[OT: humour] On the subject of taking Iraq messages elsewhere

[Tom Sherman]

Freewheeling wrote:
>
> ... The problem is, essentially, that people still think socialism viable. That's what "cultural
> imperialism" is all about....

Scott,

If you mean a strict socialism, you may be right. However, I believe that the jury is still out
since there has never been a country where true socialism has been practiced.

The social democratic model practiced in Northern and Western Europe is a different story. There
are hardly hordes of their citizens trying to emigrate to the US because of the poor conditions in
those countries, and a strong argument can be made that the average quality of life is better than
in the US.

What would be interesting would be if the means of production were turned over to the workers (as
opposed to the state as in the failed "Leninist"/Soviet model). Corporations would be basically the
same, except the board of directors would be elected on a "one worker, one vote" basis. I am not
holding my breath, however.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

"Man is the only animal that laughs and weeps, for he is the only animal that is struck with the
difference between what things are and what they ought to be," - William Hazlitt

 

[Tom Sherman]

Freewheeling wrote:
>
> ... "[2] For the same reason, Hamas has no problem find recruits for suicide bomb terrorist
> attacks."
>
> And doesn't this strike you as an enormously impoverished worldview, where the best thing these
> young kids can envision for their lives is suicide/murder? This is not *really* caused by economic
> desperation as it's portrayed. There are lots of people more desperate. It's caused by "poverty of
> dignity" and by a cycle of blaming others. It's also a deliberate military strategy that these
> shortsighted leaders think will get them something other than annihilation. They haven't quite
> peeked into the abyss yet. No one has. That's the *real* lack of vision....

Scott,

I agree the suicide bombing tactics of Hamas are morally bankrupt (as are all terrorist actions) and
counter-productive. I do however believe that many of the Hamas recruits feel that it is the only
way to fight back against the current Israeli government's policy of attempting to destroy any
possibility of an independent Palestinian state.

What is needed is a Palestinian "Gandhi" to lead a movement to replace the dead-end violence with
non-violent resistance. Since the vast majority of Israeli Jews are basically moral people, the
Israeli government would have to accept a Palestinian state (the same way the British were forced to
grant India independence). This would also be in Israel's long-term interest, as mutual political,
cultural, and economic ties with the Arab world is the only way to insure the long-term survival of
Israel (similar to the post WW2 ties between France and Germany, whose populations realized that
they could not afford to have another European war in the age of nuclear weapons).

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

"Somewhere somebody must have a little sense, and that's the strong person. The strong person is the
person who can cut off the chain of hate, the chain of evil. And that is the tragedy of hate, that
it doesn't cut it off. It only intensifies the existence of hate and evil in the universe. Somebody
must have religion enough and morality enough to cut it off and inject within the very structure of
the universe that strong and powerful element of love." - Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

 

[Freewheeling]

Tom:

"I do however believe that many of the Hamas recruits feel that it is the only way to fight back
against the current Israeli government's policy of attempting to destroy any possibility of an
independent Palestinian state."

An agreement is possible. The issue is, basically, coordination and control of the Arab and
Palestinian interest groups and their leaders. The reason the Israelis continue to elect right wing
leaders is that they so no real organization among their oponent that would allow an agreement to be
binding even if it were acceptable to most of the population. It's the inability to make a binding
agreement that's the problem. Not that Israel would be comfortable with the result, but if the
return is "full normalization of relations" with the Arab League practically anything is possible.
The terrorists are just in the way.

"What is needed is a Palestinian "Gandhi" to lead a movement to replace the dead-end violence with
non-violent resistance. Since the vast majority of Israeli Jews are basically moral people, the
Israeli government would have to accept a Palestinian state (the same way the British were forced to
grant India independence). This would also be in Israel's long-term interest, as mutual political,
cultural, and economic ties with the Arab world is the only way to insure the long-term survival of
Israel (similar to the post WW2 ties between France and Germany, whose populations realized that
they could not afford to have another European war in the age of nuclear weapons)."

Almost suggests some of the Palestinian Leadership isn't really interested in a settlement,
doesn't it?

I'm really interested in the United Arab Emirates at the moment. It is so far ahead of the rest of
the Arab world in terms of internet involvement that it's a jaw dropper. They're even ahead of
Israel on some measures. (I may have said something about this before.)

