for containing China has been set up (probably
involving the above plus India and Russia).
In article <································@earthlink.net>, Michael
Parker <·············@earthlink.net> wrote:
> In article <····················@k-137-79-50-101.jpl.nasa.gov>, Erann
> Gat <···@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> > > I agree with him, at least wrt foreign opinion. I didn't vote for him
> > > so he would listen to foreigners (actually, I didn't vote for him at
> > > all, which I have since come to regret). As for U.S. opinion, the
> > > majority seem to support him.
> >
> > Yes, but this is merely a convenient coincidence. It is clear that he
> > would not be the least bit deterred if this were not so. He has said so
> > explicitly.
>
> I agree that he would not likely be deterred, not unless the polls were
> strongly against him.
If you take him at his word, if every last person on Earth were strongly
against him that would not deter him.
> Sorry, I hadn't read this when I replied to your post below. I'm not
> familiar with his attempting to quash voter initiatives, could you give
> more detail?
See e.g. http://www.ama-assn.org/sci-pubs/amnews/pick_02/prsc0506.htm
> > , but again I say that it is the
> > results that matter, not intentions. How many civilians have we already
> > killed? How many more will die? I don't know -- those numbers aren't
> > regularly recited in the American press. But I'll be surprised if the
> > final tally is less than 2795.
>
> Does the fact that Saddam won't be able to top that death toll annually
> help your conscience any?
My conscience is not really the point. The people whose feelings matter
the most are the Iraqis. When this is over, will they be dancing in the
streets or cursing us? I don't know, and I don't think George Bush does
either. But he thinks he does -- or he doesn't care.
> > > What precedent? That liberating people from a horrible evil man is not
> > > only possible, but even desirable? How exactly is this horrible?
> >
> > The precedent I fear is that it is OK for one country to launch a war
> > against another country simply because the one country judges that there
> > is sufficient reason to do so.
>
> But that has always been the case that any country could launch an
> attack just because it wants to. The U.S. is setting no precedent
> here.
Of course any country *could* launch an attack. That does not mean that
such actions are acceptable.
> As for why now instead of later, that may simply come
> down to "why not now?".
Well, at this point it's moot since the bombs are flying. But twenty-four
hours ago there was still the possibility of getting rid of Saddam without
firing a shot.
> Perspective, I guess is what I'm asking for.
OK, to be perfectly honest I am not really very worried that the
government will come knocking on my door because of the position I have
taken on this issue (and I am supremely grateful to be living in a country
where that is true). But the current state of things seems to me
uncomfortably similar to the McCarthy era, with "terrorists" (or
"potential terrorists") substituted for "communists." I think I'm safe,
but I'm not at all certain that I would still feel as safe if my name were
Mohammed instead of Erann.
> > You know, I would like nothing better than to be proven wrong about all
> > this. If we attack Iraq and everything turns out all hunky dory, I will
> > happily eat the biggest serving of crow you can dish up. I will say, "Mr.
> > President, you were right, and I was wrong, and I'm damn glad you were
> > leading the country and not me." I honestly hope that I will some day be
> > able to say that.
>
> I hope it comes out ok as well. I had to eat crow after Serbia -- it's
> not a lot of fun.
Being wrong will be a hell of a lot more fun for me than being right in
this case.
> > But right now I'm saying that IMO this is not the time for war.
>
> That's one of the nice things about both an open society and open
> source -- there's a lot of eyeballs looking at things.
Yes, but that only helps if the people making the decisions actually care
about what the people those eyeballs are attached to have to say.
> It is this last bit that I think is critical. I do not think that the
> "Emperialist America" hypothesis is true,
I never said anything about imperialism. Our motives are not the issue as
far as I'm concerned. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
The issue is, as I've said, that what other people think ought to matter.
E.
···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
> OK, to be perfectly honest I am not really very worried that the
> government will come knocking on my door because of the position I
> have taken on this issue (and I am supremely grateful to be living
> in a country where that is true). But the current state of things
> seems to me uncomfortably similar to the McCarthy era, with
> "terrorists" (or "potential terrorists") substituted for
> "communists." I think I'm safe, but I'm not at all certain that I
> would still feel as safe if my name were Mohammed instead of Erann.
(And isn't it ironic that most of McCarthy's basic claims have proven
to be true[1] thanks to the opening of the Soviet era files? The
state department _was_ infiltrated with Soviet spies at the highest
levels, Rosenberg _did_ pass nuclear secrets, etc., etc..
So many shibboleths, so little time...)
And about your point that the cold war was won without firing a shot,
I beg to disagree, nothing could be further from the truth. Many
shots were fired in Korea, Vietnam, Angola, Nicaragua, all over
Africa, and I'm sure I'm missing a bunch.
Now rewinding a bit...
In order for peaceful deterrence to work, your enemies must perceive
that you will back up your values with guns. Sad, but true.
Sometimes, your enemies fail to get the message (e.g. Kuwait, for a
relevant example), and then you must use your guns.
Many people, and I suspect you are in this camp, simply refuse to
believe this important principle, even in the face of overwhelming
historical evidence. This accounts for the massive differences of
opinion one perceives in this thread.
Finally, a question for you: should the US have intervened in 1999 in
Serbia? We were not threatened, there was no UN authorization. Yet
we saved many lives, a goodly portion of them Muslim lives. Should we
have watched the slaughter from the sidelines because the
international community, (including France and Germany) preferred
'non-violent' means to 'combat' the problem? The answer to me is
quite clear. Bravo to Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright.
Now using your no-doubt-considerable powers of reason, be consistent
and apply your answer to the question of Iraq. I eagerly await your
response. I've gone through this exercise, and found it instructive.
I think that many liberals have a big problem accepting these ideas
from George Bush, and if it was Bill Clinton making the same case,
there would be much less wailing. But the question of America's place
in the world is too important to be held hostage to petty issues of
diplomatic style in the executive branch. We will be living with the
consequences of these decisions for many years after Bush is no longer
president, so let's decide what is the right course, ignoring Bush's
limitations, as best we can.
Respectfully,
-russ
In article <··············@thelonious.dyndns.org>, Russell McManus
<···············@yahoo.com> wrote:
> And isn't it ironic that most of McCarthy's basic claims have proven
> to be true[1] thanks to the opening of the Soviet era files?
Doesn't matter. The ends do not justify the means.
> And about your point that the cold war was won without firing a shot,
> I beg to disagree, nothing could be further from the truth.
OK, "without firing a shot" is overstating it. "With far fewer shots
fired than one might have expected during an all out war between the U.S.
and the Soviet Union" is a more accurate characterization.
> In order for peaceful deterrence to work, your enemies must perceive
> that you will back up your values with guns. Sad, but true.
> Sometimes, your enemies fail to get the message (e.g. Kuwait, for a
> relevant example), and then you must use your guns.
>
> Many people, and I suspect you are in this camp, simply refuse to
> believe this important principle, even in the face of overwhelming
> historical evidence. This accounts for the massive differences of
> opinion one perceives in this thread.
No, I agree that peaceful deterrence must be backed up with a credible
threat of force. I think most sane people agree with this. The
disagreement is over when and how that threat should be acted upon.
> Finally, a question for you: should the US have intervened in 1999 in
> Serbia? We were not threatened, there was no UN authorization.
And, if memory serves, there were not millions of people marching in the
streets in protest.
> Now using your no-doubt-considerable powers of reason, be consistent
> and apply your answer to the question of Iraq. I eagerly await your
> response. I've gone through this exercise, and found it instructive.
I never said we should not go to war in Iraq. I said we should not go to
war in Iraq *now*. Can you apply your no-doubt considerable powers of
reason to grasp the subtle difference?
> I think that many liberals have a big problem accepting these ideas
> from George Bush, and if it was Bill Clinton making the same case,
> there would be much less wailing.
That may be true, but Clinton did not engage in brazen displays of
dictatorial ambition. Clinton did not have a personal vendetta against
Saddam, as George Bush does. (Another of my favorite Bush quotes: "Don't
forget, this is the man that tried to kill my father," as if that were
somehow relevant.)
> But the question of America's place
> in the world is too important to be held hostage to petty issues of
> diplomatic style in the executive branch. We will be living with the
> consequences of these decisions for many years after Bush is no longer
> president, so let's decide what is the right course, ignoring Bush's
> limitations, as best we can.
But Bush's limitations are *relevant* because his ostensible reasons for
going to war now are so bogus. There is no credible evidence that Saddam
is an imminent threat. Bush is essentially saying: trust me, I know what
I'm doing. Well, I don't trust him because he has shown me time and time
again that he does not believe in what I believe in. I believe in freedom
and democracy and the rule of law. He believes in undermining freedom and
democracy and the rule of law in the name of "security" and "God" and
whatever else George Bush deems to be good. And he believes that he
doesn't owe anyone any explanations. To me, that makes him very, very
scary.
E.
···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
> I never said we should not go to war in Iraq. I said we should not
> go to war in Iraq *now*. Can you apply your no-doubt considerable
> powers of reason to grasp the subtle difference?
Check, my mistake. And my apologies for the flip remark. But now I
am curious: when is the right time?
Before or after Iraq has nuclear weapons? Before or after Iraq next
attacks their neighbors, or us?
Or do you think that we can indefinitely contain Iraq's ambitions?
Recent history argues against this, and I personally don't think
containment will work. The sanctions were failing starting in the
Clinton years. I'm not excited about the prospect of waiting around
until the situation bubbles over again.
> > Finally, a question for you: should the US have intervened in 1999
> > in Serbia? We were not threatened, there was no UN authorization.
>
> And, if memory serves, there were not millions of people marching in
> the streets in protest.
You didn't answer my question. Hmmm.
About the protests, you are right, they were much smaller at that
time. But this is evidence supporting the point I made in my original
post about how people on the left would accomodate the Bush policy
much better if it was coming from Clinton.
> But Bush's limitations are *relevant* because his ostensible reasons
> for going to war now are so bogus. There is no credible evidence
> that Saddam is an imminent threat.
We went into Kosovo with no imminent threat to us. Refer back to my
previous, unanswered, question, and answer that, and then I can
respond.
> Bush is essentially saying: trust me, I know what I'm doing. Well,
> I don't trust him because he has shown me time and time again that
> he does not believe in what I believe in. I believe in freedom and
> democracy and the rule of law. He believes in undermining freedom
> and democracy and the rule of law in the name of "security" and
> "God" and whatever else George Bush deems to be good. And he
> believes that he doesn't owe anyone any explanations. To me, that
> makes him very, very scary.
Well I worry about anyone who is as sure of himself as President Bush
is, too. But it sounds to me like you're really hung up on George
Bush the person, the same way that many Rush Limbaugh fans had their
shorts in a twist over Bill Clinton.
I think it's important to talk about Iraq policy in the bigger
picture, but also I think that I've failed to convey this point to
you, or you haven't addressed it. Attacking the man rather than the
proposition is a time honored rhetorical device: the "ad hominem"
attack. Let's talk about the proposition, instead.
Respectfully,
-russ
In article <··············@thelonious.dyndns.org>, Russell McManus
<···············@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ···@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) writes:
>
> > I never said we should not go to war in Iraq. I said we should not
> > go to war in Iraq *now*. Can you apply your no-doubt considerable
> > powers of reason to grasp the subtle difference?
>
> Check, my mistake. And my apologies for the flip remark. But now I
> am curious: when is the right time?
When the world decides.
> Before or after Iraq has nuclear weapons? Before or after Iraq next
> attacks their neighbors, or us?
After. If we're going to be the good guys we have to wait for the enemy
to strike first. That is the price of righteousness. And if you doubt
this, imagine how the world would have viewd us if we had invaded
Afganistan and Iraq on September 10th, 2001.
> Or do you think that we can indefinitely contain Iraq's ambitions?
What I think about this is irrelevant. But since you ask, we've done it
for 10 years. Who is to say that we could not simply wait until Saddam
dies of old age? I'm not necessarily advocating this -- I'd just as soon
see Saddam go sooner rather than later. But it's not an absurd
possibility on its face.
> > > Finally, a question for you: should the US have intervened in 1999
> > > in Serbia? We were not threatened, there was no UN authorization.
> >
> > And, if memory serves, there were not millions of people marching in
> > the streets in protest.
>
> You didn't answer my question. Hmmm.
My memories of those events are sketchy, but to the best of my
recollection world opinion was not heavily arrayed against our
intervention. So, given that, yes, we should have.
> About the protests, you are right, they were much smaller at that
> time. But this is evidence supporting the point I made in my original
> post about how people on the left would accomodate the Bush policy
> much better if it was coming from Clinton.
Yes, because Clinton did not exhibit the same contempt for democracy that
George Bush does. He exhibited contempt for other things, like the
dignity of the Presidency, but you know what? Given a choice between
someone who shows contempt for dignity and someone who shows contempt for
freedom I'll take the former without hesitation. I'm not at all convinced
that the world would be worse off if George Bush were to smoke a few
joints and get himself laid in the oval office.
> Well I worry about anyone who is as sure of himself as President Bush
> is, too. But it sounds to me like you're really hung up on George
> Bush the person, the same way that many Rush Limbaugh fans had their
> shorts in a twist over Bill Clinton.
Yes, indeed. George Bush the person happens to have his hands on a very
big trigger. I think it is quite appropriate to be "hung up" on the
person. Rush and I just disagree over what aspects of a person's
character are important.
> I think it's important to talk about Iraq policy in the bigger
> picture, but also I think that I've failed to convey this point to
> you, or you haven't addressed it. Attacking the man rather than the
> proposition is a time honored rhetorical device: the "ad hominem"
> attack. Let's talk about the proposition, instead.
As to the proposition it is very simple: we have launched an unprovoked
invasion of a sovereign nation that poses no credible imminent threat and
with world opinion solidly arrayed against us. That was monstrously
stupid. Our only hope now is that the ultimate outcome is favorable
enough that the world will forget and forgive how monstrously stupid it
was. The ends should not justify the means, but people often forget that,
and at the moment that tendency towards forgetfulness is our only hope of
salvation. If this war spins out of control (and there are many ways it
could), or God help us if we should somehow actually lose, then we will be
well and truly fucked.
E.
Erann Gat wrote:
> As to the proposition it is very simple: we have launched an unprovoked
> invasion of a sovereign nation
No, we have not. There was only a cease-fire in existence from the
previous conflict. Saddam has repeatedly broken the terms of the
ceasefire and several UN resolutions passed afterward. The US is
enforcing the terms of the ceasefire.
I hear a lot about Bush "destroying the international system." I think
that's hogwash. If anything, he's bent over too far trying to save it
from itself. The UN's credibility was far gone when this started, and is
zilch now. It is nothing more than a giant gasbag blowing hot air.
Saddam and others care no more about the UN than they do a fart in the
wind, except in so far as they can use it to their own advantage to
prevent action from being taken against them, or as a propaganda device.
The UN certainly does nothing against them unless the US applies great
pressure, and then only as little as possible.
that poses no credible imminent threat and
> with world opinion solidly arrayed against us.
A very large part of that world opinion is exceedingly poorly informed,
too, often largely due to state-controlled media that restricts the
information available to them. Why is their opinion supposed to matter
so much?
> That was monstrously
> stupid. Our only hope now is that the ultimate outcome is favorable
> enough that the world will forget and forgive how monstrously stupid it
> was.
Well, not many people are still upset about Serbia are they? That had a
great deal less justification than what we're doing now. The UN didn't
want to do anything then, either. Somehow the US survived. Must be
because we had a Democratic president, not one with the evil "R" after
his name.
> The ends should not justify the means, but people often forget that,
> and at the moment that tendency towards forgetfulness is our only hope of
> salvation.
You were arguing just *that* a few posts ago! Intentions don't count,
results do, remember?
If this war spins out of control (and there are many ways it
> could), or God help us if we should somehow actually lose, then we will be
> well and truly fucked.
I kind of doubt that. I think our doing what the UN *should* be doing to
Saddam will act powerfully "pour encourager les autres."
--Larry
In article <······················@rwcrnsc53>, Larry Elmore
<·······@attbi.com> wrote:
> Erann Gat wrote:
>
> > As to the proposition it is very simple: we have launched an unprovoked
> > invasion of a sovereign nation
>
> No, we have not. There was only a cease-fire in existence from the
> previous conflict. Saddam has repeatedly broken the terms of the
> ceasefire and several UN resolutions passed afterward. The US is
> enforcing the terms of the ceasefire.
Hogwash. The only thing that has changed since the start of the ceasefire
is 9/11, which has pretty much nothing to do with Iraq. If you doubt
this, imagine if we had launched this war on 9/10/01.
> > that poses no credible imminent threat and
> > with world opinion solidly arrayed against us.
>
> A very large part of that world opinion is exceedingly poorly informed,
> too, often largely due to state-controlled media that restricts the
> information available to them. Why is their opinion supposed to matter
> so much?
Because I believe in democracy, and in particular, I believe that
democracy is better than oligarchy. The problem with oligarchy is you
need a way of deciding who is well enough informed to have their opinion
matter. How do you make that decision? Well, you could have well
informed people decide, but how do you decide who is well informed enough
to make *that* call?
The reason I believe in democracy is not so much that it always produces
the right decision (though it seems to do surprisingly well despite the
amount of stupidity and ignorance that serves as raw material) but that
right or wrong everyone has a share of the responsibility. When mistakes
are made they are much easier to handle because there aren't as many
people feeling angry and disenfranchised.
> Well, not many people are still upset about Serbia are they?
No, but people didn't get over Viet Nam for a very long time. And they
still grouse about Somalia from time to time. Like I said...
> > The ends should not justify the means, but people often forget that,
> > and at the moment that tendency towards forgetfulness is our only hope of
> > salvation.
>
> You were arguing just *that* a few posts ago! Intentions don't count,
> results do, remember?
Yes, but means are part of results. Look, imagine a prisoner on death
row. He has been convicted of a gruesome crime. There is no doubt he is
guilty. All his appeals are exhausted. As he is being marched to his
execution I pull out a gun and shoot him. The result is arguably a good
one: a horrible criminal is dead. (I'm actually opposed to the death
penalty, but let's pretend.) I would still be tried and convicted of
murder -- and rightly so -- even if I had the noblest of intentions, even
if I knew for certain that if I didn't shoot him he would escape and kill
again.
This situation is not completely analogous because international law is
not so well established. But I would like to see the rule of law spread
throughout the planet, and this war undermines that goal.
E.
Erann Gat wrote:
> In article <······················@rwcrnsc53>, Larry Elmore
> <·······@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Erann Gat wrote:
>>
>>
>>>As to the proposition it is very simple: we have launched an unprovoked
>>>invasion of a sovereign nation
>>
>>No, we have not. There was only a cease-fire in existence from the
>>previous conflict. Saddam has repeatedly broken the terms of the
>>ceasefire and several UN resolutions passed afterward. The US is
>>enforcing the terms of the ceasefire.
>
>
> Hogwash. The only thing that has changed since the start of the ceasefire
> is 9/11, which has pretty much nothing to do with Iraq. If you doubt
> this, imagine if we had launched this war on 9/10/01.
Gee, imagine 1998 instead. Clinton could've then. He actually did go to
war with Iraq, but in small way guaranteed not to achieve anything
except to piss a lot of Arabs and others off and simultaneously convince
many of them that America's just a big pussy without the will to
actually carry anything through. Not throwing Saddam Hussein and the
Ba'ath party out of power in 1991 when we had the chance had the same
effect.
>>>that poses no credible imminent threat and
>>>with world opinion solidly arrayed against us.
>>
>>A very large part of that world opinion is exceedingly poorly informed,
>>too, often largely due to state-controlled media that restricts the
>>information available to them. Why is their opinion supposed to matter
>>so much?
>
>
> Because I believe in democracy, and in particular, I believe that
> democracy is better than oligarchy. The problem with oligarchy is you
> need a way of deciding who is well enough informed to have their opinion
> matter. How do you make that decision? Well, you could have well
> informed people decide, but how do you decide who is well informed enough
> to make *that* call?
