🚀 go-pugleaf

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software  - Baxter Codeworks  www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Rod & BJ" <soggy@pacifier.com> wrote in message
news:ukbi8g7bna1haf@corp.supernews.com...
> "trebor@sirius.com.no.more"
> > If words right out of the President's mouth aren't "official," then
> > nothing is. That we have the most inarticulate president in history is
> > another issue.
>
> I suppose you think it would have been more Presidential to say we might,
> maybe or could try to get him? Such petty nit-picking  is beyond silly.
Not
> to mention Osama has entirely disappeared with no live sighting or
> communication from him since Afghanistan fell......the odds are he's quite
> dead.

In other words, if you can't prove he's alive, he must be dead? Or is it:
"out of sight, out of mind"?

On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 16:29:58 -0700, "Baxter"
<baxter.spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:

Hey Baxter --

I like your freeware!  I am a two-bit stumpage farmer, and I just used
it to scale a log.  Sure enough, the bark came right off.

I'm afraid I don't approve of your left-wing politics one bit,
however.

Charlie

"Baxter" <baxter.spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:ukbm9bdrhoq144@corp.supernews.com...
> "Arthur Levitt, my Securities and Exchange commissioner, tried to stop the
> Enron accounting issues - using the same accounting company being
consultant
> and accountant - and the Republicans stopped it." Later, Mr. Clinton added
> that Republicans had fought Mr. Levitt's effort,

Republicans like Joseph Lieberman. Face it, it was BOTH parties that sunk
corporate accounting reform. At the time the stock market was soaring and
campaign donations were coming into both sides. As much as no one wants to
admit it, both parties are responsible. Clinton is also responsible. He
claims Levitt tried but I never saw Uncle Bill using his bully pulpit to
push for reforms.

"Rod & BJ" <soggy@pacifier.com> wrote:

>"Baxter"
>> Ashcroft - doing all he can to destroy our liberties and to make this into
>> a police state.
>
>Ignoring your paucity of actual information..... which liberties have we
>lost?

I understand the police can now secretly search your home without a
search warrant. Is this not true? I read it was but honestly don't know.

"Rod & BJ" <soggy@pacifier.com> wrote:

>well being. Somehow the idea that corporations are inherently some evil
>being sucking the very life blood out of the country has no basis.

True enough. However, too often people within corporations do things
which are wrong, and for which they suffer no consequence. Corporation
officers are too shielded from liability.

Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@easynews.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 28 Jul 2002 12:41:44 -0700, "Dave Thompson"
><dav13795@wdmdx1.com> wrote:
>>"Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wilkes@easynews.com> wrote in message
>>news:cfe8ku0nin8s69osucl2gon4mh4m6i7njr@4ax.com...
>>> She's probably quite comfortable with the "spy on your neighbor"
>>> programs in place in Castro's Cuba.
>>
>>Really? How do you know that?
>
>Because it is a far more radical intrusion on people's privacy than
>anything proposed in the U.S. Congress.  She doesn't care, though,
>because one of her fellow left-wingers is behind it, so she figgers it
>must be ok.

You didn't answer the question. How do you know she's "quite comfortable
with the 'spy on your neighbor' programs in place in Castro's Cuba."

>I am frequently appalled by the glibness and superficiality of liberal
>positions.

I know what you mean.

"Rod & BJ" <soggy@pacifier.com> wrote in message
news:ukbh5417eqb953@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> "Robert S"
> > Not to say that corporate malfeasance never existed before Pitt and
Bush,
> > but it certainly exploded during their tenure.
>
> Coming to light and being corrected is functionally not the same as
> "exploded".....None of the corporate scandals involve some new behavior
> unique to the duration of the Bush administration.... in fact the cooked
> books all happened or began under the previous administration.

Yeah, when Bush was running for election.  When he started selling the white
house, they go busy.  When the Florida debacle happened, they (Crooked
Corporate Officers) needed Bush, so Bush had to win.  They were depending on
him winning, because they knew he would go soft on business law when it came
to his buddies.  Gore, on the other hand, was preaching populism at the
time, which those CCOs didn't like.

> You might find it helpful to grasp a basic understanding of corporate
> accounting rules, procedures and process.

I already understand those rules, procedures, and processes.

> >The Bush administration was
> > bought and paid for by corporations.
>
> And what has the Bush administration done that has been to detriment of
the
> "voter" but benefiting some corporation?

Well, the Florida debacle should never have happened, but it did.  The CCOs
sure benefitted.

> Roughly half of America works for a large corporation and of this work a
> wide assortment of goods and services are provided for our needs, wants
and
> well being. Somehow the idea that corporations are inherently some evil
> being sucking the very life blood out of the country has no basis. Hard to
> believe but often as not what is good for a corporation is both good for a
> consumer and for labor. .

Wrong, corporations are constantly seeking to weaken labor laws, because
they want to reduce labor expenses to increase investor profits.  Think of a
corporation like a nation.  Nations need a system of checks and balances.
Without those, they will eventually spin out of control to do damage to
themselves and others.  Corporations have a very weak system of checks and
balances in regards to the rest of society.  So the rest of society gets
shafted by these powerful trans-national corporations.

> >Bush refused to limit campaign
> > contributions, because he had an agenda of selling the white house to
the
> > highest bidders.
>
>  Didn't congress pass and Bush sign a campaign contribution bill on Mar
27,
> 2002? Although any such bill is actually a negative as it severely limits
> "free speech"... limiting access to the airwaves or print media
(expensive)
> of ideas does not do us any favors.

Bush signed it only because of very intense public pressure, otherwise he
would have vetoed as soon as it was on his desk.  The media itself has
become a powerful and influential force.  Even though I'm a liberal, I think
the media has some public responsibilities.  If it chooses not to uphold
such responsibilities to the public, then there should be a checks and
balances for such a powerful and influential force.

> What has Bush been sold to the highest bidder? Me thinks you speak many
> empty words.

There are too many to list, but Enron and Worldcom come to mind easily.
Yes, some democrats were bought out too.  That's why I don't hold either
party in high esteem.  I'd rather work with the grassroots efforts, but I do
understand the powerful influence of the two-party system.  So I have to
sometimes choose between the lesser of two evils, which means I will not
vote for a crooked Democrat like Traficant (sp).

"trebor@sirius.com.no.more" <user@example.com>
> >Then Trebor wrote:
> >
> >> Life for the vast majority of slaves was a meaningless, exhausting
> >> drudgery with death as the only release. How is that different from
> >> working at Walmart or Target?
> >
> >Because even if you work at Wal Mart or Target, they don't whip you for
> >being unproductive.
>
> The whipping makes for good movie scenes, but the average slave got by
> with a lot of yelling, threatening, shoving, and kicking.

Oh, is that all?   (sarcasm) I've been writing a book that starts in the
antebellum south and I've been researching slave/white relations pretty
extensively thanks to Powell's.  We could talk about this forever if you
want...I have some really interesting source material.   In any case, you're
right in that whipping was less common that what is generally thought, but
at the same point, if my boss ever kicked or shoved me I'd stomp his ass.
(Except for one former boss who's a 6'4" body builder and rugby player, at
which point I'd run screaming to the nearest lawyer.  :>)

In the purest sense, America treated its slaves far better than most
slaveholding civilizations.

> >They don't take your children away from you and sell them to strangers,
>
> Okay, no, but they can put them in foster homes.

Well, not Wal Mart.   Your point here is interesting, but it's a whole
discussion in itself.

> >and they didn't take you from your world, chain you to a ship to
> >languish in your waste as you're taken to a place you didn't even know
>
> More slaves were born in the US than brought here.

Eventually that became law, but it was widely broken in the Mississippi
River region thanks to privateers like Jean Lafitte who captured slave ships
bound for south America and sold them in New Orleans and along the gulf
coast on the black market until about 1816.  The time period in which slaves
were imported, however, is much greater than the last century or so when the
majority of slaves were domestic-born.

> >You can quit your job...
>
> Actually, that's one of the things a Walmart/Target worker is least able
> to do.

Please explain.  Now I'm curious.

> >If you think working at Wal Mart sucks
>
> Not particularly. Someone rhetorically suggested slavery be
> reinstituted. I merely pointed out that, except in the most abstract
> sense, slavery has never gone away.

I think Wal Mart sucks, period.  Anyway, part of the reason the southern
culture was so freaked out about abolition is because it believes that in
the absence of slavery their families would be forced into sweatshop-like
labor conditions exactly as was happening in the north.   By the time the
industrial revolution came around, it turns out that this fear was founded.
Lots of southerners would agree with you to an extent, but there's still a
fundamental distinction to be made between the lower working class of 2002
and slave labor.   Up until the 1930s, I don't think I would have been able
to say that so easily.

Interesting subject!

-gatt

"trebor@sirius.com.no.more"
> I understand the police can now secretly search your home without a
> search warrant. Is this not true? I read it was but honestly don't know.

It is not true....Soggy

In pdx.general Russell Senior <seniorr@aracnet.com> wrote:
:>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew  <SEE_BELOW_TO_REPLY@bizaveNOSPAM.com> writes:

: Russell> I wonder, just what _are_ "US interests" around the world.
: Russell> This expression is used so often as a placeholder without
: Russell> ever examining what it represents.

: Andrew> Well, our economic interests are some of "US interests" for
: Andrew> one.  Obviously, we sell to countries all over the world, so
: Andrew> we need to keep those markets safe and open so we can keep
: Andrew> selling.  

: What gives us the right to demand that we can sell into those markets?
: Whose countries are they, anyway?  If it is in the interests of other
: countries to maintain, say, food security for example, by refusing to
: destroy local food economies by opening them up to cheap US imports,
: and putting themselves at the mercy of US views of righteousness, what
: gives us the right to demand they do?

"Protecting our economic interests" doesn't mean "keep your markets
open or we'll bomb you" (or coersion).  Our military presence actually
helps stability in parts of the world (e.g. Balkans - look how it was
before we went in there).  Peace is better for the world economy
(unless you are selling weapons).

: Andrew> And we need to import oil because, as of today, our economy is
: Andrew> dependent on it.

: What happened to supply and demand?  If we offer enough money, surely
: we will find a willing seller, right?  Why the need for military
: coersion?

Again, you are the one reading "coersion" into what I wrote - I didn't
say or mean that.

: Andrew> [...] We also have interests in promoting American values
: Andrew> (e.g. human rights), [...]

: We have an interest in selling the US public on the idea that we care
: about human rights overseas.  We don't, really.  We just use that for
: smoke screen when it suits our purposes.  When you accept this
: reality, our foreign policy starts to make a lot more sense.

That's cynical bullshit, Russell.  The US gives humanitarian aid all
over the world - often aided by our military.  When there's an
earthquake or a big disaster around the world, who's usually the first
to help?  The US government.  How often do we get credit for that?

Of course, detractors of the US like to forget all the good our
government does in the world and focus soley on the things they don't
like about it.  I most definitely have problems with the way our
government handles foreign policy in certain areas, but that doesn't
mean I hate *everything* our government does.  Some of the things the
US has done are shameful, I agree (as will some in government who have
since come to power).  We need to reform the government, not disavow
it outright.

