Iraqi war forecast in 1920's

[R.White]

"brian hughes" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> Maybe it's just my sense of nationalism, but when I read an article by an Englishman harping on
> the USA's dependence on oil but completely overlooking or neglecting any mention of his own
> homeland's dependence on it, I have a hard time focusing on his point. Not to mention that it was
> the British/French that drew up borders and put Iraq on the map in the 20's and set the seeds for
> today's problems-funny how the author neglects that and tries to blame the North Americans home
> town planners of the 20's instead.
>
> Anyway, I'm still doing my trivial part by commuting to work everyday on my bike. I wonder how Ian
> Roberts gets around?

I got as far as "Forwarded by Mike Vandeman" and couldn't read any further.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:59:33 GMT, [email protected] (Tony) wrote:

>It is to do with one very simple fact: the United Nations has laid down - indeed, it has been
>laying down for 10 years - that Saddam Hussein has to disarm himself of weapons of mass destruction
>and that he poses a threat because he used those weapons

Just as well India, Pakistan and Israel don't pose a threat because of their weapons of mass
destruction, really - since the West sold them the technology.

Oh, but we sold it to Saddam as well. Just as well we didn't fund him.

Oh, we did. Just as well we never bombed the Kurds with chemical weapons, then.

Oh, funny you should mention that.....

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Mikael Seierup]

"MLB" skrev
> You see SUV's in England????? The english have been driving tiny little cars for decades. Not even
> CLOSE to a valid critism. (yes I'm american)

They got lots of Land Rovers. Probably lots of Toyotas and whatnot with those big kangaroofenders
too. Perfect for killing people since the kangaroopopulation in England isn't all that big. ;-)

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:42:39 -0600, MLB <[email protected]> wrote:

>You see SUV's in England?????

Yep.

>The english have been driving tiny little cars for decades.

Ah, this one gets me every time A Honda Civic is only a "tiny little car" by comparison with
something thirty yards long with teeth. We transported a family of four around in one for some time,
no problem at all.

But the thing that really makes me laugh is the assertion that SUVs are a necessity in the US
because cars like the Volvo wagon "simply aren't big enough!" I can get my recumbent and three
passengers in mine! What is it with these people? I have a 155bhp engine, 0-60 in under 10s - whop
needs to go faster than that? Or rather, who needs to go slower than that using twice the fuel?

I know I'll regret that.....

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Brian Hughes]

Yes I've seen a SUV in England. BTW, I wasn't criticizing the English at all--only the author of the
article ,Ian Roberts, for (in my opinion) focusing blame on North America. But on the same hand, I
think it is rather silly to buy into the notion that the SUV is the root of all oil related
problems. Both a SUV or a small engine compact car burn infinitely more oil than I do on my way to
work riding my RANS Tailwind. And a compact car is almost as deadly to me as a SUV should we
collide. Focusing blame on SUV for our oil dependence makes no more sense to me than focusing blame
on North America, as the author did.

Brian

"MLB" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "brian hughes" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > Maybe it's just my sense of nationalism, but when I read an article by an Englishman harping on
> > the USA's dependence on oil but completely overlooking or neglecting any mention of his own
> > homeland's dependence on it, I have a hard time focusing on his point. Not to mention that it
> > was the British/French that drew up borders and put Iraq on the map in the 20's and set the
> > seeds for today's problems-funny how the author neglects that and tries to blame the North
> > Americans home town planners of the 20's instead.
> >
> > Anyway, I'm still doing my trivial part by commuting to work everyday on my bike. I wonder how
> > Ian Roberts gets around?
> >
> >
> >
>
> You see SUV's in England????? The english have been driving tiny little cars for decades. Not even
> CLOSE to a valid critism. (yes I'm american)

 

[Dave Larrington]

MLB wrote:

> You see SUV's in England?????