But these people don't vote in the UN, their overlords do.
> The reason I believe in democracy is not so much that it always produces
> the right decision (though it seems to do surprisingly well despite the
> amount of stupidity and ignorance that serves as raw material) but that
> right or wrong everyone has a share of the responsibility. When mistakes
> are made they are much easier to handle because there aren't as many
> people feeling angry and disenfranchised.
I don't know, not listening to some of the Democratic rhetoric about the
2000 elections.
>>Well, not many people are still upset about Serbia are they?
>
>
> No, but people didn't get over Viet Nam for a very long time. And they
> still grouse about Somalia from time to time. Like I said...
Most of the grousing I hear about those are the dangers of doing things
in a half-assed, hands-tied-behind-your-back manner.
--Larry
Michael Parker <·············@earthlink.net> writes:
> Bush's case for taking out Saddam seems to be basically that since he
> is friendly with terrorists, and had chemical and biological weapons
> before the inspectors were kicked out, and was working on nukes, and
> has resisted all attempts to disarm, that he presents an unacceptable
> future risk. As for why now instead of later, that may simply come
> down to "why not now?".
I pretty much get the Idea that you don't accept Bush's Rhetoric, but:
If you take the basic characteristic of a dictator as being someone
who must control everything to stay in power, and would never risk
giving power to a possible enemy.
Then you take the definition of a terrorist as someone who basically
has no loyalty to a government, and feels they are working in an
effort for the helpless voiceless masses.
Then throw in the fact that that dictator is secular and runs a very
Stalinesque, non-religious government, and has killed probably over a
million muslims.
And consider that your terrorist in this case is driven by strong
religious beliefs.
How can you tell me that the dictator would give chemical or weapons
to the terrorist.
Osama Bin Laden is known to be very anti-Saddam, he considers him a
Communist.
The only way Saddam would give weapons to terrorists is in the
eleventh hour when he knows he will not survive.
And think about this, the terrorists who took down the twin towers
lived, and learned their most important skill (fyling) in The United
States.
Every day more Al-Queda operatives are being captured in Pakistan.
Terrorrists have more freedom to gain their power and operate in a
Democracy than an Authoritarian state like Iraq.
Anthony Ventimiglia wrote:
> Michael Parker <·············@earthlink.net> writes:
> Then throw in the fact that that dictator is secular and runs a very
> Stalinesque, non-religious government, and has killed probably over a
> million muslims.
>
> And consider that your terrorist in this case is driven by strong
> religious beliefs.
>
> How can you tell me that the dictator would give chemical or weapons
> to the terrorist.
>
> Osama Bin Laden is known to be very anti-Saddam, he considers him a
> Communist.
He's also anti-American, anti-Judeo-Christian, and anti-Capitalist, yet
still he and his followers worked with America when they thought it was
in their interest to do so (fighting the USSR). That's his real evil --
he's a hypocrite!
> The only way Saddam would give weapons to terrorists is in the
> eleventh hour when he knows he will not survive.
And you know that how?
Larry Elmore <·······@attbi.com> writes:
> Anthony Ventimiglia wrote:
> > Michael Parker <·············@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> > Then throw in the fact that that dictator is secular and runs a very
> > Stalinesque, non-religious government, and has killed probably over a
> > million muslims.
> > And consider that your terrorist in this case is driven by strong
> > religious beliefs.
> > How can you tell me that the dictator would give chemical or weapons
> > to the terrorist.
> > Osama Bin Laden is known to be very anti-Saddam, he considers him a
> > Communist.
>
> He's also anti-American, anti-Judeo-Christian, and anti-Capitalist,
> yet still he and his followers worked with America when they thought
> it was in their interest to do so (fighting the USSR). That's his
> real evil -- he's a hypocrite!
And as for George W. he's the poster child for hypocrisy.
He claims to be a christian, but more people were put to death in his
time as governer than any other governer in the history of the
US. Let's not mention how he stood in a chuch and vowed revenge on
September 11th, I don't know what Bible he's reading.
> > The only way Saddam would give weapons to terrorists is in the
> > eleventh hour when he knows he will not survive.
>
> And you know that how?
Simple logic, if he had already given these weapons away, don't you
think they would have gone right to Israel and used them.
Actually I don't think he ever will give his weapons away, because
he'll never admit defeat.
Anthony Ventimiglia <···@mongrel.dogpound> writes:
> Larry Elmore <·······@attbi.com> writes:
>
> > Anthony Ventimiglia wrote:
> > > The only way Saddam would give weapons to terrorists is in the
> > > eleventh hour when he knows he will not survive.
> >
> > And you know that how?
>
> Simple logic, if he had already given these weapons away, don't you
> think they would have gone right to Israel and used them.
Are you *INSANE*?!?!?!! Lets say Sadam gave Hamas some Nerve Gas and
they used it at a movie theater and it worked. You now have several
hundred men, women and children most/all of them *Jews* who were
*GASED*. Now what would happen to the Palestinians? The Israeli Army
would have to *protect* them from the rest of the country. Peace, it
might be the peace of the grave but that is all. That is not a button
you push if you even want to survive long enough to push the Jews into
the sea.
And it is a very bad idea to turn a nuclear power psychotic by
mandate of the vast majority of the citizens.
I also think the people who *run* Hamas and the other groups like them
are evil but not suicidal, they do not want to die they want other
people to die.
marc
Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
> > > > The only way Saddam would give weapons to terrorists is in the
> > > > eleventh hour when he knows he will not survive.
> > >
> > > And you know that how?
> >
> > Simple logic, if he had already given these weapons away, don't you
> > think they would have gone right to Israel and used them.
>
> Are you *INSANE*?!?!?!! Lets say Sadam gave Hamas some Nerve Gas and
> they used it at a movie theater and it worked. You now have several
> hundred men, women and children most/all of them *Jews* who were
> *GASED*. Now what would happen to the Palestinians? The Israeli Army
> would have to *protect* them from the rest of the country. Peace, it
> might be the peace of the grave but that is all. That is not a button
> you push if you even want to survive long enough to push the Jews into
> the sea.
So basically you're response proves that Saddam never gave Chemical
weapons to terrorists.
> And it is a very bad idea to turn a nuclear power psychotic by
> mandate of the vast majority of the citizens.
>
> I also think the people who *run* Hamas and the other groups like them
> are evil but not suicidal, they do not want to die they want other
> people to die.
Sounds like the guys in Washington.
I will no longer respond to Posts on this thread in c.l.l, I'd be
happy to go into alt.america, or alt.freedom for any further discussion.
Anthony Ventimiglia <···@mongrel.dogpound> writes:
> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
>
> > > > > The only way Saddam would give weapons to terrorists is in the
> > > > > eleventh hour when he knows he will not survive.
> > > >
> > > > And you know that how?
> > >
> > > Simple logic, if he had already given these weapons away, don't you
> > > think they would have gone right to Israel and used them.
> >
> > Are you *INSANE*?!?!?!! Lets say Sadam gave Hamas some Nerve Gas and
> > they used it at a movie theater and it worked. You now have several
> > hundred men, women and children most/all of them *Jews* who were
> > *GASED*. Now what would happen to the Palestinians? The Israeli Army
> > would have to *protect* them from the rest of the country. Peace, it
> > might be the peace of the grave but that is all. That is not a button
> > you push if you even want to survive long enough to push the Jews into
> > the sea.
>
> So basically you're response proves that Saddam never gave Chemical
> weapons to terrorists.
How?
I was going through what I believe would happen if gas was used.
I also said that the people who run Hamas and the other groups
are evil. And evil people do not believe in self sacrifice, they
sacrifice others. If gas was used the Mosad hit squads would come
back big time. And all the cadre( aka evil fucks ) would be on the
hit parade and given the way the world is now they would have much
less freedom of movement then they used to.
Another thing to remember is that chemical weapons are not hard to make,
think college chemistry lab and that is for the harder ones like nerve
gas. Chlorine is easy to buy/steal many big pools use liquid Chlorine,
like used in WWI, to chlorinate the water.
>
>
> > And it is a very bad idea to turn a nuclear power psychotic by
> > mandate of the vast majority of the citizens.
> >
> > I also think the people who *run* Hamas and the other groups like them
> > are evil but not suicidal, they do not want to die they want other
> > people to die.
>
> Sounds like the guys in Washington.
There is the down state Senator from NY.
marc
>
>
> I will no longer respond to Posts on this thread in c.l.l, I'd be
> happy to go into alt.america, or alt.freedom for any further discussion.
Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
> Anthony Ventimiglia <···@mongrel.dogpound> writes:
>
> > Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
> >
> > > > > > The only way Saddam would give weapons to terrorists is in the
> > > > > > eleventh hour when he knows he will not survive.
> > > > >
> > > > > And you know that how?
> > > >
> > > > Simple logic, if he had already given these weapons away, don't you
> > > > think they would have gone right to Israel and used them.
> > >
> > > Are you *INSANE*?!?!?!! Lets say Sadam gave Hamas some Nerve Gas and
> > > they used it at a movie theater and it worked. You now have several
> > > hundred men, women and children most/all of them *Jews* who were
> > > *GASED*. Now what would happen to the Palestinians? The Israeli Army
> > > would have to *protect* them from the rest of the country. Peace, it
> > > might be the peace of the grave but that is all. That is not a button
> > > you push if you even want to survive long enough to push the Jews into
> > > the sea.
> >
> > So basically you're response proves that Saddam never gave Chemical
> > weapons to terrorists.
>
> How?
>
> I was going through what I believe would happen if gas was used.
Exactly whic proves my original point, because it never happened.
> I also said that the people who run Hamas and the other groups
> are evil. And evil people do not believe in self sacrifice, they
> sacrifice others.
That's it right there, how many of the men who are waging this war
have ever even server in the military ? How many members of congress
have family in the military. You have just stated blatently that the
US Government is filled with Evil people who do not believe in self
sacrifice, they sacrifice others.
> Another thing to remember is that chemical weapons are not hard to make,
> think college chemistry lab and that is for the harder ones like nerve
> gas. Chlorine is easy to buy/steal many big pools use liquid Chlorine,
> like used in WWI, to chlorinate the water.
Yes that's true, did you actually see what was considered was listed
as sites that were suspected chemical and biological weapons plants in
1441. If it was applied to the US, every town in the nation would be
inspected.
--
-- Orwell was off by nineteen years
Anthony Ventimiglia <···@mongrel.dogpound> writes:
> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
>
> > Anthony Ventimiglia <···@mongrel.dogpound> writes:
> >
> > > Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
> > >
> > > > > > > The only way Saddam would give weapons to terrorists is in the
> > > > > > > eleventh hour when he knows he will not survive.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And you know that how?
> > > > >
> > > > > Simple logic, if he had already given these weapons away, don't you
> > > > > think they would have gone right to Israel and used them.
> > > >
> > > > Are you *INSANE*?!?!?!! Lets say Sadam gave Hamas some Nerve Gas and
> > > > they used it at a movie theater and it worked. You now have several
> > > > hundred men, women and children most/all of them *Jews* who were
> > > > *GASED*. Now what would happen to the Palestinians? The Israeli Army
> > > > would have to *protect* them from the rest of the country. Peace, it
> > > > might be the peace of the grave but that is all. That is not a button
> > > > you push if you even want to survive long enough to push the Jews into
> > > > the sea.
> > >
> > > So basically you're response proves that Saddam never gave Chemical
> > > weapons to terrorists.
> >
> > How?
> >
> > I was going through what I believe would happen if gas was used.
>
> Exactly whic proves my original point, because it never happened.
no you idiot your point was that they did not have it, it is different.
>
> > I also said that the people who run Hamas and the other groups
> > are evil. And evil people do not believe in self sacrifice, they
> > sacrifice others.
>
> That's it right there, how many of the men who are waging this war
> have ever even server in the military ? How many members of congress
> have family in the military. You have just stated blatently that the
> US Government is filled with Evil people who do not believe in self
> sacrifice, they sacrifice others.
Quite a few, less every year as the WWII crowd retire/die.
>
> > Another thing to remember is that chemical weapons are not hard to make,
> > think college chemistry lab and that is for the harder ones like nerve
> > gas. Chlorine is easy to buy/steal many big pools use liquid Chlorine,
> > like used in WWI, to chlorinate the water.
>
> Yes that's true, did you actually see what was considered was listed
> as sites that were suspected chemical and biological weapons plants in
> 1441. If it was applied to the US, every town in the nation would be
> inspected.
Now you said you were not going to post to CLL any more on this topic,
so will you please keep your given word and *shut the fuck up*
marc
>
> --
> -- Orwell was off by nineteen years
Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
> Anthony Ventimiglia <···@mongrel.dogpound> writes:
>
> > Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
> > >
> > > I was going through what I believe would happen if gas was used.
> >
> > Exactly whic proves my original point, because it never happened.
>
> no you idiot your point was that they did not have it, it is different.
Rather than continue a circular argument on an OT post, I again invite
you to bring this over to alt.america, alt.freedom,
soc.history.war.misc or alt.current-events.terror-war
> > > I also said that the people who run Hamas and the other groups
> > > are evil. And evil people do not believe in self sacrifice, they
> > > sacrifice others.
> >
> > That's it right there, how many of the men who are waging this war
> > have ever even server in the military ? How many members of congress
> > have family in the military. You have just stated blatently that the
> > US Government is filled with Evil people who do not believe in self
> > sacrifice, they sacrifice others.
>
> Quite a few, less every year as the WWII crowd retire/die.
Please list the people in our government who have family members
serving in the military at this time.
> > > Another thing to remember is that chemical weapons are not hard to make,
> > > think college chemistry lab and that is for the harder ones like nerve
> > > gas. Chlorine is easy to buy/steal many big pools use liquid Chlorine,
> > > like used in WWI, to chlorinate the water.
> >
> > Yes that's true, did you actually see what was considered was listed
> > as sites that were suspected chemical and biological weapons plants in
> > 1441. If it was applied to the US, every town in the nation would be
> > inspected.
>
> Now you said you were not going to post to CLL any more on this topic,
> so will you please keep your given word and *shut the fuck up*
Again I invite you to bring this to an appropriate group.
--
-- Orwell was off by nineteen years
Anthony Ventimiglia <···@mongrel.dogpound> writes:
> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
>
> > Anthony Ventimiglia <···@mongrel.dogpound> writes:
> >
> > > Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
> > > >
> > > > I was going through what I believe would happen if gas was used.
> > >
> > > Exactly whic proves my original point, because it never happened.
> >
> > no you idiot your point was that they did not have it, it is different.
>
> Rather than continue a circular argument on an OT post, I again invite
> you to bring this over to alt.america, alt.freedom,
> soc.history.war.misc or alt.current-events.terror-war
You go and wait for me there.
>
> > > > I also said that the people who run Hamas and the other groups
> > > > are evil. And evil people do not believe in self sacrifice, they
> > > > sacrifice others.
> > >
> > > That's it right there, how many of the men who are waging this war
> > > have ever even server in the military ? How many members of congress
> > > have family in the military. You have just stated blatently that the
> > > US Government is filled with Evil people who do not believe in self
> > > sacrifice, they sacrifice others.
> >
> > Quite a few, less every year as the WWII crowd retire/die.
>
> Please list the people in our government who have family members
> serving in the military at this time.
What does that have to do with them doing there job? And I was
talking about veterans, not people related to veterans.
And I never said the US goverment was evil, you clearly need to
read twice and right once. Also a remedial course in context
might be in order
>
> > > > Another thing to remember is that chemical weapons are not hard to make,
> > > > think college chemistry lab and that is for the harder ones like nerve
> > > > gas. Chlorine is easy to buy/steal many big pools use liquid Chlorine,
> > > > like used in WWI, to chlorinate the water.
> > >
> > > Yes that's true, did you actually see what was considered was listed
> > > as sites that were suspected chemical and biological weapons plants in
> > > 1441. If it was applied to the US, every town in the nation would be
> > > inspected.
> >
> > Now you said you were not going to post to CLL any more on this topic,
> > so will you please keep your given word and *shut the fuck up*
>
> Again I invite you to bring this to an appropriate group.
You said that you would go away and post no more on this topic, you
lied. Why is your word conditional on my doing what you want, after
you give it? Why do you choose to break your freely given pledge?
marc
>
> --
> -- Orwell was off by nineteen years
Michael Parker wrote:
> (b) What non-citizens think *doesn't* matter, except as a courtesy.
it should be more than a courtesy when the policy of the US government
directly influences the lives of non-US citizens.
>> The next time terrorists strike the United
>> States it will no longer be true that we did nothing to deserve it.
>
> Was it even true the last time? Most of the people I've heard making
> this claim were claiming last time that we must have done something to
> deserve it, the claimed reasons being kyoto, missile ban, etc.
then they could have given much better reasons. the main reason for the
frustration that so many (ordinary) people in the middle east feel with the
US is caused by the fact that the US has supported and continues to support
a series of oppressive undemocratic regimes in the region: egypt, jordan,
saudi-arabia and other regimes on the arabian peninsula, israel, to a
lesser extent morocco. and in the past also the shah of persia, nowadays
iran. obviously, the US is not the only factor responsible for the lack of
freedom in the middle east, but it does contribute.
i should perhaps make it clear that although i find this policy of the US
repulsive, i do not believe it justifies terrorist attacks such as those of
9/11. but it isn't difficult to see how the people in the middle-east who
suffer daily from this US policy, may feel differently about that. in the
same way that the citizens of the countries that were occupied by
nazi-germany in WOII didn't object very much to the bombing campaigns of
the allied forces against german cities.
--
Joost Kremers http://baserv.uci.kun.nl/~jkremers
mail me for a bon mot
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Joost Kremers wrote:
> Michael Parker wrote:
> >
> > Was it even true the last time? Most of the people I've heard making
> > this claim were claiming last time that we must have done something to
> > deserve it, the claimed reasons being kyoto, missile ban, etc.
>
> then they could have given much better reasons. the main reason for the
> frustration that so many (ordinary) people in the middle east feel with the
> US is caused by the fact that the US has supported and continues to support
> a series of oppressive undemocratic regimes in the region: egypt, jordan,
> saudi-arabia and other regimes on the arabian peninsula, israel, to a
> lesser extent morocco. and in the past also the shah of persia, nowadays
> iran.
You forgot a very important opressive, non-democratic regime which the US
supported for many years: Iraq under Saddam Hussein. The US supported him
with weaponry and hundreds-of-millions of dollars of subsidies while he
was at war with Iran and afterwards.
The National Security Archive at GWU has video footage of "special envoy"
Donald Rumsfeld, now Sec. of Defense, visiting with Saddam Hussein at the
end of 1983 (Windows Media format, .wmv. Scroll down below the picture
of Hussein and Rumsfeld shaking hands for the links to video). The meeting
being taped took place the day after American newspapers first reported
Iraqi use of chemical weapons against Iran and against its own Kurdish
population. At the same website you'll find dozens of declassified
documents showing how the Reagan and Bush-1 administrations got weapons
and money to Iraq, how they covered-up their activities, and how they
forced other US government agencies to cooperate. The documents were
obtained by Freedom Of Information Act request from the US government.
URL is...
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/index.htm
> Joost Kremers http://baserv.uci.kun.nl/~jkremers
* Nick Geovanis
| IT Computing Svcs
| Northwestern Univ
| ··········@nwu.edu
+------------------->
In article
<·········································@merle.it.northwestern.edu>,
Nicholas Geovanis <·······@merle.it.northwestern.edu> wrote:
> You forgot a very important opressive, non-democratic regime which the US
> supported for many years: Iraq under Saddam Hussein. The US supported him
> with weaponry and hundreds-of-millions of dollars of subsidies while he
> was at war with Iran and afterwards.
But does this not increase our responsibility to remove him?
"Michael Parker" <·············@earthlink.net> wrote in message
·····································@earthlink.net...