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

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> Freewheeling wrote:
> >
> > ... "[2] For the same reason, Hamas has no problem find recruits for suicide bomb terrorist
> > attacks."
> >
> > And doesn't this strike you as an enormously impoverished worldview,
where
> > the best thing these young kids can envision for their lives is suicide/murder? This is not
> > *really* caused by economic desperation as
it's
> > portrayed. There are lots of people more desperate. It's caused by "poverty of dignity" and by a
> > cycle of blaming others. It's also a deliberate military strategy that these shortsighted
> > leaders think will
get
> > them something other than annihilation. They haven't quite peeked into
the
> > abyss yet. No one has. That's the *real* lack of vision....
>
> Scott,
>
> I agree the suicide bombing tactics of Hamas are morally bankrupt (as are all terrorist actions)
> and counter-productive. I do however believe that many of the Hamas recruits feel that it is the
> only way to fight back against the current Israeli government's policy of attempting to destroy
> any possibility of an independent Palestinian state.
>
> What is needed is a Palestinian "Gandhi" to lead a movement to replace the dead-end violence with
> non-violent resistance. Since the vast majority of Israeli Jews are basically moral people, the
> Israeli government would have to accept a Palestinian state (the same way the British were forced
> to grant India independence). This would also be in Israel's long-term interest, as mutual
> political, cultural, and economic ties with the Arab world is the only way to insure the long-term
> survival of Israel (similar to the post WW2 ties between France and Germany, whose populations
> realized that they could not afford to have another European war in the age of nuclear weapons).
>
> Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)
>
> "Somewhere somebody must have a little sense, and that's the strong person. The strong person is
> the person who can cut off the chain of hate, the chain of evil. And that is the tragedy of hate,
> that it doesn't cut it off. It only intensifies the existence of hate and evil in the universe.
> Somebody must have religion enough and morality enough to cut it off and inject within the very
> structure of the universe that strong and powerful element of love." - Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

 

[Freewheeling]

Tom:

"If you mean a strict socialism, you may be right. However, I believe that the jury is still out
since there has never been a country where true socialism has been practiced."

True socialism *can't* be practiced. It's a bit like "true mind reading" or "true ESP." People
believe in it, but it's an impossibility. Email me if you want the argument. This is getting pretty
far afield from Monty Python (except for the "Kings don't have **** on them" skit).

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

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> Freewheeling wrote:
> >
> > ... The problem is, essentially, that people still think socialism viable. That's what "cultural
> > imperialism" is all about....
>
> Scott,
>
> If you mean a strict socialism, you may be right. However, I believe that the jury is still out
> since there has never been a country where true socialism has been practiced.
>
> The social democratic model practiced in Northern and Western Europe is a different story. There
> are hardly hordes of their citizens trying to emigrate to the US because of the poor conditions in
> those countries, and a strong argument can be made that the average quality of life is better than
> in the US.
>
> What would be interesting would be if the means of production were turned over to the workers (as
> opposed to the state as in the failed "Leninist"/Soviet model). Corporations would be basically
> the same, except the board of directors would be elected on a "one worker, one vote" basis. I am
> not holding my breath, however.
>
> Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)
>
> "Man is the only animal that laughs and weeps, for he is the only animal that is struck with the
> difference between what things are and what they ought to be," - William Hazlitt

 

[Freewheeling]

Tom:

"What would be interesting would be if the means of production were turned over to the workers (as
opposed to the state as in the failed "Leninist"/Soviet model). Corporations would be basically the
same, except the board of directors would be elected on a "one worker, one vote" basis. I am not
holding my breath, however."

Right track, wrong model. There's no practical reason why "the means of production" can't be broadly
and privately owned. It need not be turned over to the State, and actually can't be turned over
without running into the two great dilemmas of socialism: the knowledge and the control problem. But
broad, or even universal private ownership of the capital base *is* possible. It's not socialism
though. It's... capitalism. (Well, you might call it "true capitalism.")

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

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> Freewheeling wrote:
> >
> > ... The problem is, essentially, that people still think socialism viable. That's what "cultural
> > imperialism" is all about....
>
> Scott,
>
> If you mean a strict socialism, you may be right. However, I believe that the jury is still out
> since there has never been a country where true socialism has been practiced.
>
> The social democratic model practiced in Northern and Western Europe is a different story. There
> are hardly hordes of their citizens trying to emigrate to the US because of the poor conditions in
> those countries, and a strong argument can be made that the average quality of life is better than
> in the US.
>
> What would be interesting would be if the means of production were turned over to the workers (as
> opposed to the state as in the failed "Leninist"/Soviet model). Corporations would be basically
> the same, except the board of directors would be elected on a "one worker, one vote" basis. I am
> not holding my breath, however.
>
> Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)
>
> "Man is the only animal that laughs and weeps, for he is the only animal that is struck with the
> difference between what things are and what they ought to be," - William Hazlitt

 

[Freewheeling]

OK Tom, I expect a BIG mea culpa if the UN votes to impose the "consequences" outlined in 1441.