Oh yes. Few of the Suburban-sized ones, since they're not readily available, but Jeeps, Land /Range
Rovers, Discoveries, Isuzu, Mitsubishi, Ford, Vauxhall, Toyota, Mercedes, BMW, and any number of
outsize Tonka Toys driven by people whose idea of off-roading is parking with two wheels on the
pavement are like a plague upon the face of the nation.

<nasty_cynical_old_man> I am alone in wondering why, when Robert Mugabe is just as big a scumbag as
Saddam Hussein, why the UN is not coming down on Zimbabwe in the same manner as they are on Iraq?
Could it be because Zimbabwe hasn't got any oil? Or that China is as guilty of badness in its
occupation of Tibet as Mr. Hussein was in his occupation of Kuwait, but no-one cares very much about
Tibet as they haven't got anything much at all with the possible exception of yaks, which are very
difficult to use as fuel? </nasty_cynical_old_man>

Dave Larrington - http://legslarry.crosswinds.net/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:48:47 GMT, "brian hughes" <[email protected]> wrote:

>See how hard it is for me to focus? ;-) Please don't think I meant to flame anyone in the country
>besides the one individual (the author).

Not at all - I thought the article less of a problem than you did, is all, but then I'm not a USian.

>spent time in England (Mildenhall) and have nothing but praise of the UK.

With USAF?

>But I do remember the oil-dependent traffic there was every bit as bad (if not worse) as here in
>the US, so I took exception when he compares the US oil dependence to a heroin junkie and focused
>the blame on North America. I distinctly remember nasty fuel-wasting traffic jams there too.

Well, it's not quite as bad as my reading of US culture would appear to make out - population
density is such that it's difficult to create a conurbation in the UK which is not at least
marginally practical for cycling. Although they've tried pretty hard with Swindon. And nobody in
their right mind would cycle through Slough every day - it's so damn ugly that anything short of
supersonic speed is just too slow ;-)

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Mlb]

> was every bit as bad (if not worse) as here in the US, so I took exception when he compares the
> US oil dependence to a heroin junkie and focused the blame on North America. I distinctly
> remember nasty
>

But you couldn't notice that they were very small cars with tiny engines. hmmmmmmmm.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 22:52:57 +0100, "Mikael Seierup" <[email protected]> wrote:

>They got lots of Land Rovers. Probably lots of Toyotas and whatnot with those big kangaroofenders
>too. Perfect for killing people since the kangaroopopulation in England isn't all that big. ;-)

But, bizarrely, we have a problem with wallabies around here (South Oxfordshire borders). They
escaped from the McAlpine eastate, apparently.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Mlb]

"brian hughes" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:L5%[email protected]:

> Yes I've seen a SUV in England. BTW, I wasn't criticizing the English at all--only the author of
> the article ,Ian Roberts, for (in my opinion) focusing blame on North America. But on the same
> hand, I think it is rather silly to buy into the notion that the SUV is the root of all oil
> related problems.

No not the root. Just the puss filled zit of the infection. The "SIGN" of all that is wrong with
american thinking. To squander (at two to three TIMES the rate of that small car) oil because having
the biggest SUV is a status symbol, or to massage the male psyche by NOT being a minivan, or sooth
the fear filled citizens with ILLUSIONS of safety by mass. NOTHING wrong with an SUV if you need it.
problem is 95% of the people driving these toads DON'T need them.

 

[Chris Walker]

"Mikael Seierup" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> "MLB" skrev
> > You see SUV's in England????? The english have been driving tiny little cars for decades. Not
> > even CLOSE to a valid critism. (yes I'm american)
>
> They got lots of Land Rovers. Probably lots of Toyotas and whatnot with those big kangaroofenders
> too. Perfect for killing people since the kangaroopopulation in England isn't all that big. ;-)

It's easy to sneer, but if you had to face the extreme driving conditions in Fulham [1] you'd buy a
big 4WD too. You need 4WD to get up on the kerb and bullbars for when you meet a large animal hazard
like a child on a bike.