> In article
> <·········································@merle.it.northwestern.edu>,
> Nicholas Geovanis <·······@merle.it.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>
> > You forgot a very important opressive, non-democratic regime which the US
> > supported for many years: Iraq under Saddam Hussein. The US supported him
> > with weaponry and hundreds-of-millions of dollars of subsidies while he
> > was at war with Iran and afterwards.
>
> But does this not increase our responsibility to remove him?
Yes it does. If the US government would admit culpability that would go a
long way to getting everyone on side. Right now they just
deny any responsibility or just change the topic.
Wade
In article <······················@news2.telusplanet.net>, Wade
Humeniuk <····@nospam.nowhere> wrote:
> > But does this not increase our responsibility to remove him?
>
> Yes it does. If the US government would admit culpability that would go a
> long way to getting everyone on side. Right now they just
> deny any responsibility or just change the topic.
Admit culpability to what, exactly? To putting him in power? to
keeping him in power? To all the murders he has committed over the
years?
Get real.
The U.S. did not put Saddam in power. The U.S. did not keep Saddam in
power. The U.S. did help supply him with arms during the Iran-Iraq
war.
The morality of that action can and should be debated. Yes, he met
with various U.S. diplomats over the years -- that's what diplomats do,
after all. I once ate dinner with a serial killer -- does that make me
responsible for his actions?
The U.S. is not responsible for the evils of the world. Not all of
them, anyway. And these attempts to shoulder the U.S. with the blame
for the troubles of the world while simultaneously denying it the
authority to solve the problem is the cheapest sort of hypocrisy, and
completely unworthy of respect.
"Michael Parker" <·············@earthlink.net> wrote in message
·····································@earthlink.net...
> The U.S. is not responsible for the evils of the world. Not all of
> them, anyway. And these attempts to shoulder the U.S. with the blame
> for the troubles of the world while simultaneously denying it the
> authority to solve the problem is the cheapest sort of hypocrisy, and
> completely unworthy of respect.
I will glady give the US the authority. Go ahead and take the weight
of the world. But it is highly unlikely that anyone would want to be
solely responsible. What the US government seems to want is to
be supported and not feel alone, which it does when it is blamed
by some and relied on by others. (which is why Tony Blair's support
is so welcomed) I guess even the strongest need support.
Wade
"Michael Parker" <·············@earthlink.net> wrote in message
·····································@earthlink.net...
> In article <······················@news2.telusplanet.net>, Wade
> Humeniuk <····@nospam.nowhere> wrote:
> > > But does this not increase our responsibility to remove him?
> >
> > Yes it does. If the US government would admit culpability that would go
a
> > long way to getting everyone on side. Right now they just
> > deny any responsibility or just change the topic.
>
> Admit culpability to what, exactly? To putting him in power? to
> keeping him in power? To all the murders he has committed over the
> years?
>
> Get real.
>
> The U.S. did not put Saddam in power. The U.S. did not keep Saddam in
> power. The U.S. did help supply him with arms during the Iran-Iraq
> war.
> The morality of that action can and should be debated. Yes, he met
> with various U.S. diplomats over the years -- that's what diplomats do,
> after all. I once ate dinner with a serial killer -- does that make me
> responsible for his actions?
Well, if you knew he was at the time and you sold him a bone-saw you would
be an accomplice. I think that is the point people try to make, not the
straw man that everything that goes wrong in the world is the US' fault.
> The U.S. is not responsible for the evils of the world. Not all of
> them, anyway. And these attempts to shoulder the U.S. with the blame
> for the troubles of the world while simultaneously denying it the
> authority to solve the problem is the cheapest sort of hypocrisy, and
> completely unworthy of respect.
You're right, but I don't hear anyone say things like this.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Nicholas Geovanis <·······@merle.it.northwestern.edu> writes:
> On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Joost Kremers wrote:
> The National Security Archive at GWU has video footage of "special envoy"
> Donald Rumsfeld, now Sec. of Defense, visiting with Saddam Hussein at the
> end of 1983 (Windows Media format, .wmv. Scroll down below the picture
> of Hussein and Rumsfeld shaking hands for the links to video). The meeting
> being taped took place the day after American newspapers first reported
> Iraqi use of chemical weapons against Iran and against its own Kurdish
> population. At the same website you'll find dozens of declassified
> documents showing how the Reagan and Bush-1 administrations got weapons
> and money to Iraq, how they covered-up their activities, and how they
> forced other US government agencies to cooperate. The documents were
> obtained by Freedom Of Information Act request from the US government.
> URL is...
> http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/index.htm
I'd like to add to that that Donald Rumsfeld provided Hussein with all
the means to make those chemical and biological weapons.
And under Eisenhower, Iraq was given the full technical report on the
Manhattan Project, So if Iraq had built atomic weapons, who's to blame.
Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Joost Kremers wrote:
> You forgot a very important opressive, non-democratic regime which the US
> supported for many years: Iraq under Saddam Hussein. The US supported him
> with weaponry and hundreds-of-millions of dollars of subsidies while he
> was at war with Iran and afterwards.
>
First, at the time Iran was thought to be the greater threat. We
definitely did not want Iran to win that war, but we also didn't want
Iraq to win it. We gave Iraq just enough support to keep them from losing.
Second, are you arguing that because we made a mistake before with Iraq,
then that should preclude us from dealing with the situation now? I
would think that that makes it _more_ imperative that we act now.
Of course, France and Russia sold Saddam far, far more military
equipment than the US did during the 1980's. Perhaps that should also
preclude them from having anything to do with the current situation?
--Larry
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:43:34 +0000 (UTC), Joost Kremers
<············@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Was it even true the last time? Most of the people I've heard making
>> this claim were claiming last time that we must have done something to
>> deserve it, the claimed reasons being kyoto, missile ban, etc.
>
>then they could have given much better reasons. the main reason for the
>frustration that so many (ordinary) people in the middle east feel with the
I see by your name that you are an expert in what Arabs think.
>US is caused by the fact that the US has supported and continues to support
>a series of oppressive undemocratic regimes in the region: egypt, jordan,
>saudi-arabia and other regimes on the arabian peninsula, israel, to a
>lesser extent morocco. and in the past also the shah of persia, nowadays
>iran. obviously, the US is not the only factor responsible for the lack of
>freedom in the middle east, but it does contribute.
Oh my my. You are so right. The US supports dictators. Such an evil
thing that can never be justified. It such an embarassment. In fact
it's worse, the US has supported some very nasty dictators in the
past. The US should immediately apologize and make reparations
for supporting these dictators. Including one of the worst dictators
in the whole of history. Josef Stalin.
Thaddeus L Olczyk wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 20:43:34 +0000 (UTC), Joost Kremers
> <············@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> Was it even true the last time? Most of the people I've heard making
>>> this claim were claiming last time that we must have done something to
>>> deserve it, the claimed reasons being kyoto, missile ban, etc.
>>
>>then they could have given much better reasons. the main reason for the
>>frustration that so many (ordinary) people in the middle east feel with the
> I see by your name that you are an expert in what Arabs think.
given the fact that i have studied arabic for ten years now (am about to
receive my PhD), that i have been to egypt several times (in total for
about a year), talked to the people there and regularly keep up with the
arab media through the internet, yes, i do believe that although i wouldn't
call myself an expert, i do have a somewhat better insight into what arabs
think than the average citizen of europe and the US.
BTW, it doesn't take a genius to understand this part of their thinking.
>>US is caused by the fact that the US has supported and continues to support
>>a series of oppressive undemocratic regimes in the region: egypt, jordan,
>>saudi-arabia and other regimes on the arabian peninsula, israel, to a
>>lesser extent morocco. and in the past also the shah of persia, nowadays
>>iran. obviously, the US is not the only factor responsible for the lack of
>>freedom in the middle east, but it does contribute.
> Oh my my. You are so right. The US supports dictators. Such an evil
> thing that can never be justified. It such an embarassment. In fact
> it's worse, the US has supported some very nasty dictators in the
> past. The US should immediately apologize and make reparations
> for supporting these dictators. Including one of the worst dictators
> in the whole of history. Josef Stalin.
what is your point?
--
Joost Kremers http://baserv.uci.kun.nl/~jkremers
mail me for a bon mot
From: ·····@nic.fi (Jari Vuoksenranta)
Subject: Iraq explained
Keywords: chuckle, forwarded, long
Newsgroups: rec.humor.funny
Followup-To: rec.humor.d
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 19:30:00 PST
Organization: Saunalahti Customer
A WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO A
PEACENIK
By Bill Davidson
PeaceNik: Why did you say we are we invading Iraq?
WarMonger: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of Security
Council resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate Security
Council resolutions.
PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation
of more security council resolutions than Iraq.
WM: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main point is that Iraq could
have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a smoking gun
could well be a mushroom cloud over New York.
PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no
nuclear weapons.
WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.
PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for attacking
us or our allies with such weapons.
WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorist
networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.
PN: But couldn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological
materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the Eighties ourselves, didn't
we?
WM: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil man that has
an undeniable track record of repressing his own people since the early
Eighties. He gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees that he is a power-hungry
lunatic murderer.
PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic
murderer?
WM: The issue is not what we sold, but rather what Saddam did. He is the
one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait.
PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our ambassador
to Iraq, April Glaspie, know about and green-light the invasion of Kuwait?
WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq could sell
its biological and chemical weapons to Al Qaida. Osama Bin Laden himself
released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide-attack us, proving a
partnership between the two.
PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill him?
WM: Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really Osama Bin Laden on
the tapes. But the lesson from the tape is the same: there could easily be
a partnership between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein unless we act.
PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a
secular infidel?
WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell
presented a strong case against Iraq.
PN: He did?
WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Qaida poison factory in
Iraq.
PN: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of Iraq
controlled by the Kurdish opposition?
WM: And a British intelligence report...
PN: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate student
paper?
WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...
PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings?
WM: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding evidence from inspectors...
PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector, Hans
Blix?
WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence that cannot be
revealed because it would compromise our security.
PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq?
WM: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find
evidence. You're missing the point.
PN: So what is the point?
WM: The main point is that we are invading Iraq because Resolution 1441
threatened "severe consequences." If we do not act, the Security Council
will become an irrelevant debating society.
PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the Security Council?
WM: Absolutely. ...unless it rules against us.
PN: And what if it does rule against us?
WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade Iraq.
PN: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?
WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters.
PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of
billions of dollars.
WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.
PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war.
WM: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses its will
by electing leaders to make decisions.
PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is
important?
WM: Yes.
PN: But George Bush wasn't elected by voters. He was selected by the U.S.
Supreme C...
WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our leaders, however they
were elected, because they are acting in our best interest. This is about
being a patriot. That's the bottom line.
PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not
patriotic?
WM: I never said that.
PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?
WM: As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of mass
destruction that threaten us and our allies.
PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.
WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.
PN: You know this? How?
WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they are still
unaccounted for.
PN: The weapons we sold them, you mean?
WM: Precisely.
PN: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would degrade to
an unusable state over ten years.
WM: But there is a chance that some have not degraded.
PN: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons exist, we
must invade?
WM: Exactly.
PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical,
biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can reach
the west coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND
threatened to turn America into a sea of fire.
WM: That's a diplomatic issue.
PN: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?
WM: Aren't you listening? We are invading Iraq because we cannot allow the
inspections to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying, deceiving,
and denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us tens of millions.
PN: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.
WM: Yes, but this is not about money. This is about security.
PN: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim
sentiments against us, and decrease our security?
WM: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to change the way we
live. Once we do that, the terrorists have already won.
PN: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security,
color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Don't these change the way
we live?
WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.
PN: I do. Why are we invading Iraq?
WM: For the last time, we are invading Iraq because the world has called
on Saddam Hussein to disarm, and he has failed to do so. He must now face
the consequences.
PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as find
a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen?
WM: By "world", I meant the United Nations.
PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations?
WM: By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council.
PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the Security Council?
WM: I meant the majority of the Security Council.
PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the Security
Council?
WM: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto.
PN: In which case?
WM: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the veto.
PN: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us at
all?
WM: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council.
PN: That makes no sense.
WM: If you love Iraq so much, you should move there. Or maybe France, with
all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's time to boycott their
wine and cheese, no doubt about that.
PN: Here... have a pretzel, instead.
[Note - consistently credited to Bill Davidson, but I've been unable to find out
who that is - ed.]
--
Selected by Jim Griffith. MAIL your joke to ·····@netfunny.com.
Attribute the joke's source if at all possible. A Daemon will auto-reply.
The best of old postings from RHF are now also available in the new
group rec.humor.funny.reruns. Unless you've been a loyal reader since '87
you may want to subscribe to that too, since RHF does only new material.
The archives are also at http://www.netfunny.com/rhf
This joke's link: http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/03/Apr/peacenik.html
In article <···························@catv0149.extern.kun.nl>, Joost
Kremers <············@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Michael Parker wrote:
> > (b) What non-citizens think *doesn't* matter, except as a courtesy.
>
> it should be more than a courtesy when the policy of the US government
> directly influences the lives of non-US citizens.
Morally, yes, I agree with you. But Erann was complaining that Bush's
failure to listen to protesters (including those in other countries)
proved his disdain for democracy -- he actually called Bush a dictator.
My point was in the limited sense that wrt democracy, Bush is
fully justified in ignoring the small though strident internal protests,
and is under no obligation to attend to the foreign protests either. I
would further claim that it is undemocratic for him to allow
non-citizens to unduly influence his actions, precisely because they
are not his demos.
>
> >> The next time terrorists strike the United
> >> States it will no longer be true that we did nothing to deserve it.
> >
> > Was it even true the last time? Most of the people I've heard making
> > this claim were claiming last time that we must have done something to
> > deserve it, the claimed reasons being kyoto, missile ban, etc.
>
> then they could have given much better reasons. the main reason for the
> frustration that so many (ordinary) people in the middle east feel with the
> US is caused by the fact that the US has supported and continues to support
> a series of oppressive undemocratic regimes in the region: egypt, jordan,
> saudi-arabia and other regimes on the arabian peninsula, israel, to a
> lesser extent morocco. and in the past also the shah of persia, nowadays
> iran. obviously, the US is not the only factor responsible for the lack of
> freedom in the middle east, but it does contribute.
You're right, that was another whole set of reasons posited by both the
left and the right, and one that I would have taken a lot more
seriously if the terrorists weren't proposing to replace them with more
of the same -- my belief is that Bin Laden's real complaint is not so
much that the U.S. was supporting despots as it was that *he* was not
the despot.
I may be wrong about that, but I couldn't really see that the Taliban's
regime in Afghanistan, or the regime in Iran is terribly better than
that imposed by the U.S.-supported despots.
I also think that to the extent U.S. policy was wrong, this only
increases our responsibility to improve the situation in the middle
east. The key clause here is "to the extent" -- I do not believe that
a few million dollars a year to Egypt for example makes us 100%
culpable for Mubarak's regime. Does anyone truly believe that this
support was the critical factor preventing a true democracy from
flourishing in Egypt? That deal, after all, was put in place as
reward for the Egypt-Israeli peace accord. Similarly, the U.S. gave
food and oil to North Korea in exchange for promising to stop nuclear
development. Does this mean that the U.S. will now be held responsible
for North Korea's cruelty, and simultaneously restrained from doing
something about it in the future?
I do not know if we have the ability to effect such a democratic change
in the middle east. The responsibility for such a change lies firstly
with the European powers that left the Middle East in such a mess after
WWI, and only secondarily with the U.S. and Russia who used these
people and despots as pawns and proxies during the long struggle of the
cold war.
I do not believe Bush's drive to remove Saddam is motivated from
humanitarian concerns, but I think it is consonant with humanitarian
concerns. Bush's motives may or may not be the purest, but I think
this is orthogonal to the issue of the rightness or wrongness of the
policy.
> i should perhaps make it clear that although i find this policy of the US
> repulsive, i do not believe it justifies terrorist attacks such as those of
> 9/11. but it isn't difficult to see how the people in the middle-east who
> suffer daily from this US policy, may feel differently about that. in the
> same way that the citizens of the countries that were occupied by
> nazi-germany in WOII didn't object very much to the bombing campaigns of
> the allied forces against german cities.
I don't expect the rest of the world to view the U.S. as a saint -- we
have done some very bad things, sometimes because we believed it was
the best of a choice of evils, sometimes out of sheer self-interest.
But I do object to the view that is underlying the "ask yourself why
they hate you" argument so frequently propounded by both the far left
and far right -- that the U.S. must be perfect, that any U.S. action
that anybody disagrees with will serve whatever ills befall us.
This is an impossible standard for any country to live up to, and puts
the U.S. in a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" situation. We
were condemned for being slow to intervene in Kosovo, we are condemned
for failing to stop the Taliban from destroying the Buddist statues, we
are condemned for overthrowing the Taliban. we are condemned for
failing to overthrow the various middle eastern tyrants over the long
years that we were attempting to overthrow a eurasian tyranny, we are
condemned for attempting to overthrow a middle eastern tyrant. In the
face of this, why should the US care for the opinion of others -- they
will condemn us no matter what we do.
Saddam has been killing thousands each year for 20+ years. The U.S.
decides belatedly to stop him. And yet those on the far left and right
would claim that we are the evil party because we supported him years
ago, and we are doubly evil because we wish to stop him now. We are
triply evil because we do not concurrently stop all the other dictators
in the world, yet we would be quadruply evil if we were to actually
attempt such an endeavor. We are condemned for being overbearing
imperialists, yet also condemned from those same mouths for not being
an omnipotent leviathan.
In article <································@earthlink.net>, Michael
Parker <·············@earthlink.net> wrote:
> In article <···························@catv0149.extern.kun.nl>, Joost
> Kremers <············@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Michael Parker wrote:
> > > (b) What non-citizens think *doesn't* matter, except as a courtesy.
> >
> > it should be more than a courtesy when the policy of the US government
> > directly influences the lives of non-US citizens.
>
> Morally, yes, I agree with you. But Erann was complaining that Bush's
> failure to listen to protesters (including those in other countries)
> proved his disdain for democracy -- he actually called Bush a dictator.
I have since modified my position somewhat: Bush is not a dictator (yet)
but it seems to me that he would very much like to be one if given the
opportunity.
E.
In article <····················@k-137-79-50-101.jpl.nasa.gov>, Erann
Gat <···@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> I have since modified my position somewhat: Bush is not a dictator (yet)
> but it seems to me that he would very much like to be one if given the
> opportunity.
Why do you think he would like to be a dictator? I just don't see it.
I have heard this claim many times, but have never seen any evidence to
justify this concern.
Michael Parker <·············@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> Why do you think he would like to be a dictator? I just don't see it.
> I have heard this claim many times, but have never seen any evidence to
> justify this concern.
Who needs evidence ? George certainly does not.
Michael Parker wrote:
> I don't expect the rest of the world to view the U.S. as a saint -- we
> have done some very bad things, sometimes because we believed it was
> the best of a choice of evils, sometimes out of sheer self-interest.
> But I do object to the view that is underlying the "ask yourself why
> they hate you" argument so frequently propounded by both the far left
> and far right -- that the U.S. must be perfect, that any U.S. action
> that anybody disagrees with will serve whatever ills befall us.
>
> This is an impossible standard for any country to live up to, and puts
> the U.S. in a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" situation. We
> were condemned for being slow to intervene in Kosovo, we are condemned
> for failing to stop the Taliban from destroying the Buddist statues, we
> are condemned for overthrowing the Taliban. we are condemned for
> failing to overthrow the various middle eastern tyrants over the long
> years that we were attempting to overthrow a eurasian tyranny, we are
> condemned for attempting to overthrow a middle eastern tyrant. In the
> face of this, why should the US care for the opinion of others -- they
> will condemn us no matter what we do.
>
> Saddam has been killing thousands each year for 20+ years. The U.S.