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

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:
> >
> > ... Still and all, if Bush were up-front about acknowledging his own personal reasons for going
> > to Iraq I woudl be more likely to trust him....
>
> Invading Iraq is not about US security or protecting the population of Iraq and/or the Middle East
> from Saddam Hussein's regime, although those who mistakenly believe that violence can be combated
> through violence {both of a military and non-military nature) [1] will argue otherwise.
>
> It is not really about oil, though that aspect has certainly been considered. Nor is it solely
> about distracting the US public from the failure of the Bush administration to seriously address
> corporate wrongdoing [2], the veering from the "compassion conservatism" Bush promised during the
> campaign to the hard right policies of attacking civil rights, women's rights, worker's rights,
> and the environment, and the bias towards the very wealthy and failure to address the nation's
> economic problems effectively, though these issues must weigh heavily on Karl Rove as the first
> priority is to maintain control of the government.
>
> What it is about is the US being able to impose its will on the world without being restrained by
> the UN [3], the European Community, or anyone else. It is to be a show of force to send a message
> that the US is not to be opposed in world affairs. And as the end of Bush's recent State of the
> Union address indicated, it is a crusade to impose his religious and political philosophy on the
> world by whatever means are available. [4]
>
> [1] Through human history, this has only achieved temporary success at best, and has lead to the
> current state where civilization is failing in its intended purpose over much of the world.
> [2] Or the possible involvement of highly ranked administration members in such wrongdoing, nor
> their connections with many in the corporate world who have been accused of such wrongdoing.
> [3] Many to the far right in the US would like to withdraw from the UN (which would result in it
> becoming largely irrelevant).
> [4] Part of the explanation why the rest of the world feels more threatened by Bush than Saddam
> Hussein or Osama bin Laden and others of his ilk.
>
> Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)
>
> "We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools." - Martin Luther King Jr.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 18:08:24 -0500, "Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote:

>The US was targetted because, for instance, those who saw themselves as God's unique interpreters
>also saw the US as lacking values.

I don't want to continue this argument, I really don't, but can't yous ee that as soon as you
subsitute the notional concept of "freedom" for religion in the above, you get US foreign policy
in one hit.

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.

 

[Freewheeling]

With a few critical caveats I can see how you'd think that. But "freedom," as a concept, is
interpretable in human terms and is even a valid foundation for government. God, as a Supreme
Being, isn't.

Caveats:

Not unique. We relied pretty heavily on some Scots and a couple of Frenchmen (Montesque, Bodine,
Locke, Furgeson, Hume, et al.)

And we aren't acting unilaterally in any case.

So, when you think about it... no.

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

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 18:08:24 -0500, "Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >The US was targetted because, for instance, those who saw themselves as God's unique interpreters
> >also saw the US as lacking values.
>
> I don't want to continue this argument, I really don't, but can't yous ee that as soon as you
> subsitute the notional concept of "freedom" for religion in the above, you get US foreign policy
> in one hit.
>
> 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 Thu, 6 Feb 2003 02:22:56 -0500, "Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote:

>With a few critical caveats I can see how you'd think that. But "freedom," as a concept, is
>interpretable in human terms and is even a valid foundation for government.

I wasn't referring to the specific case of Saddam, more to the likes of, say, Cuba or Panama, where
US foreign policy was (to the ouside observer) apparently founded on the belief that the US version
of how a society should be run is the "right" one and may be forcibly applied to any state which
fails to follow the True Path.

And yes, I am well aware of the old-fashioned British "send a gunboat" response to domestic
disharmony overseas.

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.

 

[Freewheeling]

Guy:

"I wasn't referring to the specific case of Saddam, more to the likes of, say, Cuba or Panama, where
US foreign policy was (to the ouside observer) apparently founded on the belief that the US version
of how a society should be run is the "right" one and may be forcibly applied to any state which
fails to follow the True Path."

As regards the issue of socialism, we've conducted a rather extensive and costly social experiment
that demonstrates the near certainty that a centrally planned economy will devolve to a totalitarian
personality cult. So yes, we probably reserve the right to interrupt and disrupt further
experimentation along those lines. Bottom line, centrally planned socialism is incompatible with the
notion of "polyarchy" or "open society."