: Russell> The thing that we Americans don't seem to be conscious of is
: Russell> that this "Land of the Free" is holding a rather large gun to
: Russell> the heads of the Oil Producing States and asking them
: Russell> politely to hand over their oil for our convenience.  One of
: Russell> them gets a little out of line, like Iraq or Iran or
: Russell> Venezuela, and watch out.

: Andrew> But the Saudis *want* us in their country, to help prop up
: Andrew> their regime.  And Iraq and Iran have demonstrated their
: Andrew> support for terrorism and expansionism.

: Let's make an important distinction here.  They Saudi "royalty" want
: us in their country, as far as we can tell.  We have no basis upon
: which to judge what the Saudi Arabian people want.  It seems that a
: number of them don't.

You won't find 100% agreement in any country about its own
government's policies...

: While we are on the subject of the Saudi's, if you are all worried
: about human rights of foreign women, shouldn't we be overthrowing the
: Saudi government next?  I mean, come on, I thought we had a coherent
: foreign policy?

I never said we did - would you stop putting words in my mouth?  The
point I made that you must have overlooked was that you can't tell
what's happening in foreign policy by watching the evening news.
Often you can't really tell what's happening until after it happens.
Sad but true - foreign policy is a complex game that is extremely hard
to understand at the time it's happening, even by those closely
involved.

: Iraq invaded an intransigent neighbor over a border dispute after our
: ambassador had essentially given them a green light.  We already had
: an active plan to destroy Iraq militarily *before* the invasion
: occurred.  Now, call them stupid for falling for the trick, okay, but
: a trick is a trick.

So you're saying you think the US tricked Iraq into invadeing Kuwait
so we could come up with a reason for Desert Storm?  Sorry, that's
another conspiracy theory I don't buy into.  I blame any mixed signals
the Iraqi's got on poor communication or even incompetence in our
government (someone asleep at the wheel).  Others want to look for
something more sinister...

: Andrew> Come one, now - the Middle East has always been a tough dance
: Andrew> for American foreign policy, since 1948.  It does sound silly
: Andrew> the way the Bush administration seems to be talking out of
: Andrew> both sides of its mouth regarding Israel, but I kind of
: Andrew> understand why they act that way.

: Oh, I understand too.  The Palestians have no effective domestic
: lobby.  The Israelis want to turn the Palestinians into soap,
: figuratively.  The abused become the abusers.  It is all too
: pathologically familiar.

I'm not going to get into a discussion of the Middle East here - too
long for this thread...

: Russell> Hell, _we_ give billions of dollars to terrorists.  We
: Russell> train them at our military bases.  What were you saying
: Russell> about "coherent"?

: Andrew> The US Government certainly didn't organize the plot to fly
: Andrew> planes into buildings...

: We give billions of dollars a year to people who bomb civilian areas
: and say how wonderfully successful it was.  We gave/give lots of money
: to bomb, mine and terrorize Central and South Americans.  We've
: conspired countless times to overthrow foreign governments.

We also used to condone slavery and wiped out a lot of Native
Americans.  The US government has done a lot of bad things in its
past (often condoned by the people it served).  Do you think we today
should blame the current government for everything past governments
did?  Or should we try to reform it?

: We've flown cruise missiles into buildings and didn't even bother with
: middle men.  There was an interview on "This American Life" of an
: immigrant from Iraq who hates Saddam Hussein, whose immediate and
: involuntary flashback upon seeing the video of the WTC was of a cruise
: missile hitting an office building in downtown Baghdad, I think it was
: a telephone switching center.  Poof, there goes your DSL.

It must be horrible to live in Bagdad with the threat of attacks like
that.  It also must have been horrible to live in Berlin in 1945 when
Hitler was still in power.  Undoubtedly Germans felt great bitterness
against the alies for the terror they endured in the last days of
World War II.  But that's what happens when your country is led by a
dictator like Saddam Hussein.  We cannot go easy on this thug who has
used chemical weapons on his own people (AFTER the end of the war with
Iran) and invaded another country, brutalizing the people then doing
such awful things as setting oil wells on fire and dumping oil on
the beaches.

: Russell> The overwhelming contrary opinion is pretty much uniformily
: Russell> from people who want to attack Iraq whether they have weapons
: Russell> of mass destruction or not.

: Andrew> If there was evidence that they HAD no weapons of mass
: Andrew> destruction and were not supporting anti-American terrorists,
: Andrew> no one would have any footing to demand military action
: Andrew> against Iraq.  

: a) what evidence would you find satisfactory? (and aren't you
:    requesting proof of a negative?)

How about allowing weapons inspectors back into Iraq?  That's a start?

: b) would you subject our own government to equivalent scrutiny?  

People already know we have weapons of mass destruction.  What more do
you need in the way of "scrutiny"?

: c) re: having no footing: exactly!  Thus the necessity of the idea
:    about weapons of mass destruction and the threat they supposedly
:    pose to us.

: Andrew> I for one do not believe conspiracy theories about trumped up
: Andrew> charges against Iraq for the sake of controlling their oil...

: But you have no problem believing conspiracy theories about how they
: are posing an enormous threat to us.  The Europeans apparently don't
: buy it, the other Arabs don't buy it, why do you?

The Europeans have proven time and time again they can't stand up to
anyone or solve much in the way of regional crises.  Hitler in the
1930's.  The Balkans in the 1990's.  They can't solve squat among
themselves without US help.  So I wouldn't put much credence in what
they think.

You don't need any more evidence about what Saddam Hussein would do
than what he has already shown the world he would do.  We can't let
this thug build up his military again.

: Russell> Hell, _we_ have got weapons of mass destruction.  _We_
: Russell> have actually _used_ them.  Who the /sbin/fsck is putting the
: Russell> hammer down on us?  To me, _that_ is the frightening thing.
: Russell> There is no obvious brake on the extent of our power.

: Andrew> We used two nukes in a brutal war in which both sides
: Andrew> committed horrible atrocities against each other.  That's
: Andrew> really not the same as using chemical weapons on your own
: Andrew> people, as Saddam Hussein did in the late 80's, 

: [...] in a context of a "brutal war" with Iran, where both countries
: apparently had been using chemical weapons.

That's right, he also used them against Iran during the Iran/Iraq war
- but I was talking about gassing the Kurds in Iraq after that war.

: Andrew> or invading another country, as he also did in 1990.

: Like, say, Mexico?

And we invaded Mexico - when?

: Andrew> Unchecked, he probably would have invaded Saudi Arabia, too.

: Actually, there is excellent evidence he intended no such thing.
: There are satellite photos showing no activity for months anywhere
: near the Saudi frontier, at the same time the Americans were pressing
: the Saudi's to let us in because we claimed the Iraqis were preparing
: to attack.

There wasn't a lot of time between the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and
the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia as part of Desert Shield.
I'm talking about invading Saudi Arabia months or years after Kuwait
(had no one stood up to him), not days or weeks.  The guy had already
invaded one country and had the 4th largest military in the world.  If
no one had contested Kuwait, why would he have stopped there?


: Andrew> This guy has demonstrated that he'll use brutal tactics to
: Andrew> achieve his ends whenever he has the strength to do so.  

: Just out of curiosity, whose tactics in the Gulf War were more brutal,
: the Iraqi's or the American's.  Who do you think killed more people?
: If you don't think that is relevant, please give me your definition of
: "brutal".

"Who was more brutal?" is kind of an irrelevant question here in the
context of a war.  Iraq started the war by invading Kuwait, a
sovereign country.  They were told to leave by the UN.  They didn't.
Sure, the US could have invaded without all the bombing of Iraq and  
killed a lot fewer Iraqi troops and civilians - at probably the
expense of far more American casualties.  We choose to make the
invader pay with their lives, not ours.  Makes sense as a military
strategy not to sacrifice more of your own troops than the enemy's...

: Andrew> Do you think he's a changed man now?  I don't.

: Have you stopped to seriously question our propaganda line that he is
: an irrational demon?  It seems like you haven't.

I don't need much convincing after knowing what this man has done in
the past.  Would you have trusted Hitler again if, say, he'd been able to
survive after 1945 as head of Germany, and then a few years later he
tried re-arming again?

For some reason you'd rather ignore what Hussein has done (clear for
all the world to see) and believe instead that the US has some wild
conspiracy about taking over Iraqi oil fields - and is trumping up
false charges against Iraq.  I'm not sure why, but I'm not surprised.
There were many leftists during (and before) the cold war who though
Stalin was doing great things in the Soviet Union, and they dismissed
all the reports of mass purges and mass murder as right-wing
propoganda.  Oops.  There were also those who claimed (for decades)
that Alger Hiss was innocent and that the Rosenbergs were innocent of
spying.  And then the Soviet archives were opened after 1991
and...gee, Hiss *was* a spy, and so was Julius Rosenberg.  Oops.
(Can you believe that Nixon was RIGHT about Hiss after all???)

: Andrew> The US doesn't drop chemical weapons on people and hasn't
: Andrew> dropped nukes since 1945 in its last war, despite numerous
: Andrew> opportunities to do - so I don't see how you have much ground
: Andrew> to worry about our crushing neighboring nations with our
: Andrew> weapons of mass destruction.  This is no longer the same
: Andrew> country that wiped out the Native Americans or allowed
: Andrew> slavery.  

: How many people have died in Iraq _since_ the gulf war?

And do you suppose the leader of Iraq gives a damn, while he works on
another palace?  It still amazes me how you are so sympathetic to a
monster over there and so quick to blame the US for everything.
<snip>

: Ask, what is "terrorism"?  By most definitions I've seen, the term
: would _not_ apply to the attack on either the USS Cole or the
: Pentagon, since they weren't civilian targets.  We certainly wouldn't
: want our enemies' military headquarters deemed civilian targets,
: because that might conflict with our desire to destroy them.

So...you're saying the attacks on the Cole and the Pentagon were
warranted because they were military targets?  (I.e. if it's not
technically "terrorism" then it's OK?)  Gee, that's the first
time I've heard *that* kind of nonsense...

: Andrew> I think you worry too much about this US "threat" to the rest
: Andrew> of the world.

: As an American, that is a remarkably easy position for you to have.
: If you lived in Guatamala or Chile or Vietnam or Iraq or Somalia or,
: or, or ... , you might have a different perspective.

Suffering does tend to have a big psychological and emotional impact 
on the victims in such countries, so I can imagine it would be simple
for them to blame the US for everything and not their own leaders.
They see US jets dropping bombs, and their propoganda tells them that
the US is trying to bomb hospitals.  How do you expect the people to
feel?

The US as I've said has done some bad things over the years (Vietnam
certainly comes to the top), but  I also tend to blame the leaders of 
nations (Iraq, Somalia) more than I blame the US for their suffering.
You for some reason want to blame the US for everything and hold the
countries' leader blameless.  This still baffles me, Russell.

We'll have to save the debate about education for another time...