> decides belatedly to stop him. And yet those on the far left and right
> would claim that we are the evil party because we supported him years
> ago, and we are doubly evil because we wish to stop him now. We are
> triply evil because we do not concurrently stop all the other dictators
> in the world, yet we would be quadruply evil if we were to actually
> attempt such an endeavor. We are condemned for being overbearing
> imperialists, yet also condemned from those same mouths for not being
> an omnipotent leviathan.
So your point is that you want your cake and eat it too?
Cheers
--
Marco Antoniotti
In article <·················@typhoon.nyu.edu>, Marco Antoniotti
<·······@cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
> > Saddam has been killing thousands each year for 20+ years. The U.S.
> > decides belatedly to stop him. And yet those on the far left and right
> > would claim that we are the evil party because we supported him years
> > ago, and we are doubly evil because we wish to stop him now. We are
> > triply evil because we do not concurrently stop all the other dictators
> > in the world, yet we would be quadruply evil if we were to actually
> > attempt such an endeavor. We are condemned for being overbearing
> > imperialists, yet also condemned from those same mouths for not being
> > an omnipotent leviathan.
>
>
> So your point is that you want your cake and eat it too?
No. If the world will condemn the U.S. for both action A and (not A),
then that condemnation ceases to be signal and instead becomes just so
much noise.
Michael Parker <·············@earthlink.net> writes:
> [..] If the world will condemn the U.S. for both action A and (not
> A), then that condemnation ceases to be signal and instead becomes
> just so much noise.
It very much remains to be seen whether the U.S's current action is
actually (not A) and not something quite different and not at all
complementary to A. Almost no-one _knows_ this with much certainty; we
are left to guess what is going to happen. The U.S's historical record
of similar operations, and the administration's public performances
leading up to this are presumably our best indicators when taking this
guess.
--
Frode Vatvedt Fjeld
Michael Parker wrote:
> In article , Marco Antoniotti
> wrote:
>
>
> >>Saddam has been killing thousands each year for 20+ years. The U.S.
> >>decides belatedly to stop him. And yet those on the far left and right
> >>would claim that we are the evil party because we supported him years
> >>ago, and we are doubly evil because we wish to stop him now. We are
> >>triply evil because we do not concurrently stop all the other dictators
> >>in the world, yet we would be quadruply evil if we were to actually
> >>attempt such an endeavor. We are condemned for being overbearing
> >>imperialists, yet also condemned from those same mouths for not being
> >>an omnipotent leviathan.
> >
> >
> >So your point is that you want your cake and eat it too?
>
>
> No. If the world will condemn the U.S. for both action A and (not A),
> then that condemnation ceases to be signal and instead becomes just so
> much noise.
That is a very good point. However, it is kind of sidestepping the
issues here. In your previous post you graciously admitted on several
"shortcomings" of US foreign policy over the recent historical period.
However, there is a distinction between you and your honesty (which I
appreciated in your posts) and what has been said and done over the past
few months by the Bush Administration (and maybe we should also consider
what it has *not* been said by the Bush Administration, e.g. how much is
actual cost of the war going to be, and what effects it will have on a
budget already plagued by diminishing revenues - hint: ludicrous tax
cuts for the wealthy - and soaring deficits).
Even if I profoundly disagree with his stance, Prime Minister Tony Blair
said one important thing in the debate in the Commons. History does not
necessarily dictate the future.
So, when the dust settles, it will be time to make amends for everybody.
For the time being, let's just hope this thing will be over soon, let's
turn our compassion to the people dying and let's hope that some good
people will get the chance to rebuild Iraq and our societies.
Cheers
--
Marco Antoniotti
Michael Parker wrote:
>> then they could have given much better reasons. the main reason for the
>> frustration that so many (ordinary) people in the middle east feel with the
>> US is caused by the fact that the US has supported and continues to support
>> a series of oppressive undemocratic regimes in the region: egypt, jordan,
>> saudi-arabia and other regimes on the arabian peninsula, israel, to a
>> lesser extent morocco. and in the past also the shah of persia, nowadays
>> iran. obviously, the US is not the only factor responsible for the lack of
>> freedom in the middle east, but it does contribute.
>
> You're right, that was another whole set of reasons posited by both the
> left and the right, and one that I would have taken a lot more
> seriously if the terrorists weren't proposing to replace them with more
> of the same -- my belief is that Bin Laden's real complaint is not so
> much that the U.S. was supporting despots as it was that *he* was not
> the despot.
i think one should distinguish between what drives bin laden and the others
in al-qaeda, and what drives the millions in the middle east that support
him or at least have some sympathy for his actions. bin laden is seeking
power, i agree with you on that. to obtain power, he emphasises the
frustrations of the common man. not only the anti-american feelings, BTW.
> I may be wrong about that, but I couldn't really see that the Taliban's
> regime in Afghanistan, or the regime in Iran is terribly better than
> that imposed by the U.S.-supported despots.
certainly not. IMHO the taliban were quite a lot worse than most regimes in
the middle east.
although i must say that iran is a bit of a different story. that country
is developing into a true democracy, partly as a result of the policies
of the fundamentalist regime, partly in spite of them. right now, a power
struggle is going on between the conservative mullahs and the progressive
parliament and goverment.
> I also think that to the extent U.S. policy was wrong, this only
> increases our responsibility to improve the situation in the middle
> east. The key clause here is "to the extent" -- I do not believe that
> a few million dollars a year to Egypt for example makes us 100%
> culpable for Mubarak's regime.
like i said, the US is certainly not the only factor that keeps these
regimes alive. and it would be silly to say that egyptians don't realise
that. they do not only blame the US. they certainly also blame their own
government.
but that's not the point. the point is that the US does have a role in it,
and that is enough for the likes of bin laden to play those frustrations.
> Does anyone truly believe that this
> support was the critical factor preventing a true democracy from
> flourishing in Egypt? That deal, after all, was put in place as
> reward for the Egypt-Israeli peace accord. Similarly, the U.S. gave
> food and oil to North Korea in exchange for promising to stop nuclear
> development. Does this mean that the U.S. will now be held responsible
> for North Korea's cruelty, and simultaneously restrained from doing
> something about it in the future?
no, not by me. but note that i wasn't talking about responsibility. i was
talking about the reasons for the anti-american sentiments in the middle
east. that doesn't necessarily mean that those reasons are entirely valid.
> I do not know if we have the ability to effect such a democratic change
> in the middle east. The responsibility for such a change lies firstly
> with the European powers that left the Middle East in such a mess after
> WWI, and only secondarily with the U.S. and Russia who used these
> people and despots as pawns and proxies during the long struggle of the
> cold war.
the historical responsibility, yes. but if you want democracy to develop in
the middle east, i think the US has much more the ability to set that
development in motion than europe. i do not know to what extent the
egyptian goverment for example is really dependent on US support (some say
the goverment wouldn't survive long without it). but i do think the US has
more influence on them than any european government. nonetheless, the US
shows no inclination to pressure governments into allowing more freedom and
democracy. the reason for that is quite simple: if there were more
democracy, many countries in the middle east would see the rise of islamist
parties. for some reason, the west fears this.
> I do not believe Bush's drive to remove Saddam is motivated from
> humanitarian concerns, but I think it is consonant with humanitarian
> concerns. Bush's motives may or may not be the purest, but I think
> this is orthogonal to the issue of the rightness or wrongness of the
> policy.
like someone else said, it's the results that count. *if* the war against
iraq results in more freedom and security for the iraqi people, bush made
the right decision. personally, however, i am not convinced it will.
> I don't expect the rest of the world to view the U.S. as a saint -- we
> have done some very bad things, sometimes because we believed it was
> the best of a choice of evils, sometimes out of sheer self-interest.
> But I do object to the view that is underlying the "ask yourself why
> they hate you" argument so frequently propounded by both the far left
> and far right -- that the U.S. must be perfect, that any U.S. action
> that anybody disagrees with will serve whatever ills befall us.
i wasn't trying to justify the anti-american emotions that i referred to. i
was merely trying to explain where they come from.
> Saddam has been killing thousands each year for 20+ years. The U.S.
> decides belatedly to stop him. And yet those on the far left and right
> would claim that we are the evil party because we supported him years
> ago, and we are doubly evil because we wish to stop him now. We are
> triply evil because we do not concurrently stop all the other dictators
> in the world, yet we would be quadruply evil if we were to actually
> attempt such an endeavor. We are condemned for being overbearing
> imperialists, yet also condemned from those same mouths for not being
> an omnipotent leviathan.
i agree there is some thruth to this. the ironic thing is that i am
convinced that if it was clinton instead of bush that was now going to
attack iraq, all of europe and probably much of the rest of the world would
support it fully. clinton had the ability to give the rest of the world the
idea that he listened to them, whether he really did or not. bush on the
other hand doesn't even try to give the impression that he does.
in the same way, i'm quite sure that if bush had not started out with
saying "we're gonna get rid of saddam", but instead had played it more
diplomatically, he probably would have been able to convince france and
probably russia to agree to an ultimatum months ago. but bush's fanatic (as
we see it) "you're either with us, or you're against us" doesn't help much.
--
Joost Kremers http://baserv.uci.kun.nl/~jkremers
mail me for a bon mot
In article <···························@catv0149.extern.kun.nl>, Joost
Kremers <············@yahoo.com> wrote:
> i think one should distinguish between what drives bin laden and the others
> in al-qaeda, and what drives the millions in the middle east that support
> him or at least have some sympathy for his actions. bin laden is seeking
> power, i agree with you on that. to obtain power, he emphasises the
> frustrations of the common man. not only the anti-american feelings, BTW.
That's true.
But what are their frustrations? That they have a corrupt, repressive
government? That they are poor? That Israel exists? That America
exists?
Some of these can be influenced by the U.S. But the U.S. does not
casually initiate regime change -- Iraq has been 12 years in the
making, and we're taking an incredible amount of shit for it, largely
from people who state in the same breath that if we overthrow Iraq we
should overthrow the other hundred-odd dictators around the world.
> > I may be wrong about that, but I couldn't really see that the Taliban's
> > regime in Afghanistan, or the regime in Iran is terribly better than
> > that imposed by the U.S.-supported despots.
>
> certainly not. IMHO the taliban were quite a lot worse than most regimes in
> the middle east.
>
> although i must say that iran is a bit of a different story. that country
> is developing into a true democracy, partly as a result of the policies
> of the fundamentalist regime, partly in spite of them. right now, a power
> struggle is going on between the conservative mullahs and the progressive
> parliament and goverment.
That's true to some extent, though the Iranian girl I work with thinks
this is pretty much a sham, that the mullah's will not allow anything
other than the window-dressings of democracy without a revolution.
She wants the U.S. to invade Iran next. Actually, she wanted us to
invade Iran right after Afghanistan.
> > I also think that to the extent U.S. policy was wrong, this only
> > increases our responsibility to improve the situation in the middle
> > east. The key clause here is "to the extent" -- I do not believe that
> > a few million dollars a year to Egypt for example makes us 100%
> > culpable for Mubarak's regime.
>
> like i said, the US is certainly not the only factor that keeps these
> regimes alive. and it would be silly to say that egyptians don't realise
> that. they do not only blame the US. they certainly also blame their own
> government.
The U.S. is not omnipotent, though it seems to be a common fiction.
Had we tried to overthrow Mubarak we would have had hell to�pay in the
middle east. Saddam at least is the most "overthrowable" of the middle
eastern tyrants.
> but that's not the point. the point is that the US does have a role in it,
> and that is enough for the likes of bin laden to play those frustrations.
I think he also exaggerates the level of america's power, as if we
could snap our fingers and fix all their problems if only we wanted to,
and therefore our failure to snap our fingers proves our hatred of
them.
> no, not by me. but note that i wasn't talking about responsibility. i was
> talking about the reasons for the anti-american sentiments in the middle
> east. that doesn't necessarily mean that those reasons are entirely valid.
I don't believe those reasons are entirely valid either, which makes me
loathe to act based on them.
> the historical responsibility, yes. but if you want democracy to develop in
> the middle east, i think the US has much more the ability to set that
> development in motion than europe.
The U.S. has the ability to set this in motion militarily. Saddam is
proof of our limits to effect this change diplomatically. But we are
paying a tremendous cost for it, and I'm not talking about money.
> i do not know to what extent the
> egyptian goverment for example is really dependent on US support (some say
> the goverment wouldn't survive long without it).
Again, there's a real risk of the omnipotent US fallacy. Many people
believed that Saddam couldn't survive an embargo, or Castro before him,
or the N. Korean regimes.
> but i do think the US has
> more influence on them than any european government.
Agreed, though I think that US influence would end the moment we
suggested they step down :-/
> nonetheless, the US
> shows no inclination to pressure governments into allowing more freedom and
> democracy. the reason for that is quite simple: if there were more
> democracy, many countries in the middle east would see the rise of islamist
> parties. for some reason, the west fears this.
That's probably true. The U.S. is a rationally self-interested actor,
at least some of the time.
> > I do not believe Bush's drive to remove Saddam is motivated from
> > humanitarian concerns, but I think it is consonant with humanitarian
> > concerns. Bush's motives may or may not be the purest, but I think
> > this is orthogonal to the issue of the rightness or wrongness of the
> > policy.
>
> like someone else said, it's the results that count. *if* the war against
> iraq results in more freedom and security for the iraqi people, bush made
> the right decision. personally, however, i am not convinced it will.
I am not convinced it will, but it is the best hope for them I see at
the moment. It is up to the american citizens and the world to
pressure him (and the UN) to follow through in Iraq.
> > I don't expect the rest of the world to view the U.S. as a saint -- we
> > have done some very bad things, sometimes because we believed it was
> > the best of a choice of evils, sometimes out of sheer self-interest.
> > But I do object to the view that is underlying the "ask yourself why
> > they hate you" argument so frequently propounded by both the far left
> > and far right -- that the U.S. must be perfect, that any U.S. action
> > that anybody disagrees with will serve whatever ills befall us.
>
> i wasn't trying to justify the anti-american emotions that i referred to. i
> was merely trying to explain where they come from.
I know. Actually, I have to say I've been pleasantly surprised at the
reasonable level of debate in this thread -- these things usually
degenerate pretty fast. For that matter, threads on the meaning of
II(a)3(vi) of thy hyperspec tend to degenerate pretty fast :-)
> i agree there is some thruth to this. the ironic thing is that i am
> convinced that if it was clinton instead of bush that was now going to
> attack iraq, all of europe and probably much of the rest of the world would
> support it fully. clinton had the ability to give the rest of the world the
> idea that he listened to them, whether he really did or not. bush on the
> other hand doesn't even try to give the impression that he does.
He was smooth, that's for sure.
> in the same way, i'm quite sure that if bush had not started out with
> saying "we're gonna get rid of saddam", but instead had played it more
> diplomatically, he probably would have been able to convince france and
> probably russia to agree to an ultimatum months ago. but bush's fanatic (as
> we see it) "you're either with us, or you're against us" doesn't help much.
I think this statement has been widely misinterpreted, but I could be
wrong. My take when I saw the speech is that since the terrorists's
stated aim was the destruction of the west and its conversion to Islam,
that there was no neutrality available -- not because the U.S. wouldn't
allow it, but because the *terrorists* wouldn't allow it. The recent
bombing incident in Indonesia would seem to confirm the truth in that
statement.
Michael Parker wrote:
> In article <···························@catv0149.extern.kun.nl>, Joost
> Kremers <············@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> i think one should distinguish between what drives bin laden and the others
>> in al-qaeda, and what drives the millions in the middle east that support
>> him or at least have some sympathy for his actions. bin laden is seeking
>> power, i agree with you on that. to obtain power, he emphasises the
>> frustrations of the common man. not only the anti-american feelings, BTW.
>
> That's true.
>
> But what are their frustrations? That they have a corrupt, repressive
> government? That they are poor? That Israel exists? That America
> exists?
not only those things. they are frustrated over the fact that america for
decades has been using its power to steer events the middle east, usually
in a direction that is not beneficial to the arab masses. by what they
perceive as american arrogance in the US attempts to reform the world order
according to their own views, which, in the perception of the people in the
middle east, only serves american interests. the words of bush sr. when
said he wanted to build a new world order, one that is based on law and not
on force, seemed awfully hypocritical in the middle east, which is
understandable if you realise that for example the egyptians live in a
country whose government receives 2 billion dollars in anual support from
the US, while the population never sees anything of that money other than
oppression and human rights violations, or fancy villas of the rich. sure,
you can say it's not the US that spends the money, but they do keep giving
it even though they know full well what it is being spent on.
they are also tremendously frustrated by israel's continued occupation of
the palestinian territories, and its continued violation of the rights of
the palestinians. and it is no secret that the US support the israeli
government and has considerable influence on it.
on the whole, from an arab perspective, the actions of the US in the past
and in the present appear utterly hypocritical, especially because the US
keeps stating that they wish to spread freedom, human rights and
democracy. arabs look at themselves and see that they don't have any of
that, even though the US has been involved in their region for decades.
i dare say that the liberation of kuwait and now the push to drive out
saddam are the first US actions in the middle east that also benefit the
arab population. that's to say i do believe that the desire on the part of
the US government to free the iraqi people from saddam is genuine. it's not
the main motive for the war, but i do believe it's a genuinely felt
additional objective. but given the US's trackrecord in the middle east, i
think it's no surprise that the arabs, at least the arabs outside of iraq,
do not believe this.
but anyway, the frustrations of the arabs goes much further than simply
that they're poor and that america exists. factual and percieved american
policy contribute enormously. to what extent the US can do anything about
this, i'm not sure. whatever they could do will only yield results in the
long run. you cannot pressure mubarak into becoming a true democrat from
one day to the next. you cannot pressure israel into giving up the
occupation just like that. but i do think it would be wise if the US would
start taking arab sentiments into account, and stop thinking that whatever
they perceive as right will also be perceived as right by the arabs.
>> although i must say that iran is a bit of a different story. that country
>> is developing into a true democracy, partly as a result of the policies
>> of the fundamentalist regime, partly in spite of them. right now, a power
>> struggle is going on between the conservative mullahs and the progressive
>> parliament and goverment.
>
> That's true to some extent, though the Iranian girl I work with thinks
> this is pretty much a sham, that the mullah's will not allow anything
> other than the window-dressings of democracy without a revolution.
i think she's right in that. i don't believe that iran will ever be
democratic until the mullahs dissappear from the stage.
> She wants the U.S. to invade Iran next. Actually, she wanted us to
> invade Iran right after Afghanistan.
i hear that at least some and perhaps many iranians in iran feel the same
way. though i can't help but feel that perhaps the iranians shouldn't ask
the americans to come and do their dirty work for them...
funny thing to notice, BTW, that especially the younger generation in iran
appears to see america as the place where their freedom will or should come
from. see what 25 years of non-interference in a society can do! in other
words: leave the arab world alone for 25 years and the arabs will beg the
americans to come and rid them of their dictators. ;-)
>> but that's not the point. the point is that the US does have a role in it,
>> and that is enough for the likes of bin laden to play those frustrations.
>
> I think he also exaggerates the level of america's power, as if we
> could snap our fingers and fix all their problems if only we wanted to,
> and therefore our failure to snap our fingers proves our hatred of
> them.
yes, it does seem that this reasoning underlies their thinking (and the
thinking of many "leftist" in europe.) and you're right, it's wrong.
>> the historical responsibility, yes. but if you want democracy to develop in
>> the middle east, i think the US has much more the ability to set that
>> development in motion than europe.
>
> The U.S. has the ability to set this in motion militarily. Saddam is
> proof of our limits to effect this change diplomatically.
well, dictators like saddam or formerly hafez al-asad in syria can never be
coaxed or pressured into giving their people more freedom and
liberties. but it is my impression (though i could be very wrong) that
dictators like mubarak in egypt, now bashar al-asad in syria, king abdullah
in jordan are slightly more enlightened, and that they *can* be coaxed into
releasing the reigns somewhat. not to outright democracy, but it might be a
start.
>> like someone else said, it's the results that count. *if* the war against
>> iraq results in more freedom and security for the iraqi people, bush made
>> the right decision. personally, however, i am not convinced it will.
