defrancoization - Page 3  

Re: defrancoization

It is impractical to have a popular vote on every major issue......you elect your representatives
based on their views on the issues at the time of election, true, but also on their ideology as well
as the ideology of the party they are a member of....

sounds like your issue is not with the system as currently configured......but rather the current PM
and members of Parliament not listening to the "people" (who are basing opinions on necessarily
incomplete information)

to paraphrase another PM - the system is not perfect but it's the best one we've got (or words to
that effect).

in any case, you will have the pleasure of seeing Mr Blair lose the next election....will he then
think the threat to vote against him was "irrelevant"

"Stewart Fleming" <stewart.fleming@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:3E6A8D3A.BF87C02A@paradise.net.nz...
>
>
> Frank Tantillo wrote:
>
> > The British Parliament supported using force to remove Saddam by an overwhelming majority. Make
> > your views known in the voting
booth......this
> > is how a democracy works.
>
> 120 members of Tony Blair's own party voted against party lines in this
vote.
> The British government dismissed as "irrelevant" a 1 million person
protest
> march in Central London as "not representing a majority of the people". This is not democracy as
> the Greeks intended it.
>
> Vote for politicians A on issues B at some time. Some time later, politicians A make decisions on
> issues C and D. Unless the voting time to re-elect is very close to the decision time,
then the
> threat to vote against those politicians is largely irrelevant.
>
> So your exhortation to "make your views known in the voting booth" is a
red
> herring. What we need is participative democracy where the leaders
represent
> the CURRENT views of their demes.

Re: defrancoization

"Frank Tantillo" <f.tantillo@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:fLvaa.7642$Oz1.545588@bgtnsc05-...rldnet.att.net...
> "Dumbass?" Is that best you could come up with?
>
> Perhaps if you'd read my post you would've answered the questions asked instead of assuming that I
> said Hussein was a direct and immediate threat
to
> the United States. Of course, you offer no plausible solution to the
issues
> currently facing the Bush Administration. Were you asleep when the latest Bin Laden message asked
> Iraqis to carry out "suicide attacks on
Americans?"
> Common enemies band peoples, with ideologies that are seemingly opposed, together (USA and the
> USSR in 1943 for example).
>
> "Hussein isn't a terrorist?" Compensating the families of palestinian suicide bombers doesn't
> constitute terrorism? Financially supporting
Hamas
> and Islamic Jihad doesn't constitute terrorism? Does Hussein have to
board
> a commuter bus in Tel Aviv with a bomb in his hands for you to call him a terrorist?
>
> So come on, answer the questions .....what would you do about the Iraq issue? Did you have a
> problem with Clinton committing troops to Bosnia? His launching a missile attack on Baghdad?
>
> You, and others like you would be against any policy put forth by this administration.......again,
> what do you suggest we do?
>
> You clearly have no answers..........don't even bother trying again..............you're an idiot.

Frank, you are a funny guy. Perhaps some mood enhancers may be in order.

Hussein isn't a terrorist with respect to Americans. He main interest is acquiring personal power.
Committing a terrorist act against Americans will get him killed. Getting killed is not consistent
with acquiring more personal power.

He is a threat to his neighbors (Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia), not the United States.

Re: defrancoization

"BR" <rosen@rand.org> wrote in message news:b4dntu$919$1@lumberjack.rand.org...
>
> "Rob Campbell" <robert.campbell@ccc.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message news:b4dn8i$mke$1@news.ox.ac.uk...
> > If each MP voted the way his constituency would like then I seriously doubt if
we'd
> > have ended up with an "overwhelming majority". This clearly didn't
happen.
> > So we mount the largest public demonstration ever held in the UK and
> Cabinet
> > dismiss it with desperately childish arguments. How can the people make their views known and
> > have them acknowledged and taken into
consideration?
> > Apparently we can't do this. Sure, Blair goes on TV and gives "reasons"
> why
> > we need to go war. But I've yet to hear one that makes any sense. None
of
> > this makes any sense on any level. That's what I don't like.
> >
> > See what I mean?
>
> Rob could use a primer on the principles and propriety of a
representative
> democracy.
>

Not as much as you seemingly need on the principles and propriety of a multinational-run world based
on consumerism.