Andrew
--
----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
*******************************************************************
----> http://www.bizave.com/photos/  <---- Andrew's Photography
----> http://www.moviepundit.com/    <---- Andrew's Movie Website
*******************************************************************


To respond by EMAIL, please DO NOT hit "reply".  Email address
scrambled for security.  Instead, please visit the web page:

http://www.bizave.com/cgi-bin/contact.cgi/subject=Re:%20Re:%20Call%20Me%20A%20Liberal/newsgroup=pdx.general,seattle.general,ba.general,la.general/messageid=cuaxczcasdzcasd108422042205@bizaveNOSPAM.com

Russell Senior <seniorr@aracnet.com> wrote in message news:<86znwao98r.fsf@coulee.tdb.com>...
> >>>>> "Tim" == Tim  <tim@stonerise.com> writes:

> Great!  Let's reinstitute slavery then and be done with it.  I mean,
> why all the duplicity?  It is inefficient and interferes with our
> "self interests".

It might seem duplicitious, however many countries effecting a "holier
than thou" attitude toward US policies practice slavery and indentured
servitude.

Regardless, you are apparently confusing foreign policy with domestic
policy.  Slavery would be a domestic policy.  And it is incorrect to
state that it interferes with or is in conflict with our self-interest
or national efficiency.  Automation is more efficient.  And a well
trained and competently educated paid workforce contributes far more
efficiently to an economy than slavery does (you pay for slaves, even
if you don't "pay" them).

Those are commonly made mistakes, so I can see the error as
unintentional.

"Baxter"
> ``And one of the people who stopped our attempt to stop Enron accounting
was
> made chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission,'' Clinton said.
> ``That is a fact; an indisputable fact.''

Pathetic comes to mind....the (former) most powerful man in the world blames
a mere lobbyist for derailing his ability to "get something done". That
Clinton was usually too inept to actually develop and pass potentially
valuable legislation seems often ignored.  Incidentally the hugely flawed
Clinton 1996 communication act gave rise to much of the current corporate
malfeasance and meltdown's.....both cable & telecommunications have led the
parade....the Clinton energy deregulation efforts bring up the rear with the
Enrons, corruption's and soaring electric rates.....impressive legacy.
Soggy

"Baxter"
> Allows law enforcement agencies to search homes and offices without
> notifying the owner for days or weeks after, not only in terrorism cases,
> but in all cases-the so-called "sneak and peek" authority.
> http://www.ala.org/alonline/netlib/il302.html


The problem when letting other people think for you is knowing whom to
pick..... it appears that you often pick the wrong ones. According to the
ACLU  http://www.aclu.org/congress/l110101a.html   (not exactly my favorite
group) the Patriot act allows

" In some cases regarding searches for electronic information, law
enforcement authorities can get court permission to delay notification of a
search."

I could find no legitimate source (including a quick perusal of the Patriot)
act to verify the ability to physically search homes and offices on a whim
and without oversight secretly or otherwise. An expectation of security or
safety without allowing proper tools to find, root out and prevent
horrendous terrorist acts is strictly wishful thinking. Soggy

Again, pushed through by a Republican congress.  Still, both parties were
taking huge contributions from telecommunications companies, and still do.

"Rod & BJ" <soggy@pacifier.com> wrote in message
news:ukdstqbmr4u7e@corp.supernews.com...

> Pathetic comes to mind....the (former) most powerful man in the world
blames
> a mere lobbyist for derailing his ability to "get something done". That
> Clinton was usually too inept to actually develop and pass potentially
> valuable legislation seems often ignored.  Incidentally the hugely flawed
> Clinton 1996 communication act gave rise to much of the current corporate
> malfeasance and meltdown's.....both cable & telecommunications have led
the
> parade....the Clinton energy deregulation efforts bring up the rear with
the
> Enrons, corruption's and soaring electric rates.....impressive legacy.
> Soggy
>
>

"Robert S"
> Again, pushed through by a Republican congress.  Still, both parties were
> taking huge contributions from telecommunications companies, and still do.


Do you actually think that all bad legislation comes from campaign
contributions? Stupidity is a much worse problem..... Soggy

>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew  <SEE_BELOW_TO_REPLY@bizaveNOSPAM.com> writes:

Russell> What gives us the right to demand that we can sell into those
Russell> markets?  [...]

Andrew> "Protecting our economic interests" doesn't mean "keep your
Andrew> markets open or we'll bomb you" (or coersion).  

It frequently _does_ mean precisely that.  Look at Cuba.  We weren't
going to invade Cuba because they were a threat to us (this was
pre-missile crisis), we were going to invade them because they
asserted their _own_ economic interests.

Andrew> Our military presence actually helps stability in parts of the
Andrew> world.

But only if our military presence is seen as a neutral arbiter.  Only
Americans (and political sycophants like the UK) think they are.

Andrew> What happened to supply and demand?  If we offer enough
Andrew> money, surely we will find a willing seller, right?  Why the
Andrew> need for military coersion?

Andrew> Again, you are the one reading "coersion" into what I wrote -
Andrew> I didn't say or mean that.

Yes, I _am_ saying that.  My point is that WHY DO WE CARE who controls
the oil in the middle east?  For the oil to have value, it must
ultimately be sold, and we can buy it then.  The purpose of our
military/political "alliances" in the middle east is to ensure we get
a "nice" price and a steady flow by means of bribery, "protection" for
exploiting elites, and other chicanery.

Andrew> That's [Russell's rejection of the illusion of our
Andrew> humanitarianism in the world] cynical bullshit, Russell.  The
Andrew> US gives humanitarian aid all over the world - often aided by
Andrew> our military.  When there's an earthquake or a big disaster
Andrew> around the world, who's usually the first to help?  The US
Andrew> government.  How often do we get credit for that?

Cynical when compared to what, Andrew?  Your rose-colored
amber-waves-of-grain freedom-and-liberty sun-glasses-tinted vision?

You'd be surprised at how little humanitarian aid we actually do give.
I've said this before, most of the humanitarian aid we give (less per
capita than most developed countries) is in the form of credits to buy
american grain or american machinery.  Sort of like Microsoft giving
$X million of software to schools, which costs them about $10k in
marginal costs to produce.

Andrew> Of course, detractors of the US like to forget all the good
Andrew> our government does in the world and focus soley on the things
Andrew> they don't like about it.  

I am a detractor of this kind of behavior because it is done in my
name and I risk its consequences when people in other parts of the
world get so angry that they are willing to kill themselves flying
into buildings.  In my political philosophy, I _am_ responsible for
what my government does in my name.  And therefore, I take an active
interest in what it does.

Andrew> [...] We need to reform the government, not disavow it outright.

Now who is putting words in other peoples mouths?

Andrew> Let's make an important distinction here.  They Saudi
Andrew> "royalty" want us in their country, as far as we can tell.
Andrew> We have no basis upon which to judge what the Saudi Arabian
Andrew> people want.  It seems that a number of them don't.

Andrew> You won't find 100% agreement in any country about its own
Andrew> government's policies...

Not relevant to what I said.  My point is that you are conflating what
the ruling elites want and what the average Saudi wants.

Andrew> [...] The point I made that you must have overlooked was
Andrew> that you can't tell what's happening in foreign policy by
Andrew> watching the evening news.  

Of course not!  That's the _last_ place to figure out what is going
on.  May be why I don't watch it.

Russell> Iraq invaded an intransigent neighbor over a border dispute
Russell> after our ambassador had essentially given them a green
Russell> light.  We already had an active plan to destroy Iraq
Russell> militarily *before* the invasion occurred.  Now, call them
Russell> stupid for falling for the trick, okay, but a trick is a
Russell> trick.

Andrew> So you're saying you think the US tricked Iraq into invadeing
Andrew> Kuwait so we could come up with a reason for Desert Storm?

Essentially, yes.  You really ought to learn more about what was
happening in the middle east immediately prior to the invasion of
Kuwait instead of relying on the nightly news for your information.
The Iraqi's had recently ended their war with Iran and were trying to
rebuild.  The Kuwaiti's were violating OPEC quotas on oil production,
(ironically, with Iraq's own oil), pretty much at our behest,
expressly for the purpose of forcing down oil prices, reducing Iraq's
oil revenue and thus weakening Iraq.  Why?  They hadn't invaded anyone
yet.  They were a sovereign country, just like Kuwait.  

Try reading _The Fire This Time_, by Ramsey Clark.  It is extensively
footnoted and lays out the history.  Out of print, but available at
the library.

Russell> Oh, I understand too.  The Palestians have no effective
Russell> domestic lobby.  The Israelis want to turn the Palestinians
Russell> into soap, figuratively.  The abused become the abusers.  It
Russell> is all too pathologically familiar.

Andrew> I'm not going to get into a discussion of the Middle East here
Andrew> - too long for this thread...

Whatever.

Andrew> We also used to condone slavery and wiped out a lot of Native
Andrew> Americans.  The US government has done a lot of bad things in
Andrew> its past (often condoned by the people it served).  Do you
Andrew> think we today should blame the current government for
Andrew> everything past governments did?  Or should we try to reform
Andrew> it?

Oh, I think we should try to reform it.  I blame the current
government for what the current government is doing, but I look to the
painfully extracted truth of what our past governments have done as
relevant to what they are doing now.

Andrew> It must be horrible to live in Bagdad with the threat of
Andrew> attacks like that.  It also must have been horrible to live in
Andrew> Berlin in 1945 when Hitler was still in power.  Undoubtedly
Andrew> Germans felt great bitterness against the alies for the terror
Andrew> they endured in the last days of World War II.  But that's
Andrew> what happens when your country is led by a dictator like
Andrew> Saddam Hussein.  

Here's where I think you go wrong.  It is _SO_ _FUCKING_ _EASY_ for
the government to demonize people we don't officially like, that you
have to actively resist it.  Maybe they _are_ bad people, but for
christsake consider the source of your information about them and the
mixed motives they have in propagating this stuff.

Andrew> We cannot go easy on this thug who has used chemical weapons
Andrew> on his own people (AFTER the end of the war with Iran) and
Andrew> invaded another country, brutalizing the people then doing
Andrew> such awful things as setting oil wells on fire and dumping oil
Andrew> on the beaches.

There is evidence (see book referred to above) that he was _not_
responsible for those things and that the oil spills were the result
of our bombing.  Sure, we blamed him, but that doesn't make it true.
Demand and examine evidence.

Andrew> If there was evidence that they HAD no weapons of mass
Andrew> destruction and were not supporting anti-American terrorists,
Andrew> no one would have any footing to demand military action
Andrew> against Iraq.

Russell> a) what evidence would you find satisfactory? (and aren't you
Russell> requesting proof of a negative?)

Andrew> How about allowing weapons inspectors back into Iraq?  That's
Andrew> a start?

Well, that depends on whether the inspectors are just scouting for the
next bombing run.  I suspect that is the source of reluctance.

Russell> b) would you subject our own government to equivalent
Russell> scrutiny?

Andrew> People already know we have weapons of mass destruction.  What
Andrew> more do you need in the way of "scrutiny"?

How about evidence we won't use them?

Russell> But you have no problem believing conspiracy theories about
Russell> how they are posing an enormous threat to us.  The
Russell> Europeans apparently don't buy it, the other Arabs don't
Russell> buy it, why do you?