>
> I am not convinced it will, but it is the best hope for them I see at
> the moment.
one of my fears is that in the end iraq will be submerged in small-scale
"tribal" feuds and conflicts. the iraqi society is organized in a "tribal"
manner, in that people see themselves not as part of the iraqi people, but
as part of some religious or ethnic community. just look at the iraqi
opposition in the west: they're divided to the extreme, and willing to
fight each other to the death. it's gonna be a tough job to keep that from
happening, and i'm not sure if the US is committed to do that. if they are
not, it would probably have been better not to set foot in iraq at all.
>> i wasn't trying to justify the anti-american emotions that i referred to. i
>> was merely trying to explain where they come from.
>
> I know. Actually, I have to say I've been pleasantly surprised at the
> reasonable level of debate in this thread -- these things usually
> degenerate pretty fast. For that matter, threads on the meaning of
> II(a)3(vi) of thy hyperspec tend to degenerate pretty fast :-)
heh... i've been lurking in this NG for a couple of months now, and i am
quite amazed by the level of the discussions. haven't seem anything like
that in the other groups i visit. (though i must have missed the
discussions on the finer points of the hyperspec... ;-)
--
Joost Kremers http://baserv.uci.kun.nl/~jkremers
mail me for a bon mot
Joost Kremers <············@yahoo.com> writes:
> Michael Parker wrote:
> > (b) What non-citizens think *doesn't* matter, except as a courtesy.
>
> it should be more than a courtesy when the policy of the US government
> directly influences the lives of non-US citizens.
No it should not, the US government is sworn to do what is in the
best interests of the United States, real and/or perceived, period.
That is its job and only that. Now if you can show how country X
will advance US interests by making it take action Y then the US
should try to make it happen.
marc
Marc Spitzer wrote:
> Joost Kremers <············@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Michael Parker wrote:
>> > (b) What non-citizens think *doesn't* matter, except as a courtesy.
>>
>> it should be more than a courtesy when the policy of the US government
>> directly influences the lives of non-US citizens.
>
> No it should not, the US government is sworn to do what is in the
> best interests of the United States, real and/or perceived, period.
so you feel that if it is in the best interest of the US to occupy a
foreign country, exploit its natural resources without giving any of the
profits to the inhabitants, denying the population basic human rights, the
US should just go ahead and do that? (note: i'm just giving a general
example, i don't want to claim that this is the objective of the invasion
of iraq.)
i'm saying that there are cases in which the actions of the US have a
negative impact on people elsewhere in the world. and in those cases, i
believe the US government has the moral obligation to take those negative
effects into consideration and to listen to the opinions of the people
involved. (this of course goes for any government.)
--
Joost Kremers http://baserv.uci.kun.nl/~jkremers
mail me for a bon mot
Joost Kremers <············@yahoo.com> writes:
> Marc Spitzer wrote:
> > Joost Kremers <············@yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> >> Michael Parker wrote:
> >> > (b) What non-citizens think *doesn't* matter, except as a courtesy.
> >>
> >> it should be more than a courtesy when the policy of the US government
> >> directly influences the lives of non-US citizens.
> >
> > No it should not, the US government is sworn to do what is in the
> > best interests of the United States, real and/or perceived, period.
>
> so you feel that if it is in the best interest of the US to occupy a
> foreign country, exploit its natural resources without giving any of the
> profits to the inhabitants, denying the population basic human rights, the
> US should just go ahead and do that? (note: i'm just giving a general
> example, i don't want to claim that this is the objective of the invasion
> of iraq.)
I do not have the responability to make that choice. And the history
of the US is that it will go home at the end of the war.
>
> i'm saying that there are cases in which the actions of the US have a
> negative impact on people elsewhere in the world. and in those cases, i
> believe the US government has the moral obligation to take those negative
> effects into consideration and to listen to the opinions of the people
> involved. (this of course goes for any government.)
I did not say that the US should not take into consideration the bad
feelings its actions might cause, that is part of its job. But the reason
for this is to further US goals not because we owe the locals anything.
IF for example the action in question will cause more bad publicity then it is
possible to benefit from it should not be taken because it is not in US
interests and for no other reason
marc
>
> --
> Joost Kremers http://baserv.uci.kun.nl/~jkremers
> mail me for a bon mot
>> No it should not, the US government is sworn to do what is in the
>> best interests of the United States, real and/or perceived, period.
This was marc's comment, not mine, but here goes...
> so you feel that if it is in the best interest of the US to occupy a
> foreign country, exploit its natural resources without giving any of the
> profits to the inhabitants, denying the population basic human rights, the
> US should just go ahead and do that? (note: i'm just giving a general
> example, i don't want to claim that this is the objective of the invasion
> of iraq.)
This is certainly not the stated aim of the US Govt, whether or not you
believe it is the hidden aim depends on how suspicious/paranoid you
are.
That said "best interest" involves a lot of calculations. The U.S. has
certainly done that in the past (e.g. US Indians). But historically,
we have rejected that model for a variety of reasons. We acquired
Spain's empire after the Spanish-American war, and pretty much divested
it within a few decades.
So for whatever reason, the U.S. has in recent (100+ yrs) decided that
it was not in its best interest to operate in that manner.
But if you want to play hypotheticals, then here's one for you. Say a
dictator of a central middle-eastern state attacked and conquered his
neighboring oil-producing states, proclaimed himself a successor to
Suleiman, receiving the acclamation of the people. Proclaiming the
inevitability of the global domination of his empire, he declares a
holy war of conquest and conversion against the evil west, which
unifies his newly-conquered subjects in common cause and dreams of
shared glory. He turns off the oil and launches war against the west
using funds captured in his initial conquest.
Facing economic collapse once the strategic reserves run out, would it
be in the U.S.'s best interest to conquer and occupy that region in
order to exploit it's natural resources without giving any profits to
the inhabitants? If the inhabitants continued to fight even after the
military battles had been won, would the U.S. be justified in
relocating the populace away from the critical oil-producing areas?
Of course the real question in that scenario is: how many other
"enlightened" countries would the U.S. have to beat out of the way in
order to capture that oil?
> i'm saying that there are cases in which the actions of the US have a
> negative impact on people elsewhere in the world. and in those cases, i
> believe the US government has the moral obligation to take those negative
> effects into consideration and to listen to the opinions of the people
> involved. (this of course goes for any government.)
I agree, we do indeed have such a moral obligation. But we are
rapidly getting into a situation where the U.S. is criticised no matter
what it does, and in that situation what reason does the U.S. have to
listen to that criticism? If we are damned if we do and damned if we
don't, then the damnation carries no information whatsoever.
Michael Parker wrote:
> But if you want to play hypotheticals, then here's one for you. Say a
> dictator of a central middle-eastern state attacked and conquered his
> neighboring oil-producing states, proclaimed himself a successor to
> Suleiman, receiving the acclamation of the people. Proclaiming the
> inevitability of the global domination of his empire, he declares a
> holy war of conquest and conversion against the evil west, which
> unifies his newly-conquered subjects in common cause and dreams of
> shared glory. He turns off the oil and launches war against the west
> using funds captured in his initial conquest.
>
> Facing economic collapse once the strategic reserves run out, would it
> be in the U.S.'s best interest to conquer and occupy that region in
> order to exploit it's natural resources without giving any profits to
> the inhabitants?
on a short term, that would be their best interest, yes. whether it would
also be beneficial on the long term is a different story. in any case,
conquering and occupying the region, and then exploiting it without regard
for the inhabitants is unlawful and unjust.
> If the inhabitants continued to fight even after the
> military battles had been won, would the U.S. be justified in
> relocating the populace away from the critical oil-producing areas?
no, the US or any other country would certainly not be justified in doing
that. the US doesn't own those resources, so at best they have the right to
buy the oil fairly.
if the inhabitants continue to fight the US even after the military
battles, that should be a clear sign that the US isn't wanted there and
that they should go.
>> i'm saying that there are cases in which the actions of the US have a
>> negative impact on people elsewhere in the world. and in those cases, i
>> believe the US government has the moral obligation to take those negative
>> effects into consideration and to listen to the opinions of the people
>> involved. (this of course goes for any government.)
>
> I agree, we do indeed have such a moral obligation. But we are
> rapidly getting into a situation where the U.S. is criticised no matter
> what it does, and in that situation what reason does the U.S. have to
> listen to that criticism? If we are damned if we do and damned if we
> don't, then the damnation carries no information whatsoever.
this is of course a nice and easy way to justify not listening to
anybody. but listening to criticism and acting upon it are two different
things. i believe one should always listen to criticism, try and see where
the person expressing it is coming from, why he criticises you, and then
decide if he has a point or not. and then explain why you (dis)agree. the
bush administration does not appear to be doing this. they issue statements
such as "if you're not with us, you're against us", and live by a policy of
"we do what we want and to hell with the rest".
--
Joost Kremers http://baserv.uci.kun.nl/~jkremers
mail me for a bon mot
In an attempt to throw the authorities off his trail, Joost Kremers <············@yahoo.com> transmitted:
> Marc Spitzer wrote:
>> Joost Kremers <············@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> Michael Parker wrote:
>>> > (b) What non-citizens think *doesn't* matter, except as a courtesy.
>>>
>>> it should be more than a courtesy when the policy of the US
>>> government directly influences the lives of non-US citizens.
>>
>> No it should not, the US government is sworn to do what is in the
>> best interests of the United States, real and/or perceived, period.
>
> so you feel that if it is in the best interest of the US to occupy a
> foreign country, exploit its natural resources without giving any of
> the profits to the inhabitants, denying the population basic human
> rights, the US should just go ahead and do that? (note: i'm just
> giving a general example, i don't want to claim that this is the
> objective of the invasion of iraq.)
No, the point is that citizens of the United States have a right to
expect to have some influence over the policy of the government, and
the US government thereby has a corresponding obligation to at least
consider the opinions of their citizenry.
And non-citizens have no right to expect for their opinions to be so
considered.
As a Canadian citizen, I have the right to express my aspirations to
/my/ nation's politicians, but I don't consider that there's any
particular reason for US politicians to try to represent my desires.
US Congresscritters, Senators, and such are responsible to their
constituents, and those constituents happen /ALL/ to be US citizens.
If a Member of Congress were to follow foreign opinions in lieu of
listening to their constituents, there is a good argument to be made
to the effect that they are betraying their constituents, and calling
this "traitorous" is not, I do not think, going vastly too far.
> i'm saying that there are cases in which the actions of the US have
> a negative impact on people elsewhere in the world. and in those
> cases, i believe the US government has the moral obligation to take
> those negative effects into consideration and to listen to the
> opinions of the people involved. (this of course goes for any
> government.)
Listening to it /as reasoning/ is fair enough. But to consider such
opinions to be politically binding goes beyond that, on towards being
a betrayal of their responsibilities to their constituents.
--
If this was helpful, <http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=cbbrowne> rate me
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/sap.html
"If women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you
handy..." -- The Red Green Show
Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
> Joost Kremers <············@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > Michael Parker wrote:
> > > (b) What non-citizens think *doesn't* matter, except as a courtesy.
> >
> > it should be more than a courtesy when the policy of the US government
> > directly influences the lives of non-US citizens.
>
> No it should not, the US government is sworn to do what is in the
> best interests of the United States, real and/or perceived, period.
> That is its job and only that. Now if you can show how country X
> will advance US interests by making it take action Y then the US
> should try to make it happen.
>
If that's your view than we should have an isolationist policy much
like China.
Anthony Ventimiglia <···@mongrel.dogpound> writes:
> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
>
> > Joost Kremers <············@yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> > > Michael Parker wrote:
> > > > (b) What non-citizens think *doesn't* matter, except as a courtesy.
> > >
> > > it should be more than a courtesy when the policy of the US government
> > > directly influences the lives of non-US citizens.
> >
> > No it should not, the US government is sworn to do what is in the
> > best interests of the United States, real and/or perceived, period.
> > That is its job and only that. Now if you can show how country X
> > will advance US interests by making it take action Y then the US
> > should try to make it happen.
> >
>
> If that's your view than we should have an isolationist policy much
> like China.
No it is not in US interests, IMHO.
marc
Michael Parker <·············@earthlink.net> writes:
> > He is a dictator who dons the
> > trappings of Democracy but does not embrace its substance.
>
> You're really out on a limb here -- what exactly makes him a dictator?
> A handful of people claiming so does not make it true.
That reminds me of my holidays in Venezuela: "Chavez is a dictator, a
fascist, repressive S.O.B", they used to say, using their freedom of
expression. What an oximoron.
If Bush was a Dictator, nobody would dare to say it.
Saddam Hussein is a REAL dictator.
> > The next time terrorists strike the United
> > States it will no longer be true that we did nothing to deserve it.
>
> Was it even true the last time? Most of the people I've heard making
> this claim were claiming last time that we must have done something to
> deserve it, the claimed reasons being kyoto, missile ban, etc.
11th of September 1973, Pinochet overthrows an elected government,
that of Salvador Allende, and installs an ugly facist dictatorship
that claims many more victims than the attack on the twin towers. With
substantial help of the CIA, one might add. And it is only one
example.
I want to add that I think the attack on the twin towers was a monstrous
crime. Nothing could possibly justify it.
> What has *ever* kept any country from launching a war? This is nothing
> new -- the U.S. didn't suddenly pull the concept of war out of a hat.
Well, wars are expensive, and might go wrong. Or might be hopeless,
anyway. Smart bombs, nor anything else, would help in Colombia, for
instance.
Mario.
Michael Parker <·············@earthlink.net> writes:
> In article <····························@posting.google.com>, Erann Gat
> <···@flownet.com> wrote:
>
> > No President
> > has ever shown more contempt for the bedrock principle of Democracy,
> > which is that what other people think matters.
>
> You're sort-of right here, but a bit off the mark. A couple of points:
>
> (a) the US is not strictly speaking a democracy. What people think
> only directly matters at election time, with only an indirect influence
> the rest of the time. This was considered a feature by the founding
> fathers as a way around the instability and lack of focus that plagued
> the classical democracies of ancient Greece.
No country in existance, strictly speaking is a democracy.
Many of our founding fathers who signed the constitution thought very
little of it, but after years of working on it and comprimises, they
all decided that it was the best they could do. I doubt any of them
could have forseen some of the uglier things it has created.
> (b) What non-citizens think *doesn't* matter, except as a courtesy.
I guess it doesn't matter what a non-citizen thinks when they Hijack
four planes and kill three thousand people.
It's your arrogant attitude, as well as the Bush administrations that
causes so much animosity towards the American Government.
In article <··············@mongrel.dogpound>, Anthony Ventimiglia
<···@mongrel.dogpound> wrote:
> > (b) What non-citizens think *doesn't* matter, except as a courtesy.
>
> I guess it doesn't matter what a non-citizen thinks when they Hijack
> four planes and kill three thousand people.
>
> It's your arrogant attitude, as well as the Bush administrations that
> causes so much animosity towards the American Government.
Hmm, I think some context was lost. The original statement was that
because Bush is a dictator in part because he doesn't pay attention to
the foreign protests. My statement is factually true: Bush is free to
ignore the opinion of non-citizens without compromizing democracy,
because *they are not part of the demos*, i.e. the citizenry. This is
not arrogance, it is a simple statement of fact -- "democracy" == "Rule
of the demos (citizenry)".
Bush is not *required* to listen to the opinions of non-citizens. It
may be the ethical thing to do, it may be the moral thing to do, it may
be the intelligent thing to do, it is certainly the polite thing to do.
But he is ultimately answerable to the U.S. citizenry, which means he
is perfectly free to listen to overseas opinion, and decide it is
misguided. He is even free to ignore it.
Michael Parker <·············@earthlink.net> writes:
> In article <··············@mongrel.dogpound>, Anthony Ventimiglia
> <···@mongrel.dogpound> wrote:
> > > (b) What non-citizens think *doesn't* matter, except as a courtesy.
> >
> > I guess it doesn't matter what a non-citizen thinks when they Hijack
> > four planes and kill three thousand people.
> >
> > It's your arrogant attitude, as well as the Bush administrations that
> > causes so much animosity towards the American Government.
>
> Hmm, I think some context was lost. The original statement was that
> because Bush is a dictator in part because he doesn't pay attention to
> the foreign protests. My statement is factually true: Bush is free to
> ignore the opinion of non-citizens without compromizing democracy,
> because *they are not part of the demos*, i.e. the citizenry. This is
> not arrogance, it is a simple statement of fact -- "democracy" == "Rule
> of the demos (citizenry)".
>
> Bush is not *required* to listen to the opinions of non-citizens. It
> may be the ethical thing to do, it may be the moral thing to do, it may
> be the intelligent thing to do, it is certainly the polite thing to do.
>
> But he is ultimately answerable to the U.S. citizenry, which means he
> is perfectly free to listen to overseas opinion, and decide it is
> misguided. He is even free to ignore it.
That's certainly a valid point, but when the actions of your
government, and the long standing policies of your government create a
long term contempt for your government's actions. It is your
government who is responsible when something like an act of terrorism
takes the lives of your people.
Michael Parker <·············@earthlink.net> writes:
> Hmm, I think some context was lost. The original statement was that
> because Bush is a dictator in part because he doesn't pay attention to
> the foreign protests.
The relevant facts are:
- he disrespects international law
- his rhetoric is that of a religious fanatic and extreme nationalist
Given statements like:
"..because this is the greatest nation, full of the finest people,
on the face of the Earth."
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030116-1.html)
there's no wonder people in "old Europe" conclude that "this looks like
a dictator and smells like a dictator, so it must be a dictator".
--
(espen)
Espen Vestre <·····@*do-not-spam-me*.vestre.net> writes:
> Michael Parker <·············@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>> Hmm, I think some context was lost. The original statement was that
>> because Bush is a dictator in part because he doesn't pay attention to
>> the foreign protests.
>
> The relevant facts are:
>
> - he disrespects international law
what is your definition of "international law"? so far I've seen this
term used mostly by people who are deliberately mistaking Belgium for
the world.
(don't bother defining "international", concentrate on "law".)
--
Due to the holiday next Monday, there will be no garbage collection.
Michael Livshin <······@cmm.kakpryg.net> writes:
> what is your definition of "international law"? so far I've seen this
> term used mostly by people who are deliberately mistaking Belgium for
> the world.
I'm not a law expert (and hence, it would be foolish of me to try to
answer your request for definitions), but this is not something I'm
making up or somebody in Belgium (!?) is making up, it is claimed by
leading law experts from several countries, e.g. the International Law
Commision in Geneva.
If you can read german, here's a pretty good article which discusses
the topic (and brings up some interesting consequences: If the war
atually is in breach with internationational law, then according to EU
law, Poland is in breach with the requirement for EU membership):
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,241087,00.html
--
(espen)
Espen Vestre <·····@*do-not-spam-me*.vestre.net> writes:
> Michael Livshin <······@cmm.kakpryg.net> writes:
>
>> what is your definition of "international law"? so far I've seen this
>> term used mostly by people who are deliberately mistaking Belgium for
>> the world.
>
> I'm not a law expert (and hence, it would be foolish of me to try to
> answer your request for definitions), but this is not something I'm
> making up or somebody in Belgium (!?) is making up, it is claimed by
> leading law experts from several countries, e.g. the International Law
> Commision in Geneva.
I'm not a law expert either, but to claim the existance of a law, I
think, is to claim at least that there is a court (to determine if
there's a breach of the law) and a police (to punish those who break
the law).
so far I don't see a court (well, Belgium claims a right to put
foreign nationals on trial, which is why I mentioned this famous
superpower in my post; and then there's the UN with Libia (or was it
Syria?) heading the Security Council -- court run by inmates), and the
only thing anywhere close to a potent police is, well, the US.
so the claim about there being some kind of "international law" is,
in my view, completely absurd.
> [snip]
--m
--
I'm a Lisp variable -- bind me!