Re: defrancoization

> "Frank Tantillo" <f.tantillo@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:8Zraa.7514$1v.536449@bgtnsc04-n...rldnet.att.net...
> > Perhaps we should've let the Japanese keep moving in the Pacific back in
> the
> > forties.....surely Australia and New Zealand would've fallen quite easily. It's easy to take pot
> > shots at the US....like it or not, we saved the
> world
> > at least twice in the last century (Nazism and Communism).....we share our God endowed wealth
> > with the world...
> >

The situation now is quite different, here we have Americans wanting to bomb a country for no other
reason than boosting a presidents popularity (ie, they aren't saving anyone). Notice that war
mongering in other countries *reduces* the governments popularity. It is as if America is on
another planet.

2ndly, the Pacific is a mute point, you didn't enter the war for 3 years, untill you were bombed at
Pearl harbor.

Re: defrancoization (No Mas......No Mas!!!!!!!)

I'm through arguing........I've put forth way too many posts....bomb Iraq with Mavic
rims........invite Saddam to live in New Jersey....I just don't care anymore.....you win

your "Mood Enhancer" comment did however show the requisite effort.....good job

If you want to continue arguing - it's going to have to be about cycling or Lance Armstrong's
marital problems.

FT

"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni.remove.it.for.mail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7gwaa.10301$J51.1732441@news1.news.adelphia.net...
>
> "Frank Tantillo" <f.tantillo@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:fLvaa.7642$Oz1.545588@bgtnsc05-...rldnet.att.net...
> > "Dumbass?" Is that best you could come up with?
> >
> > Perhaps if you'd read my post you would've answered the questions asked instead of assuming that
> > I said Hussein was a direct and immediate
threat
> to
> > the United States. Of course, you offer no plausible solution to the
> issues
> > currently facing the Bush Administration. Were you asleep when the
latest
> > Bin Laden message asked Iraqis to carry out "suicide attacks on
> Americans?"
> > Common enemies band peoples, with ideologies that are seemingly opposed, together (USA and the
> > USSR in 1943 for example).
> >
> > "Hussein isn't a terrorist?" Compensating the families of palestinian suicide bombers doesn't
> > constitute terrorism? Financially supporting
> Hamas
> > and Islamic Jihad doesn't constitute terrorism? Does Hussein have to
> board
> > a commuter bus in Tel Aviv with a bomb in his hands for you to call him
a
> > terrorist?
> >
> > So come on, answer the questions .....what would you do about the Iraq issue? Did you have a
> > problem with Clinton committing troops to Bosnia? His launching a missile attack on Baghdad?
> >
> > You, and others like you would be against any policy put forth by this
> > administration.......again, what do you suggest we do?
> >
> > You clearly have no answers..........don't even bother trying again..............you're an
> > idiot.
>
>
>
> Frank, you are a funny guy. Perhaps some mood enhancers may be in order.
>
> Hussein isn't a terrorist with respect to Americans. He main interest is acquiring personal power.
> Committing a terrorist act against Americans
will
> get him killed. Getting killed is not consistent with acquiring more personal power.
>
> He is a threat to his neighbors (Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia), not the
United
> States.

Re: defrancoization

Interesting titbit I heard recently was more Australians were killed in the Darwin bombing than
Americans in Pearl Harbour's bombing... not that it has anything to do with cycling

Peter

"GK" <ocean1@remove.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:1frk1on.46u8zxuko182N%ocean1@remove.iinet.net.au...
>
> 2ndly, the Pacific is a mute point, you didn't enter the war for 3 years, untill you were bombed
> at Pearl harbor.

Re: defrancoization

"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni.remove.it.for.mail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:W1vaa.10207$J51.1713104@news1.news.adelphia.net...

> Hussein isn't a terrorist, he's a dictator. He is on the Al Qaeda hit
list,
> just like every single other regime in the region.