Andrew> The Europeans have proven time and time again they can't stand
Andrew> up to anyone or solve much in the way of regional crises.

A lawyer would call that non-responsive.  I'll ask the question again:
Why do you believe Iraq poses enough of a threat that we should invade
their country?  I'll guess that your reply boils down to that our
government told you that he does.  Incoming clue: Governments Lie!
That includes ours.

Andrew> We used two nukes in a brutal war in which both sides
Andrew> committed horrible atrocities against each other.  That's
Andrew> really not the same as using chemical weapons on your own
Andrew> people, as Saddam Hussein did in the late 80's,

Russell> [...] in a context of a "brutal war" with Iran, where both
Russell> countries apparently had been using chemical weapons.

Andrew> That's right, he also used them against Iran during the
Andrew> Iran/Iraq war - but I was talking about gassing the Kurds in
Andrew> Iraq after that war.

According to the BBC:
 
  <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/737483.stm>

 Chemical attack on Kurds

   1988 16 March - Iraq is said to have used chemical weapons against
                   the Kurdish town of Halabjah.

   1988 20 August - A ceasefire comes into effect to be monitored by
                    the UN Iran-Iraq Military Observer Group
                    (UNIIMOG).

That puts it _during_ the war with Iran.  Note that I am _not_
defending Iraq's use of chemical weapons, only demonstrating that your
defense of our use of nuclear weapons as fundamentally different is
specious.

Andrew> or invading another country, as he also did in 1990.

Russell> Like, say, Mexico?

Andrew> And we invaded Mexico - when?

Well, that particular invasion was before the Civil War, but we've
invaded many countries since then.  Here's a list for just Latin
America:

  <http://www.zompist.com/latam.html>

Andrew> There wasn't a lot of time between the Iraqi invasion of
Andrew> Kuwait and the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia as part
Andrew> of Desert Shield.  

Please review the evidence.

Andrew> I'm talking about invading Saudi Arabia months or years after
Andrew> Kuwait (had no one stood up to him), not days or weeks.

Why do we _care_ who controls the oil fields?  Honestly?

Andrew> "Who was more brutal?" is kind of an irrelevant question here
Andrew> in the context of a war.  

You just got done telling me that the guy is a brutal person and needs
to be dealt with harshly.  If brutality is irrelevant, why did you
rely on it in your accusation?

Andrew> So...you're saying the attacks on the Cole and the Pentagon
Andrew> were warranted because they were military targets?  (I.e. if
Andrew> it's not technically "terrorism" then it's OK?)  Gee, that's
Andrew> the first time I've heard *that* kind of nonsense...

I didn't say they were "warranted", I said they weren't terrorism by
the common definition.  If you are going to use a word honestly, then
stick to its definition.

Andrew> Suffering does tend to have a big psychological and emotional
Andrew> impact on the victims in such countries, so I can imagine it
Andrew> would be simple for them to blame the US for everything and
Andrew> not their own leaders.  They see US jets dropping bombs, and
Andrew> their propoganda tells them that the US is trying to bomb
Andrew> hospitals.  How do you expect the people to feel?

Look up "cognitive dissonance".  You are subjected to as much (if not
much, much more) propaganda than the people being bombed.

Andrew> [...] You for some reason want to blame the US for everything
Andrew> and hold the countries' leader blameless.  This still baffles
Andrew> me, Russell.

I want to blame to US government for what IT DOES.  I want to do that
because it represents ME.  It my responsibility to do what I can to
see that it represents my interests in _real_ freedom and justice.
Foreign leaders do _not_ represent me.  I don't have any direct
influence on them.  They are responsible for their own actions, but
that doesn't absolve _OUR_ government from the actions that _IT_
takes.


-- 
Russell Senior         ``The two chiefs turned to each other.        
seniorr@aracnet.com      Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible       
                         profanity, which, translated meant, `This is
                         extremely unusual.' ''                      

>>>>> "Tim" == Tim  <tim@stonerise.com> writes:

Russell> Great!  Let's reinstitute slavery then and be done with it.
Russell> I mean, why all the duplicity?  It is inefficient and
Russell> interferes with our "self interests".

Tim> It might seem duplicitious, however many countries effecting a
Tim> "holier than thou" attitude toward US policies practice slavery
Tim> and indentured servitude.

I find interesting the psychological need to see critics as
hypocrits.  Even if they are, that does not absolve the crime.

Tim> Regardless, you are apparently confusing foreign policy with
Tim> domestic policy.  Slavery would be a domestic policy.  

No, slavery _was_ a domestic policy.  I wasn't referring to it so
narrowly.  Our current legal constraint against it is more general
than the previous institution.

Re: automation, how do you explain Nike and, more broadly, China?  If
automation were more efficient than slavery, why wouldn't we
manufacture everything here with machines?


-- 
Russell Senior         ``The two chiefs turned to each other.        
seniorr@aracnet.com      Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible       
                         profanity, which, translated meant, `This is
                         extremely unusual.' ''                      

Name withheld by request wrote:

>
>    Call Me Liberal

Ok, you're a moron.

Russell Senior <seniorr@aracnet.com> writes:

>>>>>> "Tim" == Tim  <tim@stonerise.com> writes:

>Russell> Great!  Let's reinstitute slavery then and be done with it.
>Russell> I mean, why all the duplicity?  It is inefficient and
>Russell> interferes with our "self interests".

>Tim> It might seem duplicitious, however many countries effecting a
>Tim> "holier than thou" attitude toward US policies practice slavery
>Tim> and indentured servitude.

>I find interesting the psychological need to see critics as
>hypocrits.  Even if they are, that does not absolve the crime.

Indeed.  I think it's called tu quoque and is a form of the
ad hominem argument.  There are many reasons it's a bad idea
to criticize someone else's actions in an area where you yourself
are deficient, but that doesn't invalidate the criticism.

-- 
Joseph M. Bay                                Lamont Sanford Junior University
www.stanford.edu/~jmbay/		     DO NOT PRESS

Dave Thompson wrote:
> 
> "gregorio cortez" <sheriffkiller@vivalaraza.net> wrote in message
> news:RcI09.318155$iX5.15927698@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> > It would have been a more accurate title for Ms. Knight's diatribe...
> 
> It would be even more accurate to call your baseless opposition
> unsubstantial and cowardly.
> 
> Not a liberal myself but she does have some points to discuss. Care to get
> specific?
She does have a few good points. Like why does he assume that Iraq
continues to be a threat?  If you go into Iraq, it could be another
Vietnam or worse.  
-- 
Check out my website http://ottodachat.com
contact me at: timothysmith@dsl-only.net

In pdx.general Tim Smith <timothysmith@dsl-only.net> wrote:
: Dave Thompson wrote:
:> 
:> "gregorio cortez" <sheriffkiller@vivalaraza.net> wrote in message
:> news:RcI09.318155$iX5.15927698@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
:> > It would have been a more accurate title for Ms. Knight's diatribe...
:> 
:> It would be even more accurate to call your baseless opposition
:> unsubstantial and cowardly.
:> 
:> Not a liberal myself but she does have some points to discuss. Care to get
:> specific?
: She does have a few good points. Like why does he assume that Iraq
: continues to be a threat?  If you go into Iraq, it could be another
: Vietnam or worse.  

I'm not arguing in favor of America simply invading Iraq, but I think
it's silly that everyone categorizes any military engagement since
Vietnam as "another Vietnam".  Vietnam was a unique situation, and
just about everything is different between Iraq today and Vietnam in
the 1960's:  the internal political situation, world power situation
(e.g. cold war), terrain (jungle vs. desert), you name it.  The
American Military has shown at least twice since Vietnam - the Gulf
War and Kosovo (both undoubtedly described beforehand as "another
potential Vietnam") - that it can engage an enemy and win.  

Simiarly, people were blindly warning after Sept. 11 that everyone
else who had tried to fight a war in Afghanistan (the Russians, the
British, etc.) had failed miserably - yet these naysayers fail to
understand that the stituation prior to the American engagement there
was far different than in the past.  And that's why (though
Afghanistan is far from peaceful yet) the American has been so
successful there so far, defying wildly the early naysayers.

So don't worry about Iraq becoming "another Vietnam".  It's not
Vietnam.

Andrew
--
----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
*******************************************************************
----> http://www.bizave.com/photos/  <---- Andrew's Photography
----> http://www.moviepundit.com/    <---- Andrew's Movie Website
*******************************************************************


To respond by EMAIL, please DO NOT hit "reply".  Email address
scrambled for security.  Instead, please visit the web page:

http://www.bizave.com/cgi-bin/contact.cgi/subject=Re:%20Re:%20Call%20Her%20an%20Idiot/newsgroup=pdx.general,seattle.general,ba.general,la.general/messageid=caczcasdrkrrkr18664042405@bizaveNOSPAM.com

Robert S wrote:
> 
> You would call any liberal a socialist.  In your mind, there's no
> distinction, but then in your mind, there's hardly any intelligence either.
> 
xxxx
You just don't like being called what you really are.

Look at the bright side of it..
You can only go up from here.
Socialism always loses to capitalism.
29

"SMITH29" <smith29@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3D48AC2A.AB483D96@attbi.com...
> Robert S wrote:
> >
> > You would call any liberal a socialist.  In your mind, there's no
> > distinction, but then in your mind, there's hardly any intelligence
> > either.
> >
> xxxx
> You just don't like being called what you really are.
>
> Look at the bright side of it..
> You can only go up from here.
> Socialism always loses to capitalism.


You've made it pretty fucking clear that you don't know what either one is.

Jim

Clave wrote:
> 
> "SMITH29" <smith29@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:3D48AC2A.AB483D96@attbi.com...
> > Robert S wrote:
> > >
> > > You would call any liberal a socialist.  In your mind, there's no
> > > distinction, but then in your mind, there's hardly any intelligence
> > > either.
> > >
> > xxxx
> > You just don't like being called what you really are.
> >
> > Look at the bright side of it..
> > You can only go up from here.
> > Socialism always loses to capitalism.
> 
> You've made it pretty fucking clear that you don't know what either one is.
> 
> Jim

xxxx
I don't think like a hippie.
29

"Andrew" <

> : She does have a few good points. Like why does he assume that Iraq
> : continues to be a threat?  If you go into Iraq, it could be another
> : Vietnam or worse.
>
> I'm not arguing in favor of America simply invading Iraq, but I think
> it's silly that everyone categorizes any military engagement since
> Vietnam as "another Vietnam".  Vietnam was a unique situation, and
> just about everything is different between Iraq today and Vietnam in
> the 1960's:

Exactly.  It could be another Panama.  Or Belleau Wood.  It could be another
Waterloo.  Hannibal and the Elephant Brigade...it could be
another...another....IRAQ!

Which is not to say it couldn't be a disaster for the US.  Just not the same
kind.  In fact, it's far less likely simply because of the open terrain and
lack of conflicting cultures sharing the same space.

-gatt

I believe UFO do exist, since there are no contradicting evidence.

For that matter, gnomes are running about at night.

Gremlins live under people's crawspace.

Fairies, though can't be seen, make people happy for no reason.