Michael Livshin <······@cmm.kakpryg.net> writes:
> so far I don't see a court
The international criminal court is in The Hague (which isn't in Belgium).
There are other international courts as well.
See http://www.un.org/law/
--
(espen)
Espen Vestre <·····@*do-not-spam-me*.vestre.net> writes:
> Michael Livshin <······@cmm.kakpryg.net> writes:
>
>> so far I don't see a court
>
> The international criminal court is in The Hague (which isn't in Belgium).
yup, forgot about The Hague (wonder why -- perhaps it's just not as
obviously comical as Belgium).
> There are other international courts as well.
sure. I could open one tomorrow, it would probably be as effective as
those as far as law enforcement is concerned. even more effective, if
the criminal on trial happens to be my cat.
--
it takes more than not to remember how you did it the last time to be
innovative. -- Erik Naggum
Michael Livshin <······@cmm.kakpryg.net> writes:
> > There are other international courts as well.
>
> sure. I could open one tomorrow, it would probably be as effective as
> those as far as law enforcement is concerned. even more effective, if
> the criminal on trial happens to be my cat.
What are you trying to prove?
--
(espen)
Espen Vestre <·····@*do-not-spam-me*.vestre.net> writes:
> What are you trying to prove?
that in the absence of law enforcement, there's no law.
perhaps I've failed to understand what it was that you were objecting
to?
--
All ITS machines now have hardware for a new machine instruction --
BFM
Be Fruitful and Multiply.
Please update your programs.
Michael Livshin <······@cmm.kakpryg.net> writes:
> > What are you trying to prove?
>
> that in the absence of law enforcement, there's no law.
Sigh. Your arguments are those of a nihilist.
--
(espen) "And when justice is gone, there's always force.
And when force is gone, there's always Mom. Hi Mom!"
Laurie Anderson
Espen Vestre <·····@*do-not-spam-me*.vestre.net> writes:
> Michael Livshin <······@cmm.kakpryg.net> writes:
>
> > > What are you trying to prove?
> >
> > that in the absence of law enforcement, there's no law.
>
> Sigh. Your arguments are those of a nihilist.
Also: The presence of what Bush calls "Law Enforcement" does
not imply a "Law".
--
Raymond Wiker Mail: ·············@fast.no
Senior Software Engineer Web: http://www.fast.no/
Fast Search & Transfer ASA Phone: +47 23 01 11 60
P.O. Box 1677 Vika Fax: +47 35 54 87 99
NO-0120 Oslo, NORWAY Mob: +47 48 01 11 60
Try FAST Search: http://alltheweb.com/
Raymond Wiker <·············@fast.no> writes:
> Also: The presence of what Bush calls "Law Enforcement" does
> not imply a "Law".
naturally. you also need a court, which is recognized and supported
by a broad consensus.
The Ligue of Nations and the UN had both turned out to be no more than
fancy discussion clubs. looks like the world is not yet ripe for true
international law. sorry for nihilism.
--
Hit the philistines three times over the head with the Elisp reference manual.
-- Michael A. Petonic
Michael Livshin <······@cmm.kakpryg.net> writes:
> that in the absence of law enforcement, there's no law.
Thankfully, there's always usenet cops to enforce the Common Lisp
standard.
--
Arvid
Michael Livshin <······@cmm.kakpryg.net> wrote:
>Espen Vestre <·····@*do-not-spam-me*.vestre.net> writes:
>
>> Michael Livshin <······@cmm.kakpryg.net> writes:
>>
>>> so far I don't see a court
>>
>> The international criminal court is in The Hague (which isn't in Belgium).
>
>yup, forgot about The Hague (wonder why -- perhaps it's just not as
>obviously comical as Belgium).
hem.
Actually we have an interesting anti-atrocity law, look at
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/icc/belgium-qna.pdf :
"The 1993 law amended in 1999, gives Belgian courts the authority to
prosecute persons accused of genocide, crimes against humanity or war
crimes regardless of where the crimes took place or whether the
suspect or the victims are Belgian."
Be careful Bush, never come in Belgium!
--
Francis Leboutte
www.algo.be
Quoth Francis Leboutte <··········@algo.be>:
> Michael Livshin <······@cmm.kakpryg.net> wrote:
>
>>Espen Vestre <·····@*do-not-spam-me*.vestre.net> writes:
>>
>>> Michael Livshin <······@cmm.kakpryg.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> so far I don't see a court
>>>
>>> The international criminal court is in The Hague (which isn't in Belgium).
>>
>>yup, forgot about The Hague (wonder why -- perhaps it's just not as
>>obviously comical as Belgium).
>
> hem.
>
> Actually we have an interesting anti-atrocity law, look at
> http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/icc/belgium-qna.pdf :
> "The 1993 law amended in 1999, gives Belgian courts the authority to
> prosecute persons accused of genocide, crimes against humanity or war
> crimes regardless of where the crimes took place or whether the
> suspect or the victims are Belgian."
>
> Be careful Bush, never come in Belgium!
.. And that's exactly the sort of "kangaroo court" activity that
leads to the widespread disrespect of attempts at "international
courts."
What is going on in Iraq certainly /doesn't/ look the same as the
atrocities that took place in Germany in WWII, in Cambodea, some years
ago, or in Bosnia or Rwanda more recently.
When you make up "courts" that don't distinguish between situations,
like the present one, where it is /clear/ that there are reasonable
people holding differing dissenting positions one way or the other,
and the "real atrocities," it makes such systems look like jokes.
That you would describe Bush as a "war criminal," right now, certainly
encourages those at the other end of the spectrum to think "kangaroo
court."
[And apparently my .signature chooser sometimes makes fatefully
excellent choices. Must be the use of CLOS :-).]
--
(concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" ·@acm.org")
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/linux.html
"If I could find a way to get [Saddam Hussein] out of there, even
putting a contract out on him, if the CIA still did that sort of a
thing, assuming it ever did, I would be for it." -- Richard M. Nixon
Michael Parker <·············@earthlink.net> writes:
> > But Saddam is hardly unique in this regard, and solving
> > this problem by starting a war sets a horrible precedent.
>
> What precedent? That liberating people from a horrible evil man is not
> only possible, but even desirable? How exactly is this horrible?
Instead of leaving the decision of whether to intervent to the
dangerous "think tank" around Bush (who are following vice defense
minister Wolfowitz's doctrine of "preemptive intervention" (*)),
have a look at the report from The International Commission on
Intervention and State Sovereignty:
http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/iciss-ciise/report2-en.asp
To me it's obvious that Iraq is FAR from fulfilling the requirements
for justifying a military attack that this commision suggests.
(*) it's important to understand that the current american policy is
the brain child of a right-wing group _around_ Bush, which were
too extreme even for his father, but which got out of their "think
tanks" and made their way into the current government and which
even Bush has struggled to moderate (they wanted to attack Iraq
the day after 9/11). This seems to be a pretty good summary of
the story behind the new doctrine:
http://www.presentdanger.org/papers/foretold_body.html
(I don't know the organization behind these web pages, american
c.l.l.-ers may know more, but at least the presentation on the
above url is consistent with what I've read on this topic from
other sources)
--
(espen)
···@flownet.com (Erann Gat) writes:
> Just about everything Geroge Bush has done since before he came to
> office has made me ashamed to call myself an American. No President
> has ever shown more contempt for the bedrock principle of Democracy,
> which is that what other people think matters. George Bush has
> repeatedly demonstrated (and even explicitly stated) that he doesn't
> give a damn what anyone else thinks. He is a dictator who dons the
> trappings of Democracy but does not embrace its substance. When he
> launches his war against Iraq he will be in my mind little different
> from Osama bin Laden. The next time terrorists strike the United
> States it will no longer be true that we did nothing to deserve it.
The amazing thing about it is he keeps saying he's doing everything to
encourage democracy, and freedom, and the media is in his back
pocket. Apparantley now words speak louder than actions.
1. George Bush is for Democracy: Except when there's a problem
counting votes in the state his Brother is Govenor of, then we have
to go to the supreme court to decide who the president is, and
forbid anyone to know what the real vote count is.
And when the democratic process of the United nations doesn't seem
to be going in your favor, you should just go ahead and do whatever
the hell you want.
Oh yes and did I forget that He consideres Communist China our
friend ? I guess it's all right to be a communist, if you're big enough.
2. George Bush wants to save the world from the threat of Saddam
Hussein, for his war crimes. But in the mean time let's keep
shoveling money into Israel who has a history of over 50 years of
human rights violations that make Saddam look like a preschooler.
3. George Bush wants to invade Iraq because he Saddam supports
terrorism. But apparantley providing any real proof that a Power mad
Paranoid control freak like Saddam Hussein, who has killed well over
a million Muslims, supports Fundametalist Islamic Terrorists is not
worth his time.
Oh yes, Saddam has used Weapons of mass destruction on his own
people. Now George Bush wants a turn, the 20,000 pound MOAB has
more explosive power than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki.
Colin Powell was asked last weekend if the US could use Nuclear
weapons in Iraq. His response was "We reserve the right to use
Atomic weapons if the threat is great enough".
George Bush refused to sign a global Treaty which would have
reduced Atomic weapons because he would not allow UN inspectors to
tour US Military Bases.
The United States has 20,000 nuclear warheads, Israel admits to
having over 400.
4. George Bush believes he's working for I higher Divine Cause.
So did Adolph Hitler.
> The stupidity and tragedy of this situation boggles my mind. Yes,
> Saddam Hussein is an evil man. Yes, the world will be better off
> without him. But Saddam is hardly unique in this regard, and solving
> this problem by starting a war sets a horrible precedent. What is to
> stop any country from launching a war against anyone that they judge
> to be evil?
Every time this monster opens his mouth I feel like he's sinking us
deeper and deeper into a very bad position. Considering his "Axis of
Evil" speech, and his actions now, Iran and North Korea pretty much
know that they are the next in line for his wrath.
I also feel that foreign diplomats are biting their tounges and not
expressing their true opinions, for fear that Bush will turn on them next.
After making demands of Saddam that he had no way of meeting, what
will happen when George turns his site on the next "Evildoer" ?
> Thank you for your forbearance on this decidedly off-topic post. When
> the bombs start to fly I wanted everyone to know that they do so
> without the consent of this American.
The worst part of being an American right now is the feeling that the
rest of the world doesn't know just how scared we are of our "President".
In article <··············@mongrel.dogpound>, Anthony Ventimiglia
<···@mongrel.dogpound> wrote:
Fascinating post.
> The amazing thing about it is he keeps saying he's doing everything to
> encourage democracy, and freedom, and the media is in his back
> pocket. Apparantley now words speak louder than actions.
>
> 1. George Bush is for Democracy: Except when there's a problem
> counting votes in the state his Brother is Govenor of, then we have
> to go to the supreme court to decide who the president is, and
> forbid anyone to know what the real vote count is.
Given that the way those votes were being counted triggered a
constitutional question, I think it's reasonable that the supreme court
became involved. And before you ask, no, I didn't vote for Bush.
> Oh yes and did I forget that He consideres Communist China our
> friend ? I guess it's all right to be a communist, if you're big enough.
I could be wrong, but I don't recall him being particularly friendly to
China, at least not more friendly than any other administration in the
last 30 years. China is simply one of those countries we have to deal
with.
Would you prefer that we have taken them on before Iraq?
> 2. George Bush wants to save the world from the threat of Saddam
> Hussein, for his war crimes. But in the mean time let's keep
> shoveling money into Israel who has a history of over 50 years of
> human rights violations that make Saddam look like a preschooler.
Again, I haven't really noticed this myself. They're fighting a cold
war of sorts with the Palestinians, but I notice the palestinians seem
to be doing a pretty decent job of fighting back. I also notice they
don't seem to be nearly as squeamish about killing women and children
as the Israelis. This may or may not count for much.
> 3. George Bush wants to invade Iraq because he Saddam supports
> terrorism. But apparantley providing any real proof that a Power mad
> Paranoid control freak like Saddam Hussein, who has killed well over
> a million Muslims, supports Fundametalist Islamic Terrorists is not
> worth his time.
Depends on whether you consider Hamas and the PLO to be terrorists, I
suppose.
> Oh yes, Saddam has used Weapons of mass destruction on his own
> people. Now George Bush wants a turn, the 20,000 pound MOAB has
> more explosive power than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and
> Nagasaki.
It's a big bomb, but it's nowhere near a nuke -- you're off by roughly
three orders of magnitude (though to be honest so were the press when
they reported it). Hiroshima was 12-13 kilotons equivalent. 20000 lbs
is only 10 tons. That's 10 tons vs 12,000 tons.
Even the little "tactical" nukes are something like 1 kton which is
still two orders of magnitude difference.
> Colin Powell was asked last weekend if the US could use Nuclear
> weapons in Iraq. His response was "We reserve the right to use
> Atomic weapons if the threat is great enough".
That's true. It'd probably take a pretty big threat, though.
> George Bush refused to sign a global Treaty which would have
> reduced Atomic weapons because he would not allow UN inspectors to
> tour US Military Bases.
Neither has any other president -- he's hardly unique here.
> The United States has 20,000 nuclear warheads, Israel admits to
> having over 400.
And france, britain, china, russia, pakistan, india, and n. korea have
how many?
> 4. George Bush believes he's working for I higher Divine Cause.
> So did Adolph Hitler.
So did Mother Theresa. Your point is?
> Every time this monster opens his mouth I feel like he's sinking us
> deeper and deeper into a very bad position. Considering his "Axis of
> Evil" speech, and his actions now, Iran and North Korea pretty much
> know that they are the next in line for his wrath.
Possibly, though that's hardly certain. Iran looks to be on the verge
of a revolution, and it looks like n. korea have us pretty well
deterred.
> I also feel that foreign diplomats are biting their tounges and not
> expressing their true opinions, for fear that Bush will turn on them next.
Haven't noticed this myself. France has certainly laying into him
these last few months, they're still there. But then maybe bush's evil
plan is to let germany invade while we're busy in iraq?
> After making demands of Saddam that he had no way of meeting, what
> will happen when George turns his site on the next "Evildoer" ?
(a) The U.N. made the demands. (b) Why couldn't Saddam meet them?
Because he truly doesn't have those weapons? Get real -- no one
believes that, not Blix, not France, nobody. The disagreement was over
what to actually do about it.
> The worst part of being an American right now is the feeling that the
> rest of the world doesn't know just how scared we are of our "President".
"we" is definitely figurative. I'm certainly not, and if the recent
polls are any indication most americans aren't either, unless you
believe Bush has them so afraid that they're lying to the pollsters.
Please read my posts to Erann regarding paranoia and the danger of
nonfalsifiable hypotheses.
From: Hartmann Schaffer
Subject: Re: Against war (off topic)
Date:
Message-ID: <3e793f7c@news.sentex.net>
In article <································@earthlink.net>,
Michael Parker <·············@earthlink.net> writes:
> In article <··············@mongrel.dogpound>, Anthony Ventimiglia
> <···@mongrel.dogpound> wrote:
>
> Fascinating post.
>
>> The amazing thing about it is he keeps saying he's doing everything to
>> encourage democracy, and freedom, and the media is in his back
>> pocket. Apparantley now words speak louder than actions.
>>
>> 1. George Bush is for Democracy: Except when there's a problem
>> counting votes in the state his Brother is Govenor of, then we have
>> to go to the supreme court to decide who the president is, and
>> forbid anyone to know what the real vote count is.
>
> Given that the way those votes were being counted triggered a
> constitutional question, I think it's reasonable that the supreme court
> became involved. And before you ask, no, I didn't vote for Bush.
in a representative democratic system it should be important to at
least count the votes and let the count decide the winner, even if
some events like electorate assembly or inauguration have to be
delayed because of the recount. what happened in the last
presidential election:
- the margin of bush's "victory" in florida was less that the known
error rate of the equipment used to guesstimate the votes (this was
discussed at length and in some detail in comp.risks for a few weeks
after the election
- a request for recount was blocked by an administration controlled by
the brother of one of the candidates (who was declared to be the
winner)
- a court largely appointed by the two brothers' father backed up that
blockage
too bad this didn't happen somewhere in africa, latin america, or
asia. i really would have liked to read about the american reaction
to such a situation
> ...
hs
--
men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education
Bertrand Russel
··@heaven.nirvananet (Hartmann Schaffer) writes:
> too bad this didn't happen somewhere in africa, latin america, or
> asia. i really would have liked to read about the american reaction
> to such a situation
I actually do recall a foreign election that the US nullified, or
refused to recognize, because the vote was fixed. Can't remember
where, but it wasn't too long before the 2000 debacle.
··@heaven.nirvananet (Hartmann Schaffer) writes:
> In article <································@earthlink.net>,
> Michael Parker <·············@earthlink.net> writes:
> > Given that the way those votes were being counted triggered a
> > constitutional question, I think it's reasonable that the supreme
> > court became involved. And before you ask, no, I didn't vote for
> > Bush.
> in a representative democratic system it should be important to at
> least count the votes and let the count decide the winner, even if
> some events like electorate assembly or inauguration have to be
> delayed because of the recount. what happened in the last
> presidential election:
Actually, they counted the votes /many times/. And each time they
counted, Bush turned out to be the winner. They even broke the law to
count more times than would have been necessary by the constitution.
> - the margin of bush's "victory" in florida was less that the known
> error rate of the equipment used to guesstimate the votes (this was
> discussed at length and in some detail in comp.risks for a few weeks
> after the election
That's too bad. But if you have a result as close as this, counting
the votes is still all you can do. And they did count them. Many
times. And always got the same result: That Bush had more votes.
> - a request for recount was blocked by an administration controlled
> by the brother of one of the candidates (who was declared to be the
> winner)
You forgot to mention just how many requests for recount arrived...
> - a court largely appointed by the two brothers' father backed up
> that blockage
Of course. There are /rules/ and /laws/ saying how many times the
votes have to be counted. Nevertheless, the votes were counted even
/more/ often than the rules say they should (and always with the same
result: Bush wan). The constitution certainly doesn't say that votes
have to be counted as often as necessary for the Democrats to win.
> too bad this didn't happen somewhere in africa, latin america, or
> asia. i really would have liked to read about the american reaction
> to such a situation
When we doubt the result of elections in such countries, it is
typically because of, say, reports of the police or military blocking
voting rooms and/or stealing and replacing ballot boxes. Nobody ever
claimed that any such thing happened in Florida.
Regards,
--
Nils G�sche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
PGP key ID 0x0655CFA0
From: Hartmann Schaffer
Subject: Re: Against war (off topic)
Date:
Message-ID: <3e7a7986@news.sentex.net>
In article <··············@cartan.de>,
Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> writes:
> ··@heaven.nirvananet (Hartmann Schaffer) writes:
>
>> In article <································@earthlink.net>,
>> Michael Parker <·············@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>> > Given that the way those votes were being counted triggered a
>> > constitutional question, I think it's reasonable that the supreme
>> > court became involved. And before you ask, no, I didn't vote for
>> > Bush.
>
>> in a representative democratic system it should be important to at
>> least count the votes and let the count decide the winner, even if
>> some events like electorate assembly or inauguration have to be
>> delayed because of the recount. what happened in the last
>> presidential election:
>
> Actually, they counted the votes /many times/. And each time they
> counted, Bush turned out to be the winner. They even broke the law to
> count more times than would have been necessary by the constitution.
no: they fed the cards through the counting machines several times,
each time getting a smaller margin of victory. since the first margin
was already less than the known error rate, a manual recount should
have been done right away
hs
--
men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education
Bertrand Russel
··@heaven.nirvananet (Hartmann Schaffer) writes:
> In article <··············@cartan.de>,
> Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> writes:
> > ··@heaven.nirvananet (Hartmann Schaffer) writes:
> >> in a representative democratic system it should be important to
> >> at least count the votes and let the count decide the winner,
> >> even if some events like electorate assembly or inauguration have
> >> to be delayed because of the recount. what happened in the last
> >> presidential election:
> > Actually, they counted the votes /many times/. And each time they
> > counted, Bush turned out to be the winner. They even broke the
> > law to count more times than would have been necessary by the
> > constitution.