No he's not. In UBL's last audio tape he held fast to the middle east doctrine of "the enemy of my
enemy is my friend" by labeling Saddam an infidel but calling for his charges to work with Saddam
and against the US.

>
> The only government which met Al Qaeda's standard was The Taliban.

And UAE and Yemen, albeit to a lesser extent.

> Al Qaeda's ultimate goal is to rid the region of all the current regimes
and
> make the Middle East into one big pan-Islamist state.

Finally, an accurate assessment, although UBL has the ability to recognize that sometimes one is
best served by using tactics that appear to firmly held principles in order to accomplish long term
goals. Thus the call to work with Hussein.

> He isn't a threat to the United States.

Pure sophistry. Yes, his missiles can only hit his neighbors but nations no longer need ICBMs to
deliver payload across an ocean. Were it still so, then you would be correct. It's not. If Iraq can
smuggle oil out by the tankerfull, which the world knows he has been doing for years, then he can
smuggle a crate of something virulent.

>
> All of you dumbasses who make Saddam a threat to the United States make me laugh. He (even with
> our help) lost a war to Iran for God's Sake.

The US did not ally with Saddam to defeat Iraq. The US aided Saddam to achieve a stalemate. There
was no side to back for victory. The US recognized that if either side won it would be bad. A
stalemate was the strategic aim. And it was achieved.

Re: defrancoization

"BR" <rosen@rand.org> wrote in message news:b4et64$ede$1@lumberjack.rand.org...
>
>> He isn't a threat to the United States.
>
> Pure sophistry. Yes, his missiles can only hit his neighbors but nations
no
> longer need ICBMs to deliver payload across an ocean. Were it still so, then you would be correct.
> It's not. If Iraq can smuggle oil out by the tankerfull, which the world knows he has been doing
> for years, then he can smuggle a crate of something virulent.

Of course he can do that. As can Pakistan or N. Korea or Russia or China.

He wouldn't though. As I've said before, Saddam wants more personal power. Attacking the US will get
him killed, which is incompatible with acquiring more personal power.

Re: defrancoization

"BR" <rosen@rand.org> wrote in message news:b4et64$ede$1@lumberjack.rand.org...
>
> "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni.remove.it.for.mail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:W1vaa.10207$J51.1713104@news1.news.adelphia.net...
>
> > Hussein isn't a terrorist, he's a dictator. He is on the Al Qaeda hit
> list,
> > just like every single other regime in the region.
>
> No he's not. In UBL's last audio tape he held fast to the middle east doctrine of "the enemy of my
> enemy is my friend" by labeling Saddam an infidel but calling for his charges to work with Saddam
> and against the
US.

"the enemy of my enemy is my friend" got us to back Osama bin Laden vs. The Soviet Union in
Afghanistan.

Saddam isn't any more Al Qaeda than we are. His regime is anathema to those who desire the
Islamist State.

Re: defrancoization

"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni.remove.it.for.mail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:AYDaa.10542$J51.1852167@news1.news.adelphia.net...

> He wouldn't though. As I've said before, Saddam wants more personal power. Attacking the US will
> get him killed, which is incompatible with acquiring more personal power.

1. It is unproved that Saddam would not engage in behavior that most rational people believe
would force a response ending in his death. Most rational people would believe that hatching a
plot to assonate a former President would do just that, yet Saddam did it.

2. Even assuming arguendo the veracity of your claim, for that to be an effective deterrent
requires that Saddam believe that whatever he smuggles out can be traced back to him. In
other words, if he believes that he can smuggle stuff out and it can't be traced back to him,
then he can harm the US without a response. Are you willing to risk that Saddam doesn't hold
such beliefs? There's a reasonable probability that such an eventuality could truly occur and
more than a reasonable probability that even if such an eventuality could not occur, he
believes it could.

Re: defrancoization

"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni.remove.it.for.mail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:M%Daa.10543$J51.1852783@news1.news.adelphia.net...

> Saddam isn't any more Al Qaeda than we are. His regime is anathema to
those
> who desire the Islamist State.