Ghosts and spirits live among us, sometimes helping, sometimes not.

Jesus really was all that great, but his friends thought so.

"Johnny Lee" <johnlee666@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:it629.17539$Ru5.8263@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
> I believe UFO do exist, since there are no contradicting evidence.
>
> For that matter, gnomes are running about at night.
>
> Gremlins live under people's crawspace.
>
> Fairies, though can't be seen, make people happy for no reason.
>
> Ghosts and spirits live among us, sometimes helping, sometimes not.
>
> Jesus really was all that great, but his friends thought so.

Uhh.. Mark that as "wasn't".  Damn typos.

I now also believe fingers aren't mean to work with keyboards.

>
>
>
>

Name withheld by request <anon5c6c@nyx10.nyx.net> wrote in message
news:964660956.572137@irys.nyx.net...
>
>    Call Me Liberal

Fine, you're a liberal.

"Johnny Lee" <johnlee666@hotmail.com> writes:

>I believe UFO do exist, since there are no contradicting evidence.

Any flying object that's not identified is a UFO.  Thus there is
clear evidence that they exist, although not that they are full
of skinny big-headed Space Proctologists.

-- 
Joseph M. Bay                                Lamont Sanford Junior University
www.stanford.edu/~jmbay/		     DO NOT PRESS

On Thu, 1 Aug 2002 00:37:40 -0700, "gatt" <gatt@hevanet.com> wrote:

>
>"Andrew" <
>
>> : She does have a few good points. Like why does he assume that Iraq
>> : continues to be a threat?  If you go into Iraq, it could be another
>> : Vietnam or worse.
>>
>> I'm not arguing in favor of America simply invading Iraq, but I think
>> it's silly that everyone categorizes any military engagement since
>> Vietnam as "another Vietnam".  Vietnam was a unique situation, and
>> just about everything is different between Iraq today and Vietnam in
>> the 1960's:
>
>Exactly.  It could be another Panama.  Or Belleau Wood.  It could be another
>Waterloo.  Hannibal and the Elephant Brigade...it could be
>another...another....IRAQ!
>
>Which is not to say it couldn't be a disaster for the US.  Just not the same
>kind.  In fact, it's far less likely simply because of the open terrain and
>lack of conflicting cultures sharing the same space.
>
>-gatt
>
I'd double-check that "lack of," gatt.  My broad impression is that a
traditional, non-populist heirarchy exists in the Middle East, and you
can't really plant the seeds of democracy in Iraq without upsetting
this order and knocking over the beehive.

The military goal of eliminating Saddam seems trivial next to the job
of constituting an effective gov't for Iraq without a mandate to do so
that has at least some regional buy-in. 

Charlie

"Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wilkes@easynews.com> wrote in message
news:do3jkusv6aq27tuauoehnjntbvcjlcglkp@4ax.com...

<...>

> The military goal of eliminating Saddam seems trivial next to the job
> of constituting an effective gov't for Iraq without a mandate to do so
> that has at least some regional buy-in.

Yeah -- it's worked *so* well in Afghanistan...

Jim

"Merlin Dorfman" <dorfman@rahul.net> wrote in message
news:aic569$541$1@samba.rahul.net...
> Charlie Wilkes (charlie_wilkes@easynews.com) wrote:
>
>
> : The military goal of eliminating Saddam seems trivial next to the job
> : of constituting an effective gov't for Iraq without a mandate to do so
> : that has at least some regional buy-in.
>
>      Exactly.  As much criticism as it has occasioned, and as much
> of a problem as it seems in hindsight, the decision not to occupy
> Baghdad during the Gulf War was at least partly due to this
> consideration: who or what would replace Saddam?  (Another
> consideration was not wanting to leave Iran as the only power in
> the region.)


Like they said in the Suez, "Of course we can get to Cairo, but what the
bloody hell do we do when we get there?"

Jim

Charlie Wilkes (charlie_wilkes@easynews.com) wrote:


: The military goal of eliminating Saddam seems trivial next to the job
: of constituting an effective gov't for Iraq without a mandate to do so
: that has at least some regional buy-in. 

     Exactly.  As much criticism as it has occasioned, and as much
of a problem as it seems in hindsight, the decision not to occupy
Baghdad during the Gulf War was at least partly due to this
consideration: who or what would replace Saddam?  (Another
consideration was not wanting to leave Iran as the only power in
the region.)

"Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wilkes@easynews.com> wrote in message
news:do3jkusv6aq27tuauoehnjntbvcjlcglkp@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 1 Aug 2002 00:37:40 -0700, "gatt" <gatt@hevanet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Andrew" <
> >
> >> : She does have a few good points. Like why does he assume that Iraq
> >> : continues to be a threat?  If you go into Iraq, it could be another
> >> : Vietnam or worse.
> >>
> >> I'm not arguing in favor of America simply invading Iraq, but I think
> >> it's silly that everyone categorizes any military engagement since
> >> Vietnam as "another Vietnam".  Vietnam was a unique situation, and
> >> just about everything is different between Iraq today and Vietnam in
> >> the 1960's:
> >
> >Exactly.  It could be another Panama.  Or Belleau Wood.  It could be
another
> >Waterloo.  Hannibal and the Elephant Brigade...it could be
> >another...another....IRAQ!
> >
> >Which is not to say it couldn't be a disaster for the US.  Just not the
same
> >kind.  In fact, it's far less likely simply because of the open terrain
and
> >lack of conflicting cultures sharing the same space.
> >
> >-gatt
> >
> I'd double-check that "lack of," gatt.  My broad impression is that a
> traditional, non-populist heirarchy exists in the Middle East, and you
> can't really plant the seeds of democracy in Iraq without upsetting
> this order and knocking over the beehive.

Except that Iraq is already one of the few secular governments in the
region. I don't know what tribal feuds exist other than the Kurds. This
isn't to say tribal feuding won't start up - look at what happened in the
Soviet Union's western satellite countries when they weren't there to put
down unrest.


>
> The military goal of eliminating Saddam seems trivial next to the job
> of constituting an effective gov't for Iraq without a mandate to do so
> that has at least some regional buy-in.

I expect you are right. You have the Kurds and Turkey wanting a piece of
Iraq, Iran and the Shiites wanting something on their side, and the Saudis
wanting land. oil, and stability. My guess is that if the Saudis back us
then Iraq will end up Saudi run.

On Thu, 1 Aug 2002 14:14:35 -0700, "Dave Thompson"
<dav13795@wdmdx1.com> wrote:

>
>"Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wilkes@easynews.com> wrote in message
>news:do3jkusv6aq27tuauoehnjntbvcjlcglkp@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 1 Aug 2002 00:37:40 -0700, "gatt" <gatt@hevanet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Andrew" <
>> >
>> >> : She does have a few good points. Like why does he assume that Iraq
>> >> : continues to be a threat?  If you go into Iraq, it could be another
>> >> : Vietnam or worse.
>> >>
>> >> I'm not arguing in favor of America simply invading Iraq, but I think
>> >> it's silly that everyone categorizes any military engagement since
>> >> Vietnam as "another Vietnam".  Vietnam was a unique situation, and
>> >> just about everything is different between Iraq today and Vietnam in
>> >> the 1960's:
>> >
>> >Exactly.  It could be another Panama.  Or Belleau Wood.  It could be
>another
>> >Waterloo.  Hannibal and the Elephant Brigade...it could be
>> >another...another....IRAQ!
>> >
>> >Which is not to say it couldn't be a disaster for the US.  Just not the
>same
>> >kind.  In fact, it's far less likely simply because of the open terrain
>and
>> >lack of conflicting cultures sharing the same space.
>> >
>> >-gatt
>> >
>> I'd double-check that "lack of," gatt.  My broad impression is that a
>> traditional, non-populist heirarchy exists in the Middle East, and you
>> can't really plant the seeds of democracy in Iraq without upsetting
>> this order and knocking over the beehive.
>
>Except that Iraq is already one of the few secular governments in the
>region. I don't know what tribal feuds exist other than the Kurds. This
>isn't to say tribal feuding won't start up - look at what happened in the
>Soviet Union's western satellite countries when they weren't there to put
>down unrest.
>
>
>>
>> The military goal of eliminating Saddam seems trivial next to the job
>> of constituting an effective gov't for Iraq without a mandate to do so
>> that has at least some regional buy-in.
>
>I expect you are right. You have the Kurds and Turkey wanting a piece of
>Iraq, Iran and the Shiites wanting something on their side, and the Saudis
>wanting land. oil, and stability. My guess is that if the Saudis back us
>then Iraq will end up Saudi run.

The broad story is that Saddam, like the rulers of Saudi Arabia and
all (I think) other countries on the Arabian Peninsula, is a Sunni
Muslim.  But Sunnis are a minority throughout the Arab world.

If the U.S.occupies Iraq and puts its support behind a new republic,
its form will inevitably have to align political power with the
religious and ethnic make-up of the country.  That means a Shiite-led
government.  This would be deeply threatening to Saudi Arabia and
other Arab countries, just as the Iranian Shiite revolution was, but
even more so because Iraq, unlike Iran, is an Arab country.

This calculation is why George H.W. Bush did not support the popular
uprising that nearly toppled Saddam in the wake of the Gulf War.  He
would have lost the support of Arab leaders had he done so, and he
might have touched off a lot of ugly political violence across the
region.

Instead, Bush Sr. called upon the Iraqi MILITARY to depose Saddam, and
hoped it would happen.  He wanted a more agreeable and less ambitious
Iraqi dictator, not a popular revolution to liberate Iraq.  His
position reflected a cold but sensible assessment of how the U.S. must
budget its power and influence in a fucked-up part of the world.

So, given the fact that Bush Sr. backed off for a good reason that
still stands, I don't understand this abrupt push to re-vamp history
by dusting off our grudge against Saddam.  I do sense, however, that a
very myopic, locker-room mentality has set in at the White House
around this issue.  Dick Cheney is more worried about having Paul
Wolfowitz whisper that he's a pussy than he is about avoiding World
War 3.  That's a bad set of priorities, IMO.

Charlie

Any factual corrections welcome.

"Rod & BJ" <soggy@pacifier.com> wrote in message
news:ukcrpl4vegvbd4@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Robert S"
> > Yeah, when Bush was running for election.  When he started selling the
> white
> > house, they go busy.  When the Florida debacle happened, they (Crooked
> > Corporate Officers) needed Bush, so Bush had to win.  They were
depending
> on
> > him winning, because they knew he would go soft on business law when it
> came
> > to his buddies.  Gore, on the other hand, was preaching populism at the
> > time, which those CCOs didn't like.
>
> I'm sorry but this is right out of fantasyland......

What part of this is fantasy?

> > Well, the Florida debacle should never have happened, but it did.  The
> CCOs
> > sure benefited.
>
> Your right the FL Supreme court should not of stepped out of their
> constitutional mandate and attempted to usurp the FL legislature..... if
> they had simply followed the law and allowed the process to work as
designed
> many confused people would have to find some other silly issue to harp
over.
> Incidently by following the normal and established law d Bush would still
be
> President......What is a CCO?