Has anyone else noticed how the affluent are suckers for anything that's ruggedly over-spec?
For example:

Monster 4WD madness Mountain bikes with dozens of gears and full suspension Off-road pushchairs
[2] that bite your ankles in shops Huge cooking appliances that would suit a restaurant

I'd make a fortune if I could spot what's next. Industrial dishwashers? Off-road floor polishers?
Lawnmowers with engine telemetry?

[1] A smart bit of SW London - the sort of place where every shop eventually reopens as a
restaurant.

[2] Strollers

Chris

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 22:53:31 GMT, "brian hughes" <[email protected]> wrote:

>And a compact car is almost as deadly to me as a SUV should we collide.

Although, to be fair, the poor ride and handling of the SUV make that collision more likely. And
since it reportedly takes several times as much oil to build a car as it will ever use in its
lifetime, SUVs are sucking the planet dry even when standing still with the engine off.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 09:28:46 -0000, "Dave Larrington" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I am alone in wondering why, when Robert Mugabe is just as big a scumbag as Saddam Hussein, why the
>UN is not coming down on Zimbabwe in the same manner as they are on Iraq?

Or indeed why Iraq is being mentioned in the same breath as Al-Quaeda, when Al-Quaeda offered to
go in and finish Saddam off last time round with their US-trained and equipped shocktroops,
because they hate Saddam's largely secular government even more than Duby hates his having
humiliated his father.

And of course it was the Brits, in the person of Winston Churchill, who gave Saddam the idea of
bombing the kurds with chemical weapons - we did it first.

Not that US foreign policy is in any way influenced by the fact that half the top people in the
administration come from oil companies, of course. Their morals are beyond question - hardly any of
them worked for Enron. Much.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Brian Hughes]

> With USAF?
>

Yes

> Well, it's not quite as bad as my reading of US culture would appear to make out - population
> density is such that it's difficult to create a conurbation in the UK which is not at least
> marginally practical for cycling. Although they've tried pretty hard with Swindon. And nobody in
> their right mind would cycle through Slough every day - it's so damn ugly that anything short of
> supersonic speed is just too slow ;-)
>

Well I'm living in New Mexico these days and ugly and beauty are to the eyes of the beholder. Some
people think New Mexico is very scenic with majestic mountains, canyons and natural rock
formations--others think it is damn ugly brown, dry, tree-less pile of endless wasteland. Either
way, it does have excellent year-round weather for biking (as long as you don't mind seeing a lot
of brown)!

 

[Mikael Seierup]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" skrev...
> >They got lots of Land Rovers. Probably lots of Toyotas and whatnot with those big kangaroofenders
> >too. Perfect for killing people since the kangaroopopulation in England isn't all that big. ;-)
>
> But, bizarrely, we have a problem with wallabies around here (South Oxfordshire borders). They
> escaped from the McAlpine eastate, apparently.

Well what are you waiting for then... Hop in your Toyotas and go out and kill them. ;-)

Mikael

 

[Joshua Goldberg]

hmmm quite a few bentfolk in this NG drive SUVs, but they have been strangely silent of
late...hiding perhaps?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------
"Corona" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> It's not SUV's that need to be blamed. SUV's are just a product of the people who produce them and
> the people who drive them. These people and their mentality are the problem.
>
>
> "brian hughes" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<L5%[email protected]>...
> > Yes I've seen a SUV in England. BTW, I wasn't criticizing the English
at
> > all--only the author of the article ,Ian Roberts, for (in my opinion) focusing blame on North
> > America. But on the same hand, I think it is
rather
> > silly to buy into the notion that the SUV is the root of all oil related problems. Both a SUV or
> > a small engine compact car burn infinitely more
oil
> > than I do on my way to work riding my RANS Tailwind. And a compact car
is
> > almost as deadly to me as a SUV should we collide. Focusing blame on
SUV
> > for our oil dependence makes no more sense to me than focusing blame on North America, as the
> > author did.
> >
> > Brian
> >
> >
> >
> > "MLB" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > > "brian hughes" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > > news:[email protected]:
> > >
> > > > Maybe it's just my sense of nationalism, but when I read an article
by
> > > > an Englishman harping on the USA's dependence on oil but completely overlooking or
> > > > neglecting any mention of his own homeland's
dependence
> > > > on it, I have a hard time focusing on his point. Not to mention
that
> > > > it was the British/French that drew up borders and put Iraq on the
map
> > > > in the 20's and set the seeds for today's problems-funny how the author neglects that and
> > > > tries to blame the North Americans home
town
> > > > planners of the 20's instead.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, I'm still doing my trivial part by commuting to work
everyday
> > > > on my bike. I wonder how Ian Roberts gets around?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > You see SUV's in England????? The english have been driving tiny little cars for decades. Not
> > > even CLOSE to a valid critism. (yes I'm american)