Nobody said he was, nor is it required he be in order to be a threat. But the degree to which he
is a threat is substantially increased by a willingness and ability for Saddam and Al Qa'eda to
work together.

Re: defrancoization

"BR" <rosen@rand.org> wrote in message news:b4fqcu$ipn$1@lumberjack.rand.org...
>
> "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni.remove.it.for.mail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:M%Daa.10543$J51.1852783@news1.news.adelphia.net...
>
> > Saddam isn't any more Al Qaeda than we are. His regime is anathema to
> those
> > who desire the Islamist State.
>
> Nobody said he was, nor is it required he be in order to be a threat. But the degree to which he
> is a threat is substantially increased by a willingness and ability for Saddam and Al Qa'eda to
> work together.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...5976697%255E60 1,00.html

THE world is on high terror alert after Osama bin Laden issued a call for suicide attacks and
urban warfare by Iraqis, on a tape the US claims proves a common cause between al-Qa'ida and
Saddam Hussein.

On the 16-minute audiotape broadcast by the Al-Jazeera satellite network, Bin Laden described the
Iraqi leader's regime as socialist infidels, but said it was permissible under Islam to shed the
blood of "anyone who helps America . . . to kill Muslims in Iraq".

<snip><end>

Note the "socialist infidels" depiction.

If we weren't about to be the aggrressor here, Saddam would be a long-term target for al Qaeda, just
as almost every other government in the region (The Holy Land) is.

Clearly, bin Laden would like to use the Iraq conflict to gain more recruits from the Arab World
which is about to feel very stepped upon. Good thing he is currently on the run.

Re: defrancoization

Qui si parla Campagnolo <vecchio51@aol.com> wrote:

> ocean-<< here we have Americans wanting to bomb a country for no other reason than boosting a
> presidents popularity .
>
> Throwing stones from a country that isn't on the world stage is pretty easy.

Except we have already sent our military to the Gulf - for no apparent reason I might add.

>
> << Notice that war mongering in other countries *reduces* the governments popularity. It is as if
> America is on another planet.
>
> Warmongering by Australia during WWll did nothing to protect Australia..it took the US to
> protect her.
>
> Only the US has been attacked, only the US can protect herself, and it's going to do that,
> regardless of some whining by countries like CA, AU, GR, RU or france.

?? When did Iraq attack America anyways?

Re: defrancoization

BR <rosen@rand.org> wrote:

> "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <vecchio51@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20030309085436.15853.00000051@mb-co.aol.com...
>
> > Only the US has been attacked, only the US can protect herself, and it's
> going
> > to do that, regardless of some whining by countries like CA, AU, GR, RU or france.
> >
>
> The only thing that need be required for a country to act is to feel threatened. No nation need
> subject its beliefs about a threat to the judgment of the "world community." Would it be a better
> world if "nations were so required? Maybe, but only if the "world community" had a history of
> being right more than it was wrong about the judgment of such things. That is simply not so.

So, when has America been right in the past 50 years of Government overthrowing & misc military
adventures? When has America been wronged by the UN? (PLS do better than wierd Idaho UN conspiracy
theories, thanks.)

Re: defrancoization

"BR" <rosen@rand.org> wrote in message news:b4et64$ede$1@lumberjack.rand.org...
>
> "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni.remove.it.for.mail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:W1vaa.10207$J51.1713104@news1.news.adelphia.net...
>
> > Hussein isn't a terrorist, he's a dictator. He is on the Al Qaeda hit
> list,
> > just like every single other regime in the region.
>
> No he's not. In UBL's last audio tape he held fast to the middle east doctrine of "the enemy of my
> enemy is my friend" by labeling Saddam an infidel but calling for his charges to work with Saddam
> and against the
US.
>
No he didn't. He called on the Iraqi people to work with their Islamic brothers and sisters, not
with Saddam. Bin Laden and Hussein are _not_ friends. If they were, Iraq would have supplied Bin
Laden with chemical and biological weapons long ago. If they had any.