It was the U.S. Supreme Court that shouldn't have over stepped their bounds,
and everyone knows that.  If the U.S. Supreme Court did follow normal
established law, then yes, the House of Representatives would most likely
have picked Bush.  However, the blacklisting of voters in Florida should
never have happened, and to me, that was an intentional elections fraud
coming from a Bush campaign source in Texas who listed many blacks as being
prior felons, even though they weren't.  CCO - Crooked Corporate Officer
referenced in the first paragraph.

> > Wrong, corporations are constantly seeking to weaken labor laws, because
> > they want to reduce labor expenses to increase investor profits.  Think
of
> a
> > corporation like a nation.  Nations need a system of checks and
balances.
> > Without those, they will eventually spin out of control to do damage to
> > themselves and others.  Corporations have a very weak system of checks
and
> > balances in regards to the rest of society.  So the rest of society gets
> > shafted by these powerful trans-national corporations.
>
> Gesh.....where do you think everything you use, buy and eat comes
> from.....the tooth fairy? Why are virtually all basic consumer goods
cheaper
> in real dollars now than in the past? What makes you think that a
> corporation does not answer to the same "law of the land" that we do? Do
you
> even know what a corporation is?

The structure of law is different for them and their accounting processes.
The Republicans made sure of that with their new laws last year that allowed
such unscrupulous accounting practices to be legal.

> > Bush signed it only because of very intense public pressure, otherwise
he
> > would have vetoed as soon as it was on his desk.  The media itself has
> > become a powerful and influential force.  Even though I'm a liberal, I
> think
> > the media has some public responsibilities.  If it chooses not to uphold
> > such responsibilities to the public, then there should be a checks and
> > balances for such a powerful and influential force.
>
> A mind reader...cool.....what did Bush have for dinner last night?.....the
> claim was Bush refused campaign finance reform....since he signed
such.....
> the claim was bogus. However any such bill limits freedom and
communication
> and ultimately hurts all Americans.

That's bogus and you know it.  Such a bill would help this country by
providing more stable checks and balances.  Bush doesn't have to be a mind
reader.  He has all his advisors telling him what to do.

> > There are too many to list, but Enron and Worldcom come to mind easily.
> > Yes, some democrats were bought out too.  That's why I don't hold either
> > party in high esteem.  I'd rather work with the grassroots efforts, but
I
> do
> > understand the powerful influence of the two-party system.  So I have to
> > sometimes choose between the lesser of two evils, which means I will not
> > vote for a crooked Democrat like Traficant (sp).
>
> Hey Trafficant is a typical Dem...just a little more vocal and above board
> about extra income etc<G>.

Typical Dem!  The Democrats even voted him out.  Your statement was just too
absurd.

> But the absurdity of your claim about Worldcom and Enron is they prospered
> and did their scams unhindered under the Dems and faltered quickly under
the
> Republicans..... You do realize that if one gets a payoff to "help" there
is
> supposed to be a tangible benefit.....you know like the protection they
> received under the Dems. Or are you accusing the Republicans of taking the
> cash and not doing anything unseemly?  Soggy

They did their scams under a Republican controlled House and Senate.  They
put much more of their money behind Bush's campaign than Gore's, to buy
influence on both sides, but never-the-less, they wanted Bush to win,
because they knew he was so pro-business, that he was basically selling the
white house.

"Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wilkes@easynews.com> wrote in message
news:vbbjku0o04cg328renn59cgv7ie33n0pl2@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 1 Aug 2002 14:14:35 -0700, "Dave Thompson"
> <dav13795@wdmdx1.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wilkes@easynews.com> wrote in message
> >news:do3jkusv6aq27tuauoehnjntbvcjlcglkp@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 1 Aug 2002 00:37:40 -0700, "gatt" <gatt@hevanet.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Andrew" <
> >> >
> >> >> : She does have a few good points. Like why does he assume that Iraq
> >> >> : continues to be a threat?  If you go into Iraq, it could be
another
> >> >> : Vietnam or worse.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm not arguing in favor of America simply invading Iraq, but I
think
> >> >> it's silly that everyone categorizes any military engagement since
> >> >> Vietnam as "another Vietnam".  Vietnam was a unique situation, and
> >> >> just about everything is different between Iraq today and Vietnam in
> >> >> the 1960's:
> >> >
> >> >Exactly.  It could be another Panama.  Or Belleau Wood.  It could be
> >another
> >> >Waterloo.  Hannibal and the Elephant Brigade...it could be
> >> >another...another....IRAQ!
> >> >
> >> >Which is not to say it couldn't be a disaster for the US.  Just not
the
> >same
> >> >kind.  In fact, it's far less likely simply because of the open
terrain
> >and
> >> >lack of conflicting cultures sharing the same space.
> >> >
> >> >-gatt
> >> >
> >> I'd double-check that "lack of," gatt.  My broad impression is that a
> >> traditional, non-populist heirarchy exists in the Middle East, and you
> >> can't really plant the seeds of democracy in Iraq without upsetting
> >> this order and knocking over the beehive.
> >
> >Except that Iraq is already one of the few secular governments in the
> >region. I don't know what tribal feuds exist other than the Kurds. This
> >isn't to say tribal feuding won't start up - look at what happened in the
> >Soviet Union's western satellite countries when they weren't there to put
> >down unrest.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> The military goal of eliminating Saddam seems trivial next to the job
> >> of constituting an effective gov't for Iraq without a mandate to do so
> >> that has at least some regional buy-in.
> >
> >I expect you are right. You have the Kurds and Turkey wanting a piece of
> >Iraq, Iran and the Shiites wanting something on their side, and the
Saudis
> >wanting land. oil, and stability. My guess is that if the Saudis back us
> >then Iraq will end up Saudi run.
>
> The broad story is that Saddam, like the rulers of Saudi Arabia and
> all (I think) other countries on the Arabian Peninsula, is a Sunni
> Muslim.  But Sunnis are a minority throughout the Arab world.
>
> If the U.S.occupies Iraq and puts its support behind a new republic,
> its form will inevitably have to align political power with the
> religious and ethnic make-up of the country.  That means a Shiite-led
> government.  This would be deeply threatening to Saudi Arabia and
> other Arab countries, just as the Iranian Shiite revolution was, but
> even more so because Iraq, unlike Iran, is an Arab country.
>
> This calculation is why George H.W. Bush did not support the popular
> uprising that nearly toppled Saddam in the wake of the Gulf War.  He
> would have lost the support of Arab leaders had he done so, and he
> might have touched off a lot of ugly political violence across the
> region.
>
> Instead, Bush Sr. called upon the Iraqi MILITARY to depose Saddam, and
> hoped it would happen.  He wanted a more agreeable and less ambitious
> Iraqi dictator, not a popular revolution to liberate Iraq.  His
> position reflected a cold but sensible assessment of how the U.S. must
> budget its power and influence in a fucked-up part of the world.

After the Gulf War I caught hell from a couple friends in the military for
suggesting that we were afraid of what Iran would do if we destabilized the
region by invading Iraq. They thought Bush was a pussy and should hve gone
in. Not that I support Bush (either) in any way - it's just great to be
right every once in a while.

>
> So, given the fact that Bush Sr. backed off for a good reason that
> still stands, I don't understand this abrupt push to re-vamp history
> by dusting off our grudge against Saddam.  I do sense, however, that a
> very myopic, locker-room mentality has set in at the White House
> around this issue.  Dick Cheney is more worried about having Paul
> Wolfowitz whisper that he's a pussy than he is about avoiding World
> War 3.  That's a bad set of priorities, IMO.

It sometimes seems that, lacking a cold war, these old cold war mentality
beaurocrats in the Bush administration are determined to make a new one
using terrorists, Muslims, oil, and the middle east.



>
> Charlie
>
> Any factual corrections welcome.

None needed - and thanks for the info.

Johnny Lee wrote:
> 
> I believe UFO do exist, since there are no contradicting evidence.
> 
> For that matter, gnomes are running about at night.
> 
> Gremlins live under people's crawspace.
> 
> Fairies, though can't be seen, make people happy for no reason.
> 
> Ghosts and spirits live among us, sometimes helping, sometimes not.
> 
> Jesus really was all that great, but his friends thought so.

xxxx
Weed will do that.
29

Charlie Wilkes (charlie_wilkes@easynews.com) wrote:


: So, given the fact that Bush Sr. backed off for a good reason that
: still stands, I don't understand this abrupt push to re-vamp history
: by dusting off our grudge against Saddam.  I do sense, however, that a
: very myopic, locker-room mentality has set in at the White House
: around this issue.  Dick Cheney is more worried about having Paul
: Wolfowitz whisper that he's a pussy than he is about avoiding World
: War 3.  That's a bad set of priorities, IMO.

     Unfortunately this locker-room mentality (the US must appear
"tough") extends far beyond Iraq, and even beyond foreign policy.

//SNIP for the sake of brevity....

> So don't worry about Iraq becoming "another Vietnam".  It's not
> Vietnam.
>
> Andrew

Thus Andrew gets a gold star and  moves to the head of the class. Well said.
Vietnam was what it was, other wars (stupid as they may be) are what they
are.

"Charlie Wilkes"
snip
> So, given the fact that Bush Sr. backed off for a good reason that
> still stands, I don't understand this abrupt push to re-vamp history
> by dusting off our grudge against Saddam.  I do sense, however, that a
> very myopic, locker-room mentality has set in at the White House
> around this issue.  Dick Cheney is more worried about having Paul
> Wolfowitz whisper that he's a pussy than he is about avoiding World
> War 3.  That's a bad set of priorities, IMO.
> Charlie

Much of the saber rattling is simply to present Saddam with a choice of
weapon inspectors or invasion..... Our position can be satisfied with
either. But if Saddam doesn't believe we would topple him he has no reason
to let the inspectors back in. With Clinton Saddam simply called his bluff,
waited out the bombing and knew Clinton's hot air wouldn't amount to
much....Saddam by now or will very soon realize that Bush is an entirely
different leader who actually does what he says. Short of a Saddam suicide
wish my money is on the inspectors returning.   Soggy

On Thu, 1 Aug 2002 23:44:55 -0700, "Rod & BJ" <soggy@pacifier.com>
wrote:

>
>"Charlie Wilkes"
>snip
>> So, given the fact that Bush Sr. backed off for a good reason that
>> still stands, I don't understand this abrupt push to re-vamp history
>> by dusting off our grudge against Saddam.  I do sense, however, that a
>> very myopic, locker-room mentality has set in at the White House
>> around this issue.  Dick Cheney is more worried about having Paul
>> Wolfowitz whisper that he's a pussy than he is about avoiding World
>> War 3.  That's a bad set of priorities, IMO.
>> Charlie
>
>Much of the saber rattling is simply to present Saddam with a choice of
>weapon inspectors or invasion..... Our position can be satisfied with
>either. But if Saddam doesn't believe we would topple him he has no reason
>to let the inspectors back in. With Clinton Saddam simply called his bluff,
>waited out the bombing and knew Clinton's hot air wouldn't amount to
>much....Saddam by now or will very soon realize that Bush is an entirely
>different leader who actually does what he says. Short of a Saddam suicide
>wish my money is on the inspectors returning.   Soggy
>
Sure.  That's the reassuring talk, and that may be how it works out.
But don't kid yourself with your partisan crap.  These guys -- Cheney,
Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz -- are congenital warmongers who very much want
a war.  Hell, Wolfowitz pushed for war against the Soviets in the
Reagan administration.  