In a larger sense what you might be talking about is the difference between national sovereignty,
which is fundamentally incompatible with world peace, and "competitive federalism," which isn't. So
under the latter theory some constituency might want to experiment with some versions of the welfare
state, or (better) social capitalism. Furthermore, one version of democracy isn't best for everyone.
Parliamentary democracy is generally easier to maintain than Presidential democracy, for instance.
And there are also populations that do better with proportional representation.

So even there, I don't see that we're necessarily "telling people how to run their society," but we
definitely do have some obligation to press for open societies, and we certainly do have a right to
maintain that centrally planned socialism doesn't work for larger populations. (Larger than, for
instance, a village-sized religious community.)

I realize that socialism is the sore point, and that many people still believe in it in spite of the
tragedies of its various failures. I also don't see the "third way" experiments as a problem, since
they don't seem incompatible with individual freedom so far. But where people are not given the
ability to choose their own social and economic system, I think we now have something of an
obligation to put their governments on notice. The end of the last "hermit kingdom" will be
something to celebrate, like the eradication of smallpox.

Regarding "gun boat" diplomacy, I don't think anything would please some of the more fragile
experiments in open society in Eastern Europe or the Caucasus more than to get a little attention
from the US. That's the primary reason why some of these states have joined the US coalition in
lieu of France and Germany. They see this as their golden opportunity to obtain some badly needed
TLC from the US, and I'm sure they hope that France and Germany remain intransigent so as to make
the US memory a little longer where they're concerned. It may be the best thing that's ever
happened to them.

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

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2003 02:22:56 -0500, "Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >With a few critical caveats I can see how you'd think that. But
"freedom,"
> >as a concept, is interpretable in human terms and is even a valid
foundation
> >for government.
>
> I wasn't referring to the specific case of Saddam, more to the likes of, say, Cuba or Panama,
> where US foreign policy was (to the ouside observer) apparently founded on the belief that the US
> version of how a society should be run is the "right" one and may be forcibly applied to any state
> which fails to follow the True Path.
>
> And yes, I am well aware of the old-fashioned British "send a gunboat" response to domestic
> disharmony overseas.
>
> 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 Fri, 7 Feb 2003 03:09:42 -0500, "Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote:

>As regards the issue of socialism, we've conducted a rather extensive and costly social experiment
>that demonstrates the near certainty that a centrally planned economy will devolve to a
>totalitarian personality cult. So yes, we probably reserve the right to interrupt and disrupt
>further experimentation along those lines.

Or to fund internal insurrections, coups and so on. Provided, of course, that the new dictator is
favourable to US interests.

>In a larger sense what you might be talking about is the difference between national sovereignty,
>which is fundamentally incompatible with world peace, and "competitive federalism," which isn't.

Not really, I'm talking about the way the US has made enemies around the world by funding
revolutions and coups which have fairly consistently failed to benefit the people of the nation
concerned, and often left rather a lot of them dead.

>I don't see that we're necessarily "telling people how to run their society," but we definitely do
>have some obligation to press for open societies,

So why are the US not pressing Kuwait to replace the Emir with a properly constituted democracy? And
why are the US not challenging the Saudis on the human rights record and lack of democracy? And why
are the US not pressing Israel to comply with UN resolutions?

>I realize that socialism is the sore point

Not for me, and nothing to do with my point here.

>Regarding "gun boat" diplomacy, I don't think anything would please some of the more fragile
>experiments in open society in Eastern Europe or the Caucasus more than to get a little attention
>from the US. That's the primary reason why some of these states have joined the US coalition in
>lieu of France and Germany. They see this as their golden opportunity to obtain some badly needed
>TLC from the US, and I'm sure they hope that France and Germany remain intransigent so as to make
>the US memory a little longer where they're concerned. It may be the best thing that's ever
>happened to them.

Which is fine, but why is the US intervening in the case of Saddam, who has no proven weapons of
mass destruction, and not in the former Soviet states, many of whom undoubtedly have functioning
nuclear weapons.

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.

 

[Freewheeling]

"Or to fund internal insurrections, coups and so on. Provided, of course, that the new dictator is
favourable to US interests."

http://www.gulfnews.com/Articles/print.asp?ArticleID=76642

"So why are the US not pressing Kuwait to replace the Emir with a properly constituted democracy?"

That's such a politically naive statement, that I won't even respond. Do you *know* anything
about Kuwait? The UAE? What do you think it takes to establish a "properly constituted
democracy?" Fairy dust?

"And why are the US not challenging the Saudis on the human rights record and lack of democracy?"