 

[Freewheeling]

Guy:

When did we bomb the Kurds with chemical weapons???

I think we may have sold Hussein some chemical weapons at one time back in the 70s though I'm
not sure about that. But we didn't have *any* part in Saddam's suppression of the Kurds by
chemical means, especially in the al-Anfal incident which was by far the largest. That was
Saddam's doing, entirely.

In fact, the only complicity I've ever heard anyone mention (unsubstantiated) had to do with
suppression of the Kurds by the Turks. And in that incident we acquiesced (according the the
accusation), we didn't initiate. (I can't seem to track down the source of this accusation, but it
has turned up on the web from time to time.)

Pakistan obtained the bulk of its nuclear technology from China as I recall, and India was a Soviet
client. What makes you say otherwise? We may have sold them some reactor technology, I don't really
know, but if you're making accusations how about providing enough detail so that they can either be
verified of debunked?

As for funding Saddam, we did that because we mistakenly saw him as the bulwark against the Shia
Islamist regime in Iran during what most of the Middle East still calls the "First Gulf War." (A war
that had close to 20 times the casualties of the "Second Gulf War.")

--
--Scott [email protected] Cut the "tail" to send email.

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:59:33 GMT, [email protected] (Tony) wrote:
>
> >It is to do with one very simple fact: the United Nations has laid down - indeed, it has been
> >laying down for 10 years - that Saddam Hussein has to disarm himself of weapons of mass
> >destruction and that he poses a threat because he used those weapons
>
> Just as well India, Pakistan and Israel don't pose a threat because of their weapons of mass
> destruction, really - since the West sold them the technology.
>
> Oh, but we sold it to Saddam as well. Just as well we didn't fund him.
>
> Oh, we did. Just as well we never bombed the Kurds with chemical weapons, then.
>
> Oh, funny you should mention that.....
>
> Guy
> ===
> ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
> dynamic DNS permitting)
> NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
> work. Apologies.

 

[Joshua Goldberg]

hmmm....India got in2 Nukes via Canada selling them Candu reactors and the Uranium...Russia
came later.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
"Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Guy:
>
> When did we bomb the Kurds with chemical weapons???
>
> I think we may have sold Hussein some chemical weapons at one time back in the 70s though I'm not
> sure about that. But we didn't have *any* part in Saddam's suppression of the Kurds by chemical
> means, especially in the al-Anfal incident which was by far the largest. That was Saddam's doing,
> entirely.
>
> In fact, the only complicity I've ever heard anyone mention (unsubstantiated) had to do with
> suppression of the Kurds by the Turks.
And
> in that incident we acquiesced (according the the accusation), we didn't initiate. (I can't seem
> to track down the source of this accusation, but
it
> has turned up on the web from time to time.)
>
> Pakistan obtained the bulk of its nuclear technology from China as I
recall,
> and India was a Soviet client. What makes you say otherwise? We may have sold them some reactor
> technology, I don't really know, but if you're
making
> accusations how about providing enough detail so that they can either be verified of debunked?
>
> As for funding Saddam, we did that because we mistakenly saw him as the bulwark against the Shia
> Islamist regime in Iran during what most of the Middle East still calls the "First Gulf War." (A
> war that had close to 20 times the casualties of the "Second Gulf War.")
>
> --
> --Scott [email protected] Cut the "tail" to send email.
>
>
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:59:33 GMT, [email protected] (Tony) wrote:
> >
> > >It is to do with one very simple fact: the United Nations has laid down - indeed, it has been
> > >laying down for 10 years - that Saddam Hussein has to disarm himself of weapons of mass
> > >destruction and that he poses a threat because he used those weapons
> >
> > Just as well India, Pakistan and Israel don't pose a threat because of their weapons of mass
> > destruction, really - since the West sold them the technology.
> >
> > Oh, but we sold it to Saddam as well. Just as well we didn't fund him.
> >
> > Oh, we did. Just as well we never bombed the Kurds with chemical weapons, then.
> >
> > Oh, funny you should mention that.....
> >
> > Guy
> > ===
> > ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL
> > and dynamic DNS permitting)
> > NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no
> > longer work. Apologies.