And as for George W., he's a different kind of leader, alright.  He's
a fucking dunce, with his workout routine and his stage-managed act as
Chief Executive.  And he's got lots of confidence in the way his veep
is running things.

I don't think these assholes will get their war, BTW.  The reason I
don't think so is because taking out Saddam will not be a pinpoint
operation; it will require huge mobilization, made more cumbersome by
the fact that we won't have a coalition backing us like last time.
And as soon as that mobilization gets under way, that's when the
pedestrian suicide bombers will start blowing up in Midtown, and
that's when Pakistan will crumble into civil war and we have to go in
and take 100,000 casualties to keep nukes off U.S. soil.  Events will
overtake the U.S. long before the U.S. puts grunts in Baghdad.

So you like this fine crew of Texas Republicans who rented the White
House for cash, eh?  You think ol' Clinton was the worst piece of shit
that ever floated down the stream, eh?  Well if your good boys get
their precious war, 9-11 will seem like a fireworks show and the whole
country will be hiding under the fucking bed.  Because Saddam will hit
our civilians hard INSIDE our borders, with the creme-de-la-creme of
his nightmare toolkit.  And he's a hell of a lot better equipped than
Osama bin Laden ever was, with a germ arsenal that definitely includes
smallpox.

Charlie

"Charlie Wilkes"
> Sure.  That's the reassuring talk, and that may be how it works out.
> But don't kid yourself with your partisan crap.

What partisan crap? Granted I used the term "hot air" but Clinton's threats
& token bombing following Saddams breech of the cease-fire agreement
qualify....empty threats are hot air.

>These guys -- Cheney,
> Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz -- are congenital warmongers who very much want
> a war.  Hell, Wolfowitz pushed for war against the Soviets in the
> Reagan administration.

You know this because they have lead us into multiple unjustified wars?
Here you have made extreme claims but presented zero foundation.....In
otherwords lots of blather.

> And as for George W., he's a different kind of leader, alright.  He's
> a fucking dunce, with his workout routine and his stage-managed act as
> Chief Executive.  And he's got lots of confidence in the way his veep
> is running things.

Its takes a small and rather ignorant mind to think someone who mangles a
few words is a dunce.... people have different abilities but I know of  no
correlation between "public speaking" and intelligence...unless you truly
feel the "best and the brightest" are represented by used car salesmen and
actors. Since Bush has a Masters degree in Business and was a jet fighter
pilot, became reasonably wealthy and has executed both his Govenorship and
Presidency quite decently....the actual evidence dispels your insults.

Finding fault with a workout routine is downright silly.....A stage-managed
chief executive claim is puzzling since he in both private and public
appears quite consistent. Indeed Cheney is a competent vice President and I
truly believe he does have a active participatory role...contrasted to the
normal VP figurehead....but I fail to see this as a negative.

> I don't think these assholes will get their war, BTW.  The reason I
> don't think so is because taking out Saddam will not be a pinpoint
> operation; it will require huge mobilization, made more cumbersome by
> the fact that we won't have a coalition backing us like last time.

Other than staging areas and territorial flyovers the previous coalition was
largely political.....it was our arms and troops that defeated Saddam's
invading force. Our force of the day was overwhelmingly superior and much
larger than actually needed. Saddam's force today is less than half and not
nearly as well equipped.....Before he had a decade of serious Russian help
and arms, not this time. Besides Saddam is not loved nor respected in the
Middle-east and will not actually be supported significantly by either
neighboring governments nor the populous as a whole.

> And as soon as that mobilization gets under way, that's when the
> pedestrian suicide bombers will start blowing up in Midtown, and
> that's when Pakistan will crumble into civil war and we have to go in
> and take 100,000 casualties to keep nukes off U.S. soil.  Events will
> overtake the U.S. long before the U.S. puts grunts in Baghdad.

What an imagination.....Your scenario has more holes than Swiss cheese. Why
would Pakistan crumble into civil war because of anything going on in Iraq?
The Pakistan people would have supported the Taliban considerably more than
a secular Iraq......Whom are these suicide bombers ?

> So you like this fine crew of Texas Republicans who rented the White
> House for cash, eh?

When you allow Dem talking points masquerade as thinking you pretty much get
pap......Please present any evidence, legislation or proof that Bush has
sold the Whitehouse?

>You think ol' Clinton was the worst piece of shit
> that ever floated down the stream, eh?

I don't know about that but inept and reasonably bad for the country and
possibly the worse president of the century is not a hard act to
prove.....germane to this topic .....he should have enforced the Iraq peace
keeper presence.

>Well if your good boys get
> their precious war, 9-11 will seem like a fireworks show and the whole
> country will be hiding under the fucking bed.  Because Saddam will hit
> our civilians hard INSIDE our borders, with the creme-de-la-creme of
> his nightmare toolkit.  And he's a hell of a lot better equipped than
> Osama bin Laden ever was, with a germ arsenal that definitely includes
> smallpox.
> Charlie

Amazing.......If Saddam indeed possesses such abilities you just made a
strong case to take him out and aptly demonstrated how negligent Clinton was
to let him off the inspection hook. Your apparent appeasement desire has a
strong correlation to WW2 and Chamberlain's rather failed policies.  Soggy

On Fri, 2 Aug 2002 14:53:35 -0700, "Rod & BJ" <soggy@pacifier.com>
wrote:

>
>
>"Charlie Wilkes"
>> Sure.  That's the reassuring talk, and that may be how it works out.
>> But don't kid yourself with your partisan crap.
>
>What partisan crap? Granted I used the term "hot air" but Clinton's threats
>& token bombing following Saddams breech of the cease-fire agreement
>qualify....empty threats are hot air.
>
>>These guys -- Cheney,
>> Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz -- are congenital warmongers who very much want
>> a war.  Hell, Wolfowitz pushed for war against the Soviets in the
>> Reagan administration.
>
>You know this because they have lead us into multiple unjustified wars?
>Here you have made extreme claims but presented zero foundation.....In
>otherwords lots of blather.

They haven't been in power long, but war against Iraq is without a
doubt their number-one policy goal as of now.  I base my assessments
on what they have said publicly.  Read up on Paul Wolfowitz if you
doubt me -- he's the most vocal of the three warmongers.
>
>> And as for George W., he's a different kind of leader, alright.  He's
>> a fucking dunce, with his workout routine and his stage-managed act as
>> Chief Executive.  And he's got lots of confidence in the way his veep
>> is running things.
>
>Its takes a small and rather ignorant mind to think someone who mangles a
>few words is a dunce.... people have different abilities but I know of  no
>correlation between "public speaking" and intelligence...unless you truly
>feel the "best and the brightest" are represented by used car salesmen and
>actors. Since Bush has a Masters degree in Business and was a jet fighter
>pilot, became reasonably wealthy and has executed both his Govenorship and
>Presidency quite decently....the actual evidence dispels your insults.

The "actual evidence" is quite clear -- George W. Bush was a complete,
unmitigated, wall-to-wall failure as a businessman.  Despite his
family connections and his Ivy League pedigree, he never once returned
anything other than a catastrophic financial loss to anyone who
invested in his business schemes.  This is a matter of public record.

Bush eventually became wealthy because some rich Texans saw him as a
useful front man for their business projects, and so they forfeited
some of their own stock appreciation in the Texas Rangers to lard W's
ass to the tune of a few million bucks -- chump change, for them.  

Then they ran him for the Texas governorship and paid for an expensive
campaign, just as they paid for a telephone whisper campaign in the
South Carolina primaries where a taped message told voters John McCain
was a war criminal and a coward who sold out to the gooks while POW.  

Again ,this is all public record.
>
>Finding fault with a workout routine is downright silly.....A stage-managed
>chief executive claim is puzzling since he in both private and public
>appears quite consistent. Indeed Cheney is a competent vice President and I
>truly believe he does have a active participatory role...contrasted to the
>normal VP figurehead....but I fail to see this as a negative.

Cheney is a college flunk-out who figured out how to get ahead by
kissing ass on bigshot Republicans in Wyoming.  This got him a slot in
the Nixon Administration, where he distinguished himself as a
right-winger and an ass-kisser with a velociraptor wife.  Public
record.
>
>> I don't think these assholes will get their war, BTW.  The reason I
>> don't think so is because taking out Saddam will not be a pinpoint
>> operation; it will require huge mobilization, made more cumbersome by
>> the fact that we won't have a coalition backing us like last time.
>
>Other than staging areas and territorial flyovers the previous coalition was
>largely political.....it was our arms and troops that defeated Saddam's
>invading force. Our force of the day was overwhelmingly superior and much
>larger than actually needed. Saddam's force today is less than half and not
>nearly as well equipped.....Before he had a decade of serious Russian help
>and arms, not this time. Besides Saddam is not loved nor respected in the
>Middle-east and will not actually be supported significantly by either
>neighboring governments nor the populous as a whole.
>
>> And as soon as that mobilization gets under way, that's when the
>> pedestrian suicide bombers will start blowing up in Midtown, and
>> that's when Pakistan will crumble into civil war and we have to go in
>> and take 100,000 casualties to keep nukes off U.S. soil.  Events will
>> overtake the U.S. long before the U.S. puts grunts in Baghdad.
>
>What an imagination.....Your scenario has more holes than Swiss cheese. Why
>would Pakistan crumble into civil war because of anything going on in Iraq?

Have you read any news in the last year???  It's not an imaginary
worry.

>The Pakistan people would have supported the Taliban considerably more than
>a secular Iraq......Whom are these suicide bombers ?
>
>> So you like this fine crew of Texas Republicans who rented the White
>> House for cash, eh?
>
>When you allow Dem talking points masquerade as thinking you pretty much get
>pap......Please present any evidence, legislation or proof that Bush has
>sold the Whitehouse?

Imposing steel tarriffs, which the Economist magazine estimates will
cost the U.S. economy $200 billion a year in lost productivity and
higher prices. 

But hey -- I thought our boy George was an All-American pro-business
free-trader?  Nope.  Not where crony business interests are at stake.
>
>>You think ol' Clinton was the worst piece of shit
>> that ever floated down the stream, eh?
>
>I don't know about that but inept and reasonably bad for the country and
>possibly the worse president of the century is not a hard act to
>prove.....germane to this topic .....he should have enforced the Iraq peace
>keeper presence.

You think Clinton was worse than Warren Gamaliel Harding, eh?
>
>>Well if your good boys get
>> their precious war, 9-11 will seem like a fireworks show and the whole
>> country will be hiding under the fucking bed.  Because Saddam will hit
>> our civilians hard INSIDE our borders, with the creme-de-la-creme of
>> his nightmare toolkit.  And he's a hell of a lot better equipped than
>> Osama bin Laden ever was, with a germ arsenal that definitely includes
>> smallpox.
>> Charlie
>
>Amazing.......If Saddam indeed possesses such abilities you just made a
>strong case to take him out and aptly demonstrated how negligent Clinton was
>to let him off the inspection hook. Your apparent appeasement desire has a
>strong correlation to WW2 and Chamberlain's rather failed policies.  Soggy
>
The analogy is nonsensical.  Saddam is not even rattling sabres, let
alone grabbing territory as Hitler was; you point out yourself that
his conventional military capabilities have been reduced.  In effect,
he has been contained per the intended policy goal of the U.S. and its
allies.