I believe we are, although it's not high profile at the moment. You sound like you're willing to
fault us because we don't do everything, instantly. And then you fault us because we do too much.
And again, what do you *know* about the Saudi regime--what it has done, and what the commitments
and risks of Abdullah are at the moment. I daresay we'd welcome someone of Abdullah's caliber in
Iraq. Anyone with any sense would. Continental Europe took 350 years to establish the first durable
working democracy.

"Not for me, and nothing to do with my point here."

I don't believe it. I think the policy division is between classical liberalism on the one hand, and
those with a nostalgic commitment to socialism on the other... though it's not quite PC to give it
that label yet. But the anti-Americanism in Europe, as well as the domestic variety here in the
states, is coming from that "well if we only gave socialism a real chance" crowd. And they do, on
some level, all recognize liberalism as the enemy, because it is... to them.

"Which is fine, but why is the US intervening in the case of Saddam, who has no proven weapons of
mass destruction, and not in the former Soviet states, many of whom undoubtedly have functioning
nuclear weapons."

1. The idea that Saddam might not have WMD is about as likely as my ability to project myself into a
Roadrunner cartoon, and save Wiley Coyote from himself. Where do you get this stuff? Tell me what
you think he's hiding from the inspectors (as documented, and as can be inferred from the whole
history of rope-a-dope, push a marshmallow as far as it'll allow, nonsense). OF COURSE he has
WMD! Sheesh! Only that paedophile pervert Scott Ritter thinks he doesn't, and Sean Penn.

2. Which soviet states? Each probably requires a separate policy. Huge difference between Soviet
Armenia and Georgia. Different population. Different history. Different level of societal
openness. Different leadership.

Look, if you don't care about this stuff except to use it as part of some bogus argument against US
policy in Iraq, just don't bother. If you *do* care about it, read up a little on the details. By
the way, do you know anything about the current Bush initiatives to promote and encourage open
society? You sound like you don't.

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

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 03:09:42 -0500, "Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >As regards the issue of socialism, we've conducted a rather extensive and costly social
> >experiment that demonstrates the near certainty that a centrally planned economy will devolve to
> >a totalitarian personality
cult.
> >So yes, we probably reserve the right to interrupt and disrupt further experimentation along
> >those lines.
>
> Or to fund internal insurrections, coups and so on. Provided, of course, that the new dictator is
> favourable to US interests.
>
> >In a larger sense what you might be talking about is the difference
between
> >national sovereignty, which is fundamentally incompatible with world
peace,
> >and "competitive federalism," which isn't.
>
> Not really, I'm talking about the way the US has made enemies around the world by funding
> revolutions and coups which have fairly consistently failed to benefit the people of the nation
> concerned, and often left rather a lot of them dead.
>
> >I don't see that we're necessarily "telling people how to run their society," but we definitely
> >do have some obligation to press for
open
> >societies,
>
> So why are the US not pressing Kuwait to replace the Emir with a properly constituted democracy?
> And why are the US not challenging the Saudis on the human rights record and lack of democracy?
> And why are the US not pressing Israel to comply with UN resolutions?
>
> >I realize that socialism is the sore point
>
> Not for me, and nothing to do with my point here.
>
> >Regarding "gun boat" diplomacy, I don't think anything would please some
of
> >the more fragile experiments in open society in Eastern Europe or the Caucasus more than to get a
> >little attention from the US. That's the primary reason why some of these states have joined the
> >US coalition in
lieu
> >of France and Germany. They see this as their golden opportunity to
obtain
> >some badly needed TLC from the US, and I'm sure they hope that France and Germany remain
> >intransigent so as to make the US memory a little longer where they're concerned. It may be the
> >best thing that's ever happened
to
> >them.
>
> Which is fine, but why is the US intervening in the case of Saddam, who has no proven weapons of
> mass destruction, and not in the former Soviet states, many of whom undoubtedly have functioning
> nuclear weapons.
>
> 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 Sun, 9 Feb 2003 04:19:27 -0500, "Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote:

>http://www.gulfnews.com/Articles/print.asp?ArticleID=76642

Ah, Colin Powell - a well-known independent source, obviously.

>"So why are the US not pressing Kuwait to replace the Emir with a properly constituted democracy?"

>That's such a politically naive statement, that I won't even respond. Do you *know* anything
>about Kuwait? The UAE? What do you think it takes to establish a "properly constituted
>democracy?" Fairy dust?

The point is the world is full of dictators, but only those with oil seem to attract the attention
of the West. What about Mugabe? His "election" was even more rigged than Dubya's, but we aren't
sending the troops in.