 

[Joshua Goldberg]

Canada sold India the Candu reactors and Uranium...Russia came in much later.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
"Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Pakistan obtained the bulk of its nuclear technology from China as I
recall,
> and India was a Soviet client. What makes you say otherwise? We may have sold them some reactor
> technology, I don't really know, but if you're
making
> accusations how about providing enough detail so that they can either be verified of debunked?

 

[Freewheeling]

Josh:

Thanks. I didn't really know the history. Of course simply getting a reactor doesn't necessarily
mean a "nuke." Canada doesn't have nuclear weapons. They have to have had some help from their
primary benefactors on weaponizing, etc. Same deal with the Pakistanis.

--
--Scott [email protected] Cut the "tail" to send email.

"Joshua Goldberg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> hmmm....India got in2 Nukes via Canada selling them Candu reactors and the Uranium...Russia
> came later.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ------------------------------
> "Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Guy:
> >
> > When did we bomb the Kurds with chemical weapons???
> >
> > I think we may have sold Hussein some chemical weapons at one time back
in
> > the 70s though I'm not sure about that. But we didn't have *any* part
in
> > Saddam's suppression of the Kurds by chemical means, especially in the al-Anfal incident which
> > was by far the largest. That was Saddam's
doing,
> > entirely.
> >
> > In fact, the only complicity I've ever heard anyone mention (unsubstantiated) had to do with
> > suppression of the Kurds by the Turks.
> And
> > in that incident we acquiesced (according the the accusation), we didn't initiate. (I can't seem
> > to track down the source of this accusation,
but
> it
> > has turned up on the web from time to time.)
> >
> > Pakistan obtained the bulk of its nuclear technology from China as I
> recall,
> > and India was a Soviet client. What makes you say otherwise? We may
have
> > sold them some reactor technology, I don't really know, but if you're
> making
> > accusations how about providing enough detail so that they can either be verified of debunked?
> >
> > As for funding Saddam, we did that because we mistakenly saw him as the bulwark against the Shia
> > Islamist regime in Iran during what most of the Middle East still calls the "First Gulf War." (A
> > war that had close to
20
> > times the casualties of the "Second Gulf War.")
> >
> > --
> > --Scott [email protected] Cut the "tail" to send email.
> >
> >
> > "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:59:33 GMT, [email protected] (Tony) wrote:
> > >
> > > >It is to do with one very simple fact: the United Nations has laid down - indeed, it has been
> > > >laying down for 10 years - that
Saddam
> > > >Hussein has to disarm himself of weapons of mass destruction and that he poses a threat
> > > >because he used those weapons
> > >
> > > Just as well India, Pakistan and Israel don't pose a threat because of their weapons of mass
> > > destruction, really - since the West sold them the technology.
> > >
> > > Oh, but we sold it to Saddam as well. Just as well we didn't fund him.
> > >
> > > Oh, we did. Just as well we never bombed the Kurds with chemical weapons, then.
> > >
> > > Oh, funny you should mention that.....
> > >
> > > Guy
> > > ===
> > > ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL
> > > and dynamic DNS permitting)
> > > NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no
> > > longer work. Apologies.
> >
>