If you think Clinton is responsible for Saddam being in power today,
you had better come to terms with the fact that George H.W. Bush
failed to support a popular revolution that very nearly unseated
Saddam immediately after the Gulf War.  U.S. air strikes against Iraqi
armor putting down the revolt would easily have swung the balance.
Bush Sr. knew it, had a plan in place, and decided not to execute.  He
has since expressed regret over balking in a letter that was made
public.  He did not want to put Saudi crown stability at risk by
supporting a Shiite-led revolution in Iraq.

Charlie

Charlie Wilkes (charlie_wilkes@easynews.com) wrote:
: On Fri, 2 Aug 2002 14:53:35 -0700, "Rod & BJ" <soggy@pacifier.com>
: wrote:

...

: >Amazing.......If Saddam indeed possesses such abilities you just made a
: >strong case to take him out and aptly demonstrated how negligent Clinton was
: >to let him off the inspection hook. Your apparent appeasement desire has a
: >strong correlation to WW2 and Chamberlain's rather failed policies.  Soggy
: >
: The analogy is nonsensical.  Saddam is not even rattling sabres, let
: alone grabbing territory as Hitler was; you point out yourself that
: his conventional military capabilities have been reduced.  In effect,
: he has been contained per the intended policy goal of the U.S. and its
: allies.

     Of Bill Clinton's many accomplishments, domestic and foreign,
one of the more remarkable is making Bush I's rickety structure for
containing Saddam hold together and more-or-less work for eight
years.  That it has fallen apart recently is no surprise; the
surprise is that Clinton (with some help from our "allies") was 
able to keep some inspections going, keep the embargo in place, and
keep Saddam from exterminating the Kurds.  
     It is ironic that the collapse of this structure has fallen on
Bush II who must now find something to replace it.

: If you think Clinton is responsible for Saddam being in power today,
: you had better come to terms with the fact that George H.W. Bush
: failed to support a popular revolution that very nearly unseated
: Saddam immediately after the Gulf War.  U.S. air strikes against Iraqi
: armor putting down the revolt would easily have swung the balance.
: Bush Sr. knew it, had a plan in place, and decided not to execute.  He
: has since expressed regret over balking in a letter that was made
: public.  He did not want to put Saudi crown stability at risk by
: supporting a Shiite-led revolution in Iraq.

: Charlie

>>>>> "Merlin" == Merlin Dorfman <dorfman@rahul.net> writes:

Merlin> [...]  the surprise is that Clinton (with some help from
Merlin> our "allies") was able to keep some inspections going, keep
Merlin> the embargo in place, and keep Saddam from exterminating the
Merlin> Kurds.  

Heh.  If we actually cared about the Kurds, don't you think we'd be
doing something (i.e. intervening) with the Turks, our allies?  Our
policy in Iraq has nothing to do with the Kurds.  The Kurds provide a
convenient excuse to maintain military pressure on Iraq.

The silly thing is that, if we "had" anything significant on Iraq's
supposed connection to "terrorism", we'd just start bombing now.
That's what we usually do.  We'd define it in "our vital national
interests", declare that our aggression was "in self-defense" and just
go ahead.  If they really posed a threat, we'd be irresponsible to
wait, right?  The fact that we have _not_ done that indicates that we
do _not_ have anything significant and are still trying to figure out
how we are going to justify what we want to do anyway.  This is just
pedal-to-the-metal political opportunism, as we've already seen much
of since last September. 

There are two ways of being safe in the world: a) make sure no one
_can_ hurt you; and b) make sure no one _wants_ to hurt you.  We've
been pretending that, for large parts of the world, option a) is our
only choice.  It seems to me, in a highly interdependent world that we
say we want (see WTO, etc), option b) is our only honestly moral
choice.  Otherwise, let's just haul out the death star and the Darth
Vader capes and get to work.

-- 
Russell Senior         ``The two chiefs turned to each other.        
seniorr@aracnet.com      Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible       
                         profanity, which, translated meant, `This is
                         extremely unusual.' ''                      

Russell Senior (seniorr@aracnet.com) wrote:
: >>>>> "Merlin" == Merlin Dorfman <dorfman@rahul.net> writes:

: Merlin> [...]  the surprise is that Clinton (with some help from
: Merlin> our "allies") was able to keep some inspections going, keep
: Merlin> the embargo in place, and keep Saddam from exterminating the
: Merlin> Kurds.  

: Heh.  If we actually cared about the Kurds, don't you think we'd be
: doing something (i.e. intervening) with the Turks, our allies?  Our
: policy in Iraq has nothing to do with the Kurds.  The Kurds provide a
: convenient excuse to maintain military pressure on Iraq.

     Actually the Turks are doing something...but not due to
any American intervention.  They want to join the European
Community, and there are some standards they must meet before
even being eligible.  One is abolishing the death penalty, 
which they have just done.  Others involve human rights and
treatment of ethnic minorities, and they have started working
on that.

: The silly thing is that, if we "had" anything significant on Iraq's
: supposed connection to "terrorism", we'd just start bombing now.
: That's what we usually do.  We'd define it in "our vital national
: interests", declare that our aggression was "in self-defense" and just
: go ahead.  If they really posed a threat, we'd be irresponsible to
: wait, right?  The fact that we have _not_ done that indicates that we
: do _not_ have anything significant and are still trying to figure out
: how we are going to justify what we want to do anyway.  This is just
: pedal-to-the-metal political opportunism, as we've already seen much
: of since last September. 

     It's as much figuring out how to succeed as how to justify
it.  It's not an easy job, especially with no allies, which will
be the situation.  And there's always the question of "what do
we do after we win?"

: There are two ways of being safe in the world: a) make sure no one
: _can_ hurt you; and b) make sure no one _wants_ to hurt you.  We've
: been pretending that, for large parts of the world, option a) is our
: only choice.  It seems to me, in a highly interdependent world that we
: say we want (see WTO, etc), option b) is our only honestly moral
: choice.  Otherwise, let's just haul out the death star and the Darth
: Vader capes and get to work.

     Needs to be a mixture of both.  The only way to make sure
nobody wants to hurt you is not to take any stands on anything.
Europe is providing a good example of how to do that.  

>>>>> "Merlin" == Merlin Dorfman <dorfman@rahul.net> writes:

Russell> Heh.  If we actually cared about the Kurds, don't you think
Russell> we'd be doing something (i.e. intervening) with the Turks,
Russell> our allies?  Our policy in Iraq has nothing to do with the
Russell> Kurds.  The Kurds provide a convenient excuse to maintain
Russell> military pressure on Iraq.

Merlin>      Actually the Turks are doing something...but not due to
Merlin> any American intervention.  They want to join the European
Merlin> Community, and there are some standards they must meet before
Merlin> even being eligible.  One is abolishing the death penalty,
Merlin> which they have just done.  

Was this before or after they executed the Kurdish leader?

Russell> There are two ways of being safe in the world: a) make sure
Russell> no one _can_ hurt you; and b) make sure no one _wants_ to
Russell> hurt you.  We've been pretending that, for large parts of the
Russell> world, option a) is our only choice.  It seems to me, in a
Russell> highly interdependent world that we say we want (see WTO,
Russell> etc), option b) is our only honestly moral choice.
Russell> Otherwise, let's just haul out the death star and the Darth
Russell> Vader capes and get to work.

Merlin>      Needs to be a mixture of both.  The only way to make sure
Merlin> nobody wants to hurt you is not to take any stands on
Merlin> anything.

No, that's not the only way.  Another way is to have a truly inclusive
consensus-building organization where either everyone or no one has a
veto and where other peoples "vital national interests" are considered
as well.

-- 
Russell Senior         ``The two chiefs turned to each other.        
seniorr@aracnet.com      Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible       
                         profanity, which, translated meant, `This is
                         extremely unusual.' ''                      

Russell Senior (seniorr@aracnet.com) wrote:
: >>>>> "Merlin" == Merlin Dorfman <dorfman@rahul.net> writes:

: Russell> Heh.  If we actually cared about the Kurds, don't you think
: Russell> we'd be doing something (i.e. intervening) with the Turks,
: Russell> our allies?  Our policy in Iraq has nothing to do with the
: Russell> Kurds.  The Kurds provide a convenient excuse to maintain
: Russell> military pressure on Iraq.

: Merlin>      Actually the Turks are doing something...but not due to
: Merlin> any American intervention.  They want to join the European
: Merlin> Community, and there are some standards they must meet before
: Merlin> even being eligible.  One is abolishing the death penalty,
: Merlin> which they have just done.  

: Was this before or after they executed the Kurdish leader?

    IIRC they commuted his sentence, or at least postponed the
execution indefinitely.
<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020803/ap_to_po/turkey_politics_82>
     "Turkey has not executed anyone since 1984, although courts
regularly imposed death sentences - 50 people now are on death row."
     "The 14-point reform package was passed despite sharp opposition 
from the nationalist party, the largest grouping in parliament, who 
want the death penalty applied to Abdullah Ocalan, the jailed leader 
of Kurdish rebels."

: Russell> There are two ways of being safe in the world: a) make sure
: Russell> no one _can_ hurt you; and b) make sure no one _wants_ to
: Russell> hurt you.  We've been pretending that, for large parts of the
: Russell> world, option a) is our only choice.  It seems to me, in a
: Russell> highly interdependent world that we say we want (see WTO,
: Russell> etc), option b) is our only honestly moral choice.
: Russell> Otherwise, let's just haul out the death star and the Darth
: Russell> Vader capes and get to work.

: Merlin>      Needs to be a mixture of both.  The only way to make sure
: Merlin> nobody wants to hurt you is not to take any stands on
: Merlin> anything.

: No, that's not the only way.  Another way is to have a truly inclusive
: consensus-building organization where either everyone or no one has a
: veto and where other peoples "vital national interests" are considered
: as well.

     That should be the objective, but it is in my opinion wildly
optimistic to believe that it can be achieved in all cases, and in
finite or reasonable time.  I can think of half-a-dozen international
situations today where there is no consensus position that will keep
all parties sufficiently happy that nobody will want to to off and
start shooting.

Charlie Wilkes <charlie_wilkes@easynews.com> wrote:

>Nonsense.  If anything, we need to take far bolder steps to protect
>our domestic security, even if some skulls get split open.  America
>faces the most dangerous external threat in our nation's history.
>"Civil liberties" won't prevent another 9-11.  Surveillance,
>infiltration, and no-nonsense policing will.
>
>Charlie

Of course, few appreciate your fine sarcasm here, but I personally
think it's hilarious. Keep it up. (still waiting for those
leather-clad babes to administer "punishment". Mmm; "punishment"!).

276/221/179