>>"And why are the US not challenging the Saudis on the human rights record and lack of democracy?"
> I believe we are, although it's not high profile at the moment.

The alliance seems happy to deal with Saudi and Turkey, despite their appalling human rights
records. Diplomacy is OK for them, but not OK for Saddam.

>You sound like you're willing to fault us because we don't do everything, instantly. And then you
>fault us because we do too much.

No, I am pointing out an inconsistency which is glossed over by the powers that be, as they gloss
over the fact that regime change in Iraq would be very convenient for Dubya and his oil company
cronies (as regime change in Afghanisatan has already been, apparently). The fact that they are not
open about this stuff leads me to be suspicious of their motives. Which is what I've said all along.
>>"Not for me, and nothing to do with my point here."

>I don't believe it. I think the policy division is between classical liberalism on the one hand,
>and those with a nostalgic commitment to socialism on the other... though it's not quite PC to give
>it that label yet.

You are welcome to that opinion if it allows you to rationalise away dissenting opinions, but I am
definitely more liberal than socialist. Which would place me, of course, at the extreme left of US
politics, where the parties are of the right and the extreme right (much like the two main parties
in the UK these days).

>But the anti-Americanism in Europe, as well as the domestic variety here in the states, is coming
>from that "well if we only gave socialism a real chance" crowd.

Over here it's coming from a huge range of people. Uneasiness over US cuture is a much wider issue
than the Gulf wars. You don't have to be a socialist to be unhappy about the US' disporportionate
use of natural resources, for example.

>And they do, on some level, all recognize liberalism as the enemy, because it is... to them.

You're projecting.

>"Which is fine, but why is the US intervening in the case of Saddam, who has no proven weapons of
>mass destruction, and not in the former Soviet states, many of whom undoubtedly have functioning
>nuclear weapons."

>1. The idea that Saddam might not have WMD is about as likely as my ability to project myself into
> a Roadrunner cartoon, and save Wiley Coyote from himself.

Well, we know he had them at one time, because we have the shipping manifests from the US, but there
is also evidence of destruction of much of it. We know he has a lot of depleted uranium, because we
shot it at him, but apart from causing cancer and birth defects we have no evidence he's doing
anything with it.

>Where do you get this stuff? Tell me what you think he's hiding from the inspectors (as documented,
>and as can be inferred from the whole history of rope-a-dope, push a marshmallow as far as it'll
>allow, nonsense). OF COURSE he has WMD! Sheesh! Only that paedophile pervert Scott Ritter thinks he
>doesn't, and Sean Penn.

All this is effectively a citation from the American Journal o Because I Said So. Show me the money!

>2. Which soviet states? Each probably requires a separate policy. Huge difference between Soviet
> Armenia and Georgia. Different population. Different history. Different level of societal
> openness. Different leadership.

Not dsputed. A large and volatile region which indicates a great deal of overseas support and
intervention in order to stop the internecine struggles turning into a potentially nuclear conflict.

>Look, if you don't care about this stuff except to use it as part of some bogus argument against US
>policy in Iraq, just don't bother.

Ah, the good old "bogus" card. Like "bogus" asylum seekers in the UK
- allows you to demonise the entire group and its supporters by extension.

>If you *do* care about it, read up a little on the details.

Strange to relate I spend a lot of time reading up on the details. But you probably wouldn't like
my sources.

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.

 

[Tom Sherman]

Freewheeling wrote:
>
> ... By the way, do you know anything about the current Bush > initiatives to promote and encourage
> open society? You sound like you > don't.

Scott,

I assume you are talking about the recently leaked draft of the revisions [1] to the US Patriot Act
[2] that were being prepared in secret by the Department of Justice?

[1] Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 <
http://www.publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/report.asp?ReportID=502&L1=10&L2=10&L3=0&L4=0&L5=0
>
[2] US Patriot Act - United and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to
Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side) Various HPV's

 

[Tom Sherman]

Freewheeling wrote:
> ...
> 1. The idea that Saddam might not have WMD is about as likely as my ability to project myself into
> a Roadrunner cartoon, and save Wiley Coyote from himself. Where do you get this stuff? Tell me
> what you think he's hiding from the inspectors (as documented, and as can be inferred from the
> whole history of rope-a-dope, push a marshmallow as far as it'll allow, nonsense). OF COURSE he
> has WMD! Sheesh! Only that paedophile pervert Scott Ritter thinks he doesn't, and Sean Penn....

Scott,

So what if Iraq does still have some left over Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)? Would Iraq really
use them first on another country at this point, knowing that the US would respond with massive
military retaliation (and would have both strong domestic and international support for military
action)? Hussein is certainly a brutal thug, but his primary goal is self-preservation as the
leader of Iraq.