> no: they fed the cards through the counting machines several times,
> each time getting a smaller margin of victory.
So your theory is that there exists a vast right-wing conspiracy among
the counting machines?
> since the first margin was already less than the known error rate, a
> manual recount should have been done right away
And what is the known error rate in manual recounts? And they /did/
manual recounts, anyway. And Bush turned out to be the winner,
again.
The important thing to keep in mind here is that laws /rule/ how the
votes are to be counted. The rules were even /broken/ to count the
votes more than necessary. If you don't like the rules, you should
have said so /before/ the election. Or change them before the next
one. But it is ludicrous and in fact outright dishonest to demand
that the rules should be changed whenever the Democrats don't win, and
not only changed for the next election, but for the election that just
took place!
How can anybody blame G.W. Bush for how the people of Florida voted?
I am sure he would have been much happier, too, if he had won by a
larger margin. Yes, what happened after the election was very ugly.
Several TV networks had already /incorrectly/ announced Gore the
winner even /before/ the election was over (!!!). Nobody was upset
about this obvious attempt at manipulating the election in favor of
Gore, however; instead, Gore's fans were very upset, shouting
``Right-Wing Conspiracy!��, only because Fox News /correctly/
announced Bush the winner several hours /after/ the election was over.
Gore's fans were very disappointed, of course, and understandably so.
So they started this ugly procedure of counts, recounts, more recounts
and pointless calls to court they knew they'd lose right away because
the rules were absolutely clear, as was that Bush had won by the
rules.
I am not a particular fan of G.W. Bush. I must seem like a strong
supporter of his because of my writings in this thread. But I am not.
About the only thing I really like about George W. Bush is that he is
not Al Gore :-) Bush's opponents started calling him a monster right
after the election debacle. I simply don't see any grounds for these
hysterical accusations.
Instead, they remind me /very/ much of the time twenty years ago, when
people were attacking Ronald Reagan in much the same way (and I used
to be a big fan of Ronnie. I still am). Oh my god, Reagan was /such/
a ``monster��, such a ``fascist��. Remember his ``The bombing starts
in five minutes�� remark? That was so /obviously/ a joke (and a very
good one at that), but it didn't stop people from taking it as
``proof�� that Reagan ``wanted�� the ``Nuclear Holocaust�� and was
supposedly planning to invade the innocent, ``peace-loving�� Soviet
Union and we're all going to die because of the Evil Americans, once
again. It was just like now: People were /totally hysterical/!
They'd tell everybody how ``afraid�� they were because of this ``mad,
dumb, stupid, senile�� president.
Thank god, he didn't care, asked neither the UN nor the
``intellectuals�� for permission, and went on to win the Cold War.
Regards,
--
Nils G�sche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
PGP key ID 0x0655CFA0
In article <··············@cartan.de>,
Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> writes:
> ··@heaven.nirvananet (Hartmann Schaffer) writes:
>
>> In article <··············@cartan.de>,
>> Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> writes:
>> > ··@heaven.nirvananet (Hartmann Schaffer) writes:
>
>> >> in a representative democratic system it should be important to
>> >> at least count the votes and let the count decide the winner,
>> >> even if some events like electorate assembly or inauguration have
>> >> to be delayed because of the recount. what happened in the last
>> >> presidential election:
>
>> > Actually, they counted the votes /many times/. And each time they
>> > counted, Bush turned out to be the winner. They even broke the
>> > law to count more times than would have been necessary by the
>> > constitution.
>
>> no: they fed the cards through the counting machines several times,
>> each time getting a smaller margin of victory.
>
> So your theory is that there exists a vast right-wing conspiracy among
> the counting machines?
i didn't say anything about right or left wing conspiracies. if you
want to start mudslinging, say so. i might even play along
>> since the first margin was already less than the known error rate, a
>> manual recount should have been done right away
>
> And what is the known error rate in manual recounts? And they /did/
according to several contributors in comp.risks who appeared to be
quite knowledgeable about this subject considerably lower than with
the equipment used, at least when done with able scrutinizers
> manual recounts, anyway. And Bush turned out to be the winner,
> again.
from what i remember, they did a manual recount under control of some
media consortia. the results were supposed to be published in the
fall of 2001. this was cancelled because of 9/11. sometime later the
ny times published an article hinting that bush won, but another ny
paper had an analysis according to which this claim was very dubious
(iirc the spiegel reprinted that article, don't remember when)
> The important thing to keep in mind here is that laws /rule/ how the
> votes are to be counted. The rules were even /broken/ to count the
> votes more than necessary. If you don't like the rules, you should
> have said so /before/ the election. Or change them before the next
> one. But it is ludicrous and in fact outright dishonest to demand
> that the rules should be changed whenever the Democrats don't win, and
> not only changed for the next election, but for the election that just
> took place!
frankly, regardless of particular laws, imo the only way for elections
producing legitimate results is when the votes are counted with
sufficient accuracy. with the first past the post system used in the
USA, the accuracy of the counting equipment is sufficient more often
than not. in this case it wasn't, and in such a case calling running
the cards through the same machinery whose accuracy still hasn't
improved a recount is simply a sick joke
> How can anybody blame G.W. Bush for how the people of Florida voted?
do me a favor and don't argue against something i haven't said. my
sole point was that based on the information i have available there
never was a proper count of the florida vote (and i gave enough detail
why i think so), and hinted that i would expect the the US media would
howl in outrage and glee if the same thing with a similar participant
configuration would have happened somewhere in the third world. i
have no information about whether this was planned (not very likely),
whether jeb took advantage of an opportunity (my guess), or whether
american election laws are really as inflexible as you claim. i still
maintain that getting a proper vote count is more important that the
electoral collage meeting on the prescribed day or even a timely
inauguration
> ...
hs
--
men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education
Bertrand Russel
Michael Parker <·············@earthlink.net> writes:
> In article <··············@mongrel.dogpound>, Anthony Ventimiglia
>
> Given that the way those votes were being counted triggered a
> constitutional question, I think it's reasonable that the supreme court
> became involved. And before you ask, no, I didn't vote for Bush.
>
So you think it's better for the Supreme court to just come in and
decide who's president rather than actually count votes.
But aside to how the votes were being counted you also have to realize
that the florida state police put up road blocks so they could stop
cars and serve warrants during the election in areas with high
minority populations. On top of that some people who were registered
were being turned away at the polls for not showing sufficient ID. You
may not think much of that, but it is illegal for pollsters to do this.
> > Oh yes and did I forget that He consideres Communist China our
> > friend ? I guess it's all right to be a communist, if you're big enough.
>
> I could be wrong, but I don't recall him being particularly friendly to
> China, at least not more friendly than any other administration in the
> last 30 years. China is simply one of those countries we have to deal
> with.
Well recall a little harder.
> Would you prefer that we have taken them on before Iraq?
So you're suggesting that they are somewhere on his list ?
> > 2. George Bush wants to save the world from the threat of Saddam
> > Hussein, for his war crimes. But in the mean time let's keep
> > shoveling money into Israel who has a history of over 50 years of
> > human rights violations that make Saddam look like a preschooler.
>
> Again, I haven't really noticed this myself. They're fighting a cold
> war of sorts with the Palestinians,
Apartheid, and destroying homes and villages is NOT A COLD WAR.
> but I notice the palestinians seem
> to be doing a pretty decent job of fighting back. I also notice they
> don't seem to be nearly as squeamish about killing women and children
> as the Israelis. This may or may not count for much.
Wow, you're quite misinformed my friend, did you happen to hear the
news report about the American who was killed on Sunday ?
She was trying to block an Israeli bulldozer from knocking down a
Palastinian Doctors home. The bulldozer drove over her. Then stopped,
while she was alive and pinned underneath the bulldozer, and proceeded
to back ovver her one more time.
Today at the funeral procession, Israeli tanks came and fired tear gas
at the Funeral procession, if that's not enough for you, the very
bulldozer that killed her drove by along with the tanks. If that's not
terror and opression, I don't know what is.
Wake up one day, stop watching the commercial media, and start paying
attention to what is really going on over there. I'm sure you can get
your hands on the New York Times, it's one of the few widely
circulated media sources that actually tells the truth, otherwise
listenm to Public radio.
> > 3. George Bush wants to invade Iraq because he Saddam supports
> > terrorism. But apparantley providing any real proof that a Power mad
> > Paranoid control freak like Saddam Hussein, who has killed well over
> > a million Muslims, supports Fundametalist Islamic Terrorists is not
> > worth his time.
>
> Depends on whether you consider Hamas and the PLO to be terrorists, I
> suppose.
Well has he or can you provide any proof that he supports or provides
weapons of mass destruction to them ? Cause I think if he did provide
chemical weapons to Hamas then they would have used them quite a long
time ago.
As far as the PLO goes, and Palastinian terrorism, when a group is
opressed as much and for as long as the Palastinians have beenm their
only way of fighting back is by Drastic measures.
The rules of war only apply if you are the stronger power. If you are
a small powerless group being opressed by a power much much greater
than yours, there are no rules as to how you fight. Look at the IRA,
and look at the way the US won our independance.
> > Oh yes, Saddam has used Weapons of mass destruction on his own
> > people. Now George Bush wants a turn, the 20,000 pound MOAB has
> > more explosive power than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and
> > Nagasaki.
>
> It's a big bomb, but it's nowhere near a nuke -- you're off by roughly
> three orders of magnitude (though to be honest so were the press when
> they reported it). Hiroshima was 12-13 kilotons equivalent. 20000 lbs
> is only 10 tons. That's 10 tons vs 12,000 tons.
Just the same no one in the US will bat an eye if we drop say 1000 of
them on Iraq.
> > Colin Powell was asked last weekend if the US could use Nuclear
> > weapons in Iraq. His response was "We reserve the right to use
> > Atomic weapons if the threat is great enough".
>
> That's true. It'd probably take a pretty big threat, though.
How much of a threat would you think would actually justify that ?
> > The United States has 20,000 nuclear warheads, Israel admits to
> > having over 400.
>
> And france, britain, china, russia, pakistan, india, and n. korea have
> how many?
So who's weapons of mass destruction are the problem ?
>
>
> > 4. George Bush believes he's working for I higher Divine Cause.
> > So did Adolph Hitler.
>
> So did Mother Theresa. Your point is?
Mother Theresa never killed anyone, Bush gets nervous if he can't kill
at least 6 people a year.
> > Every time this monster opens his mouth I feel like he's sinking us
> > deeper and deeper into a very bad position. Considering his "Axis of
> > Evil" speech, and his actions now, Iran and North Korea pretty much
> > know that they are the next in line for his wrath.
>
> Possibly, though that's hardly certain. Iran looks to be on the verge
> of a revolution, and it looks like n. korea have us pretty well
> deterred.
Assumption is the mother of all major Fu#kups.
> > After making demands of Saddam that he had no way of meeting, what
> > will happen when George turns his site on the next "Evildoer" ?
>
> (a) The U.N. made the demands. (b) Why couldn't Saddam meet them?
> Because he truly doesn't have those weapons? Get real -- no one
> believes that, not Blix, not France, nobody. The disagreement was over
> what to actually do about it.
So if The US Government decised to start locking people up on purely
circumstantial evidence, or just a general suspicion, you'd have no
problem with that ?
The disagreement wasn't about what to do, don't try to tell me for a
second that there was anything Saddam could have done to satisfy G W
from day one. I mean it's bad enough that this whole thing is
happening, but the fact that Bush has tried to act like he even tried
diplomacy is what really pisses me off, if he would have just gone
ahead and done this last September it wouldn't have made him look like
such a joke.
> > The worst part of being an American right now is the feeling that the
> > rest of the world doesn't know just how scared we are of our "President".
>
> "we" is definitely figurative. I'm certainly not, and if the recent
> polls are any indication most americans aren't either, unless you
> believe Bush has them so afraid that they're lying to the pollsters.
I use "we" the same way Bush keeps telling me what "Americans"
want. I have no faith in polls, they can easily be doctored.
Anthony Ventimiglia <···@mongrel.dogpound> writes:
> She was trying to block an Israeli bulldozer from knocking down a
> Palastinian Doctors home. The bulldozer drove over her. Then
Looks like suicide. A candidate for the Darwin awards.
> As far as the PLO goes, and Palastinian terrorism, when a group is
> opressed as much and for as long as the Palastinians have beenm their
> only way of fighting back is by Drastic measures.
How about a really drastic measure -- peaceful demonstrations.
I mean, violence didn't help them for what -- _fifty_ years now?
The Palestinians have an incredible stupid and selfish leadership.
Nils Kassube wrote:
> Anthony Ventimiglia <···@mongrel.dogpound> writes:
>
>> She was trying to block an Israeli bulldozer from knocking down a
>> Palastinian Doctors home. The bulldozer drove over her. Then
>
> Looks like suicide. A candidate for the Darwin awards.
do you feel the same about the chinese student that defied a tank when the
government crushed the tienanmen square demonstrations? (if you're old
enough, you know what pictures i'm talking about.)
not to mention the fact that the israelis had no right demolishing that
house in the first place.
>> As far as the PLO goes, and Palastinian terrorism, when a group is
>> opressed as much and for as long as the Palastinians have beenm their
>> only way of fighting back is by Drastic measures.
>
> How about a really drastic measure -- peaceful demonstrations.
> I mean, violence didn't help them for what -- _fifty_ years now?
> The Palestinians have an incredible stupid and selfish leadership.
that, unfortunately, is terribly true.
--
Joost Kremers http://baserv.uci.kun.nl/~jkremers
mail me for a bon mot
Joost Kremers <············@yahoo.com> writes:
>> Looks like suicide. A candidate for the Darwin awards.
> do you feel the same about the chinese student that defied a tank when the
> government crushed the tienanmen square demonstrations? (if you're old
> enough, you know what pictures i'm talking about.)
Yes. He could have done something of worth for the democracy movement
instead of only dying.
Nils Kassube wrote:
> Joost Kremers <············@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>
>>>Looks like suicide. A candidate for the Darwin awards.
>>
>>do you feel the same about the chinese student that defied a tank when the
>>government crushed the tienanmen square demonstrations? (if you're old
>>enough, you know what pictures i'm talking about.)
>
>
> Yes. He could have done something of worth for the democracy movement
> instead of only dying.
But he didn't die.
Nils Kassube wrote:
> Joost Kremers <············@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>>> Looks like suicide. A candidate for the Darwin awards.
>> do you feel the same about the chinese student that defied a tank when the
>> government crushed the tienanmen square demonstrations? (if you're old
>> enough, you know what pictures i'm talking about.)
>
> Yes. He could have done something of worth for the democracy movement
> instead of only dying.
oh? apparently you're not entirely aware what the chinese government does
with dissidents?
BTW, he didn't die.
--
Joost Kremers http://baserv.uci.kun.nl/~jkremers
mail me for a bon mot
"Nils Kassube" <····@kassube.de> wrote in message
···················@darwin.lan.kassube.de...
> Joost Kremers <············@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >> Looks like suicide. A candidate for the Darwin awards.
> > do you feel the same about the chinese student that defied a tank when
the
> > government crushed the tienanmen square demonstrations? (if you're old
> > enough, you know what pictures i'm talking about.)
>
> Yes. He could have done something of worth for the democracy movement
> instead of only dying.
He did not die, he became an international hero and helped tremendously the
democracy movement.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
"Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca> writes:
> He did not die, he became an international hero and helped
> tremendously the democracy movement.
I stand corrected. Nevertheless, it was still a stupid action.
Like most kinds of heroism.
Nils Kassube <····@kassube.de> writes:
> Anthony Ventimiglia <···@mongrel.dogpound> writes:
>
> > She was trying to block an Israeli bulldozer from knocking down a
> > Palastinian Doctors home. The bulldozer drove over her. Then
>
> Looks like suicide. A candidate for the Darwin awards.
>
> > As far as the PLO goes, and Palastinian terrorism, when a group is
> > opressed as much and for as long as the Palastinians have beenm their
> > only way of fighting back is by Drastic measures.
>
> How about a really drastic measure -- peaceful demonstrations.
> I mean, violence didn't help them for what -- _fifty_ years now?
> The Palestinians have an incredible stupid and selfish leadership.
See now you're just trolling because there's no way I can believe you
could possibly be that much of an idiot.
Today an American was shot by Israelis walking down the street.
The peaceful protesters get run over by bulldozers.
The united states is in the process of cutting a 10 billion dollar
check to Israel so they can keep their genocidal government rolling.
Michael Parker wrote:
>> 2. George Bush wants to save the world from the threat of Saddam
>> Hussein, for his war crimes. But in the mean time let's keep
>> shoveling money into Israel who has a history of over 50 years of
>> human rights violations that make Saddam look like a preschooler.
>
> Again, I haven't really noticed this myself.
then you haven't been paying attention.
> They're fighting a cold
> war of sorts with the Palestinians,
oh, if you're living in palestinian occupied territory, it's very hot war
indeed. it's also pretty hot if you're living in israel. since the start of
the second intifadah (the end of 2000, IIRC), close to 2100 palestinians
and some 700 israelis have died. (yes, those numbers are 3:1, something
that few people in the west seem to realise.)
> but I notice the palestinians seem
> to be doing a pretty decent job of fighting back. I also notice they
> don't seem to be nearly as squeamish about killing women and children
> as the Israelis. This may or may not count for much.
again i can only say that even though i abhor the killing of civilians,
whether they be palestinian or israeli, i can understand where the
sentiments of the palestinians are coming from. and again i can only point
out that if you are the oppressed party, or the party under threat, you
also feel very differently about killing civilians than you do now.
just try and imagine the situation that china had occupied the US. (you
were american, right?) would you mind it very much if some american decided
to blow up a busy railway station in china?
--
Joost Kremers http://baserv.uci.kun.nl/~jkremers
mail me for a bon mot
Anthony Ventimiglia wrote:
> 3. George Bush wants to invade Iraq because he Saddam supports
> terrorism. But apparantley providing any real proof that a Power mad
> Paranoid control freak like Saddam Hussein, who has killed well over
> a million Muslims, supports Fundametalist Islamic Terrorists is not
> worth his time.
>
> Oh yes, Saddam has used Weapons of mass destruction on his own
> people. Now George Bush wants a turn, the 20,000 pound MOAB has
> more explosive power than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and
> Nagasaki.
Absolute horseshit. 10 tons of high explosive, do NOT equal 20,000 tons
of high-explosive-equivalent no matter how you do the math.
> Colin Powell was asked last weekend if the US could use Nuclear
> weapons in Iraq. His response was "We reserve the right to use
> Atomic weapons if the threat is great enough".
As we always have, and every nuclear power has. Terrible! Go read up on
deterrence, and how it works. Hint: you can't deter anybody if they
think you won't use it.
> George Bush refused to sign a global Treaty which would have
> reduced Atomic weapons because he would not allow UN inspectors to
> tour US Military Bases.
>
> The United States has 20,000 nuclear warheads, Israel admits to
> having over 400.
I suggest you go to some site like http://www.fas.org and do some basic
research. We've only got a bit over 1/3 the weapons you claim we have.
That must be some really old propaganda you've been reading.
--Larry
Larry Elmore <·······@attbi.com> writes:
> > George Bush refused to sign a global Treaty which would have
> > reduced Atomic weapons because he would not allow UN inspectors to
> > tour US Military Bases.
> > The United States has 20,000 nuclear warheads, Israel admits to
> > having over 400.
>
> I suggest you go to some site like http://www.fas.org and do some
> basic research. We've only got a bit over 1/3 the weapons you claim we
> have. That must be some really old propaganda you've been reading.
Who's count are you going by, or should I say whose propaganda do you
subscribe to? The United States has never had to reveal anything about
any of our weapons. The main reason Bush wouldn't sign the Kyoto
treaty was that he would not allow foreign inspections of our military
bases. Makes you think if Fermi never won the Nobel Prize this country
would be a different place.