As for Iraq continuing to develop WMD's, why not keep a large UN inspection team in Iraq as long as
Hussein is in power? Constant on the ground inspections combined with US satellite and aerial
surveillance would force Iraq to constantly move proscribed materials and equipment around, and
effectively restrict their use in producing WMD's. Better yet, there would be strong international
backing for this approach, and the US could likely get other nations to foot most of the bill. If
Iraq can be effectively contained, why inflame the entire Arab and Muslim worlds with an invasion
that will cause massive (directly and indirectly) civilian casualties, destroy the post WW2 system
of international law, make the US a rouge nation in the eyes of the world that follows the principle
of "Might makes right", and might well lead to a worldwide recession?

What the (proposed) invasion of Iraq is really about is Bush's crusade to remake the rest of the
world, by force if necessary, to fit his corporatist/Christian vision.

As for Scott Ritter, maybe he really is a pedophile. Or could the two incidents have been deliberate
set-ups by the government to destroy his credibility? [1] It would not be the first time dirty
tactics have been used by the US government to try to destroy a political opponent.

[1] The cases were apparently too weak to prosecute.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

"If we are an arrogant nation, they will resent us, if we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll
welcome us." - G.W. Bush, 2000 Inaugural Speech

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sun, 09 Feb 2003 05:50:39 -0600, Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:

>So what if Iraq does still have some left over Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)?

It's like this: in go the weapons inspectors and say "show us your weapons." If Saddam shows them
any weapons, Dubya says "Aha! Weapons!" and invades. If Saddam shows them an empty bunker Dubya says
"Aha! He's not showing the inspectors his weapons!" and invades.

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.

 

[Mike O'Brien]

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]>

| I assume you are talking about the recently leaked draft of the revisions [1] to the US Patriot
| Act [2] that were being prepared in secret by the Department of Justice?

How about a little warning! Geez! I spit coffee all over the computer screen. <g>

1. Proving once and for all that Tom DOES have a sense of humour...

Regards,

Mike O'Brien

At a reduction in gene pool variability rate of 7.5% per generation, how long will it take a town
that has been bypassed by the interstate to breed a country-western singer?

 

[Freewheeling]

"The alliance seems happy to deal with Saudi and Turkey, despite their appalling human rights
records. Diplomacy is OK for them, but not OK for Saddam."

You're just being silly. Turkey has the highest level of civil and political freedom and the
greatest freedom of the press in the Middle East. It also has strong diplomatic and trade ties to
Israel, in spite of having just elected an Islamist regime. What *are* you talking about?

"No, I am pointing out an inconsistency which is glossed over by the powers that be, as they gloss
over the fact that regime change in Iraq would be very convenient for Dubya and his oil company
cronies..."

It would also be pretty "convenient" for the Iraqi people. The notion that we ought to forego regime
change simply because you think it'd be convenient for US oil interests is about as silly an
argument as I've ever heard. Not to mention that you're misinformed about the oil motivations. We'd
have no problem negotiating terms on oil with Saddam favorable to us, if that were the priority. In
fact we *have* better terms with Saddam, than with Libya, Iran or a number of other oil producing
countries so by that logic we're wasting our time and resources on Iraq.

"You are welcome to that opinion if it allows you to rationalise away dissenting opinions, but I am
definitely more liberal than socialist. Which would place me, of course, at the extreme left of US
politics, where the parties are of the right and the extreme right (much like the two main parties
in the UK these days)."

Suggest you find out what the term "liberalism" means. Indivdual sovereignty, the defining condition
of liberty and therefore liberalism is simply incompatible with socialism. Since the US was founded
exclusively on liberal principles, codified specifically in the Bill of Rights and mentioned
specifically in the Declaration of Independence, it's an iron-clad exclusion of the politics of
socialism. And *that's* the real conflict that lies behind anti-Americanism. That, and a healthy
dose of envy. But believe what you like.

"All this is effectively a citation from the American Journal o Because I Said So. Show me
the money!"

I just don't know why you can't make an inference from behavior. If you have a gun to a criminal's
head, and he refuses to remove his hand from behind his back it'd be rather stupid to not to insist
that the weapon you know is there be seen and removed before you holster *your* weapon. And that's a
precise analogy to what we have here. Start using your noggin a little.

"Not dsputed. A large and volatile region which indicates a great deal of overseas support and
intervention in order to stop the internecine struggles turning into a potentially nuclear
conflict."