The Anthrax that was mailed all over the U.S. came from the U.S. The
media kept that pretty quiet.
Anthony Ventimiglia wrote:
> Larry Elmore <·······@attbi.com> writes:
>
>
>>> George Bush refused to sign a global Treaty which would have
>>> reduced Atomic weapons because he would not allow UN inspectors to
>>> tour US Military Bases.
>>> The United States has 20,000 nuclear warheads, Israel admits to
>>> having over 400.
>>
>>I suggest you go to some site like http://www.fas.org and do some
>>basic research. We've only got a bit over 1/3 the weapons you claim we
>>have. That must be some really old propaganda you've been reading.
>
>
> Who's count are you going by, or should I say whose propaganda do you
> subscribe to? The United States has never had to reveal anything about
> any of our weapons. The main reason Bush wouldn't sign the Kyoto
> treaty was that he would not allow foreign inspections of our military
> bases. Makes you think if Fermi never won the Nobel Prize this country
> would be a different place.
Just do some research, okay? I gave you a reputable source. What are yours?
As far as the Kyoto Treaty goes, that's just silly. Kyoto had *nothing*
to do with nuclear weapons or military bases.
You forget that the Senate voted 95-0 against Kyoto back when Clinton
was President. IIRC, only one country, Romania, has actually ratified
the treaty.
> The Anthrax that was mailed all over the U.S. came from the U.S. The
> media kept that pretty quiet.
In what world? It was *all over the media*. Postmarked in New Jersey.
Lots of coverage of the mail center that handled it.
--Larry
* Larry Elmore <·······@attbi.com> wrote:
|
| IIRC, only one country, Romania, has actually ratified
| the [Kyoto] treaty.
This is just wrong. It has been ratified (or acceded to [1]) by 106
countries. See http://unfccc.int/resource/kpstats.pdf for a list.
Boris
[1] "Accession" is essentially the same as ratification, but for
countries who have not signed the treaty. You can only ratify a
treaty, if you have also signed it.
--
·····@uncommon-sense.net - <http://www.uncommon-sense.net/>
Write a wise saying and your name will live forever.
-- Anonymous
Boris Schaefer wrote:
> * Larry Elmore <·······@attbi.com> wrote:
> |
> | IIRC, only one country, Romania, has actually ratified
> | the [Kyoto] treaty.
>
> This is just wrong. It has been ratified (or acceded to [1]) by 106
> countries. See http://unfccc.int/resource/kpstats.pdf for a list.
I stand corrected. Perhaps I was thinking about "countries that've
ratified it who would actually have to do anything at all to comply with
it" (most don't). Even that was out of date -- it's been quite a while
since I read much about it and a lot seems to have happened in 2002. My bad.
--Larry
Erann Gat wrote:
> Just about everything Geroge Bush has done since before he came to
> office has made me ashamed to call myself an American. No President
> has ever shown more contempt for the bedrock principle of Democracy,
> which is that what other people think matters. George Bush has
> repeatedly demonstrated (and even explicitly stated) that he doesn't
> give a damn what anyone else thinks. He is a dictator who dons the
> trappings of Democracy but does not embrace its substance. When he
> launches his war against Iraq he will be in my mind little different
> from Osama bin Laden. The next time terrorists strike the United
> States it will no longer be true that we did nothing to deserve it.
You might consider replacing Dubya with a smarter president at the
next election. Perhaps this candidate could run again:
http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:FcRAEQSlo4kC:www.cs.rice.edu/~shriram/LispM/Campaign/+%22lisp+machine+in+%2796%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
(Apologies for the length of the URL -- the original page pines for
the fjords but was archived by Google.)
> Erann Gat
--
In any large organization, mediocrity is almost by definition
an overwhelming phenomenon; the systematic disqualification
of competence, however, is the managers' own invention, for
the sad consequences of which they should bear the full blame.
-- Edsger W. Dijkstra, 1986.
On 19 Mar 2003 09:49:09 -0800, ···@flownet.com (Erann Gat) wrote:
>My country is about to go
>to war, and I wanted this community and the world to know where I
>stand.
You are looking at it completely wrong. Don't think of it as war,
think of it as "weapons inspectors in force".
Sigh. Ashamed to call yourself an American, Erann? Such a privilege it is,
being able to state such things openly without any fear whatsoever, isn't
it? Do you suppose this freedom which we enjoy was acquired accidently,
without cost? Do you suppose it will remain, for our children and their
children, without requiring of us the courage and wisdom to preserve it?
I'm ashamed of *you*, Erann. My wife's parents grew up in Occupied France.
They recall vividly the disappearances of friends, family and neighbors;
taken away by the Nazis because they happened to be of the wrong ethnicity
or religion, never to be seen again. I remember vividly, from my study of
history, the refusal/unwillingness of England and France to preempt Hitler
throughout the 1930s, refusing to lift a finger as country after country was
annexed, all for the sake of "lebensraum". I wonder if 6 million Jews would
have perished at the hands of the Nazis if England and France had mustered
the courage to engage in a preemptive war? Or if Roosevelt had ignored the
pacifists and isolationists and entered the war before 1941?
You seem to be a smart fellow, Erann, but show a remarkable ignorance of
history. Do you detest our president because he has the audacity to consider
America a sovereign nation? Perhaps it's because, unlike his predecessor, he
actually leads by conviction and integrity, rather than sniffing the
political winds to determine his course. I don't think you really understand
what "democracy" means, and clearly have little understanding why America is
as great as she is. Whether or not she remains great depends upon her
willingness to maintain those principles upon which she was founded, and
exhibit the courage and strength you apparently lack to protect those
principles when necessary.
--
------------------------------------------
David E. Young
·······@pobox.com
http://lisa.sourceforge.net
"But all the world understands my language."
-- Franz Joseph Haydn (1732-1809)
Rom. 15:13
"Erann Gat" <···@flownet.com> wrote in message
·································@posting.google.com...
> This post has nothing whatsoever to do with Lisp. If you have no
> patience for off-topic posts, stop reading now.
>
> I am posting this because c.l.l. has been more than just a newsgroup
> for me. It has been a community. I feel like I know and am known by
> many people here despite the fact that we have never met. Indeed, in
> many cases we have no idea what we look like, or what nationality we
> are.
>
> I was born in what was at the time West Germany, and am now a
> naturalized citizen of the United States. My country is about to go
> to war, and I wanted this community and the world to know where I
> stand.
>
> Just about everything Geroge Bush has done since before he came to
> office has made me ashamed to call myself an American. No President
> has ever shown more contempt for the bedrock principle of Democracy,
> which is that what other people think matters. George Bush has
> repeatedly demonstrated (and even explicitly stated) that he doesn't
> give a damn what anyone else thinks. He is a dictator who dons the
> trappings of Democracy but does not embrace its substance. When he
> launches his war against Iraq he will be in my mind little different
> from Osama bin Laden. The next time terrorists strike the United
> States it will no longer be true that we did nothing to deserve it.
>
> The stupidity and tragedy of this situation boggles my mind. Yes,
> Saddam Hussein is an evil man. Yes, the world will be better off
> without him. But Saddam is hardly unique in this regard, and solving
> this problem by starting a war sets a horrible precedent. What is to
> stop any country from launching a war against anyone that they judge
> to be evil?
>
> Robert Bolt said it best in "A Man for all Seasons":
>
> Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
>
> More: Yes, what would you do? Cut a great road through the law to
> get after the Devil?
>
> Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that.
>
> More: Oh? And when the last law was down and the Devil turned round
> on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? The
> country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast - man's law, not
> God's - and if you cut them down - and you're the man to do it - d'you
> really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow
> then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's
> sake.
>
>
> I stand with Thomas More on this occasion.
>
> Thank you for your forbearance on this decidedly off-topic post. When
> the bombs start to fly I wanted everyone to know that they do so
> without the consent of this American.
>
> OK, I've said my peace. You can come get me now, John Ashcroft. You
> know where I live.
>
> Erann Gat
In article <·····················@twister.southeast.rr.com>, "David E.
Young" <·······@nc.rr.com> wrote:
> Sigh. Ashamed to call yourself an American, Erann?
No. That is not what I said. I said that George Bush's actions have made
me ashamed to call myself an American. I am nonetheless still proud to
call myself an American despite the shameful ways in which George Bush has
undermined the principles that I believe our country ought to stand for.
> Such a privilege it is,
> being able to state such things openly without any fear whatsoever, isn't
> it? Do you suppose this freedom which we enjoy was acquired accidently,
> without cost? Do you suppose it will remain, for our children and their
> children, without requiring of us the courage and wisdom to preserve it?
It is indeed a privilege to be an American, to be able to say the sort of
things that I say without any real fear of repurcussions from the
government. And no, I do not take this privelege for granted for a single
instant. In fact, one of the reasons that I am critical of our government
is because I believe it is my duty to be critical and to call my
government to account. George Bush is sacrificing freedom and democracy
on the altar of security. I am speaking up precisely because our freedoms
are being whittled away bit by bit, slowly and methodically, like boiling
a frog. I fear that our children will grow up with something that they
call freedom, but which I wouldn't recognize as freedom. Yes, we are
still very far from that, but the trend is very troubling, and the time to
deal with these things is before they become serious problems.
> I'm ashamed of *you*, Erann.
Frankly, David Young, I don't give a damn what you think of me.
> My wife's parents grew up in Occupied France.
> They recall vividly the disappearances of friends, family and neighbors;
> taken away by the Nazis because they happened to be of the wrong ethnicity
> or religion, never to be seen again.
My grandparents fled from Hitler's Germany. They vividly recall childhood
friends who were sent to the gas chambers. So what?
> I remember vividly, from my study of
> history, the refusal/unwillingness of England and France to preempt Hitler
> throughout the 1930s, refusing to lift a finger as country after country was
> annexed, all for the sake of "lebensraum". I wonder if 6 million Jews would
> have perished at the hands of the Nazis if England and France had mustered
> the courage to engage in a preemptive war? Or if Roosevelt had ignored the
> pacifists and isolationists and entered the war before 1941?
Or if George Bush had invaded Iraq and Afghanistan on September 10, 2001?
> You seem to be a smart fellow, Erann, but show a remarkable ignorance of
> history.
You seem to be a pretty stupid fellow, David. You should at least read
what I write before you start to insult me.
> Do you detest our president because he has the audacity to consider
> America a sovereign nation?
No. I do not detest our president. Actually, I have a huge amount of
respect for him. He has done a pretty good job leading the country in
extraordinarily difficult circumstances. He's done a much better job than
I would have done. I'm damn glad he's in the White House and not me.
(And frankly, I think I'm glad that he's in the White House and not Al
Gore.)
What I detest are (some of) his actions. I detest his contempt for the
principles of freedom and democracy. I detest his arrogance and his
self-righteousness. As long as these things were confined to petty
domestic issues like tax cuts I was more or less content to remain
silent. But now he's going in a direction where he could do some real
damage, and so now I am excercising my right -- no, make that executing my
duty -- as a citizen to say so.
> Perhaps it's because, unlike his predecessor, he
> actually leads by conviction and integrity, rather than sniffing the
> political winds to determine his course.
"Sniffing the political winds" is a pejorative way of saying "taking into
account what people think." Yes, God damn it, give me a political wind
sniffer any day of the week. (BTW, Bill Clinton stood up for principle
too, they just happened not to be conservative principles: Universal
health care. The right of all citizens to serve in the military without
harrassment no matter their sexual orientation. Stuff like that.)
> I don't think you really understand
> what "democracy" means, and clearly have little understanding why America is
> as great as she is.
You haven't got the faintest clue what I do and do not understand.
> Whether or not she remains great depends upon her
> willingness to maintain those principles upon which she was founded, and
> exhibit the courage and strength you apparently lack to protect those
> principles when necessary.
Difficult as it is I am going to refrain from responding to that insult in
the manner in which I am sorely tempted to do. But I would like to know
one thing: what is it that makes it so apparent to you that I lack the
courage and strength to protect the principles on which this country was
founded?
E.
"David E. Young" <·······@nc.rr.com> writes:
> I'm ashamed of *you*, Erann. My wife's parents grew up in Occupied France.
> They recall vividly the disappearances of friends, family and neighbors;
> taken away by the Nazis because they happened to be of the wrong ethnicity
> or religion, never to be seen again. I remember vividly, from my study of
> history, the refusal/unwillingness of England and France to preempt Hitler
> throughout the 1930s, refusing to lift a finger as country after country was
> annexed, all for the sake of "lebensraum". I wonder if 6 million Jews would
> have perished at the hands of the Nazis if England and France had mustered
> the courage to engage in a preemptive war? Or if Roosevelt had ignored the
> pacifists and isolationists and entered the war before 1941?
It's not preemption when a country starts invading others.
This constant comparison to Hitler is really turning Hitlers image
into much less of a monster.
> You seem to be a smart fellow, Erann, but show a remarkable ignorance of
> history. Do you detest our president because he has the audacity to consider
> America a sovereign nation? Perhaps it's because, unlike his predecessor, he
> actually leads by conviction and integrity, rather than sniffing the
> political winds to determine his course. I don't think you really understand
> what "democracy" means, and clearly have little understanding why America is
> as great as she is. Whether or not she remains great depends upon her
> willingness to maintain those principles upon which she was founded, and
> exhibit the courage and strength you apparently lack to protect those
> principles when necessary.
I just can't agree with that, America could be a much greater nation
if we stopped supporting nations that have policies of genocide
opression and apartheid.
If George W, our selected president would start having a policy of
compassion, rather than just saying it, he could make America a great
nation. Unfortunatley he has to work for his constituents, er I mean
corporations.
"David E. Young" <·······@nc.rr.com> writes:
> Such a privilege it is,
> being able to state such things openly without any fear whatsoever, isn't
> it? Do you suppose this freedom which we enjoy was acquired accidently,
> without cost? Do you suppose it will remain, for our children and their
> children, without requiring of us the courage and wisdom to preserve it?
Be afraid, be very afraid. The current US government wants to control
you, don't you know they put Pointdexter to build a Big Brother System
of dimensions that Stasi Chief Mielke couldn't even imagine in his
wettest dreams? And think about what they're permitted to do with
you if they made a mistake (say, because your computer had been
hijacked by real terrorists) and arrested you for terrorism!
Fortunately, there's a lot of local resistance (e.g. counties and
cities opposing this plan), so I'm still quite optimistic on behalf
of the US people. But don't take it for granted.
--
(espen)
On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, David E. Young wrote:
> Sigh. Ashamed to call yourself an American, Erann? Such a privilege it is,
> being able to state such things openly without any fear whatsoever, isn't
> it? Do you suppose this freedom which we enjoy was acquired accidently,
> without cost?
Depends on your skin color. The darker it is, the higher your cost.
> Do you suppose it will remain, for our children and their
> children, without requiring of us the courage and wisdom to preserve it?
Not if we go to code "Red" terrorism alert, the next one up from where we
are now. It will be a true police state, as the emergency-services
director for the state of New Jersey said a couple weeks back.
> I'm ashamed of *you*, Erann. My wife's parents grew up in Occupied France.
> They recall vividly the disappearances of friends, family and neighbors;
> taken away by the Nazis because they happened to be of the wrong ethnicity
> or religion, never to be seen again.
The same thing happened to _my_ wife's ancestors! What a coincidence.
She is Native American.
> I remember vividly, from my study of
> history, the refusal/unwillingness of England and France to preempt Hitler
> throughout the 1930s, refusing to lift a finger as country after country was
> annexed, all for the sake of "lebensraum".
Don't forget the "refusal/unwillingness" of America "to preempt Hitler
throughout the 1930s". Specifically, the support Hitler received from
wealthy Americans and the corporations they owned. Did you read that book
on the Watson family which came out two years ago? Written by a descendant
of Holocaust survivors. They had at least one IBM keypunch machine in
EVERY concentration camp, and they collected profits from them all the
way through WW2. How's that for market penetration!
IBM And The Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance
Between Nazi Germany and America's Most
Powerful Corporation
by Edwin Black
Crown Publishers, 2001
519 pg., ISBN: 0609607995
I'm not trying to single-out the Watsons, there were plenty of others.
Henry Ford was a big Hitler fan. So were the Lindberghs. Lots of other
rich Americans too.
> You seem to be a smart fellow, Erann, but show a remarkable ignorance of
> history. Do you detest our president because he has the audacity to consider
> America a sovereign nation? Perhaps it's because, unlike his predecessor, he
> actually leads by conviction and integrity, rather than sniffing the
> political winds to determine his course. I don't think you really understand
> what "democracy" means,
Can't speak for Erann, but nowadays "democracy" means "steal the election
in the state where your brother is governor". Now don't misunderstand me,
I didn't vote for Gore either. When the choice is between Millionaire A
and Millionaire B, neither one gets my vote. But that's democracy!
> and clearly have little understanding why America is
> as great as she is. Whether or not she remains great depends upon her
> willingness to maintain those principles upon which she was founded, and
> exhibit the courage and strength you apparently lack to protect those
> principles when necessary.
Principle #1 goes like this: Dictators which we funded to attack Iran must
continue to follow our orders indefinitely, or risk removal.
> David E. Young
* Nick Geovanis
| IT Computing Svcs
| Northwestern Univ
| ··········@nwu.edu
+------------------->
This ought to go without saying, but I feel the need to CMA: all the views
expressed by me in this thread (and in fact in all my usenet postings) are
my own and not necessarily the views of JPL or NASA.
Erann
--
The opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily
reflect the views of JPL or NASA.
What Mr Bush is doing has been traditional US policy for the last 50
years.
The attack on Serbia for example was very much the same thing. Both
attacks (and several others) were againt international law.
By the way: This NT has stopped to be fun since LMFS (Lisp's most fervent
supporter) has left it. Doee anybody know, why? (On the other hand,
misc.writing has become much more interesting.)
gutergeist
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
"gutergeist" <··@yahoo.com> writes:
> By the way: This NT has stopped to be fun since LMFS (Lisp's
> most fervent supporter) has left it. Doee anybody know, why?
I dunno, you might give Amnesty International a call and start a
hunger strike. Maybe that will force him back :-)
Regards,
--
Nils G�sche
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
PGP key ID #xD26EF2A0
···@flownet.com (Erann Gat) writes:
> I was born in what was at the time West Germany, and am now a
> naturalized citizen of the United States. My country is about to go
> to war, and I wanted this community and the world to know where I
> stand.
>
> Just about everything Geroge Bush has done since before he came to
> office has made me ashamed to call myself an American.
It might be that the reason is just in your perception the United States with
some naivete?
But, of course, it was a shame to see how the goverment of the USA
strived for this unjustified aggression. And they've got it for now and
started to kill people. Is it going to help in the struggle with
terrorists? It is doubtful. The more obvious reason for me is greed
("greed is a mother of cruelty" -- who said this?). And it is sad that
for now the party of greed has won in America.
> The stupidity and tragedy of this situation boggles my mind.
Yes. "Stupidity and tragedy." This two words is a very exact description
for the situation.
> Yes,
> Saddam Hussein is an evil man. Yes, the world will be better off
> without him.
I just remembered one phrase from a film "To Kill Dragon":
"It is impossible to kill the dragon. For when you kill him, you very
soon turn into a dragon yourself."
On 19 Mar 2003 09:49:09 -0800, ···@flownet.com (Erann Gat) wrote:
>Thank you for your forbearance on this decidedly off-topic post. When
>the bombs start to fly I wanted everyone to know that they do so
>without the consent of this American.
Good for you Sir!!
Waging war and destroying a country /is/ as evil as anyone in that
country. Iriq's can and will fight their own wars to get rid of their
own evil.
America is getting too drunk high on its own might.
quasi
--
quasi
http://abhijit-rao.tripod.com/digital/lisp.html
"I slept with Faith, and found a corpse in my arms on awaking; I drank and danced all night with Doubt, and found her a virgin in the morning."
~ A. Crowley