Nonetheless, Kazakhstan is an excellent example of a country that *complied* with an inspection
regime designed to verify disarmament, as Iraq ought to have done.

"Ah, the good old "bogus" card. Like "bogus" asylum seekers in the UK
- allows you to demonise the entire group and its supporters by extension."

Bogus because you keep raising the same set of comparisons and examples in spite of their
irrelevance, or having never dealt with the obvious weaknesses and problems in your own argument.
(See above.)

"Strange to relate I spend a lot of time reading up on the details. But you probably wouldn't like
my sources."

If you read much Chomsky you're being propagandized and distracted rather than informed. Try Robert
Kaplan, either "The Arabists" or "Eastward to Tartary." A lot more fun to read that that chowderhead
Chomsky, too.

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

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 9 Feb 2003 04:19:27 -0500, "Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >http://www.gulfnews.com/Articles/print.asp?ArticleID=76642
>
> Ah, Colin Powell - a well-known independent source, obviously.
>
> >"So why are the US not pressing Kuwait to replace the Emir with a properly constituted
> >democracy?"
>
> >That's such a politically naive statement, that I won't even respond. Do you *know* anything
> >about Kuwait? The UAE? What do you think it takes
to
> >establish a "properly constituted democracy?" Fairy dust?
>
> The point is the world is full of dictators, but only those with oil seem to attract the attention
> of the West. What about Mugabe? His "election" was even more rigged than Dubya's, but we aren't
> sending the troops in.
>
> >>"And why are the US not challenging the Saudis on the human rights
record
> >>and lack of democracy?"
> > I believe we are, although it's not high profile at the moment.
>
> The alliance seems happy to deal with Saudi and Turkey, despite their appalling human rights
> records. Diplomacy is OK for them, but not OK for Saddam.
>
> >You sound like you're willing to fault us because we don't do everything,
instantly.
> >And then you fault us because we do too much.
>
> No, I am pointing out an inconsistency which is glossed over by the powers that be, as they
> gloss over the fact that regime change in Iraq would be very convenient for Dubya and his oil
> company cronies (as regime change in Afghanisatan has already been, apparently). The fact that
> they are not open about this stuff leads me to be suspicious of their motives. Which is what
> I've said all along.
> >>"Not for me, and nothing to do with my point here."
>
> >I don't believe it. I think the policy division is between classical liberalism on the one hand,
> >and those with a nostalgic commitment to socialism on the other... though it's not quite PC to
> >give it that label yet.
>
> You are welcome to that opinion if it allows you to rationalise away dissenting opinions, but I am
> definitely more liberal than socialist. Which would place me, of course, at the extreme left of US
> politics, where the parties are of the right and the extreme right (much like the two main parties
> in the UK these days).
>
> >But the anti-Americanism in Europe, as well as the domestic variety here in the states, is coming
> >from that "well if we only gave socialism a real chance" crowd.
>
> Over here it's coming from a huge range of people. Uneasiness over US cuture is a much wider issue
> than the Gulf wars. You don't have to be a socialist to be unhappy about the US' disporportionate
> use of natural resources, for example.
>
> >And they do, on some level, all recognize liberalism as the enemy, because it is... to them.
>
> You're projecting.
>
> >"Which is fine, but why is the US intervening in the case of Saddam, who has no proven weapons of
> >mass destruction, and not in the former Soviet states, many of whom undoubtedly have functioning
> >nuclear weapons."
>
> >1. The idea that Saddam might not have WMD is about as likely as my
ability
> >to project myself into a Roadrunner cartoon, and save Wiley Coyote from himself.
>
> Well, we know he had them at one time, because we have the shipping manifests from the US, but
> there is also evidence of destruction of much of it. We know he has a lot of depleted uranium,
> because we shot it at him, but apart from causing cancer and birth defects we have no evidence
> he's doing anything with it.
>
> >Where do you get this stuff? Tell me what you think he's hiding from the inspectors (as
> >documented, and as can be inferred from the whole history of rope-a-dope, push a marshmallow as
> >far as it'll allow,
nonsense).
> >OF COURSE he has WMD! Sheesh! Only that paedophile pervert Scott Ritter thinks he doesn't, and
> >Sean Penn.
>
> All this is effectively a citation from the American Journal o Because I Said So. Show me
> the money!
>
> >2. Which soviet states? Each probably requires a separate policy. Huge difference between Soviet
> > Armenia and Georgia. Different population. Different history. Different level of societal
> > openness. Different leadership.
>
> Not dsputed. A large and volatile region which indicates a great deal of overseas support and
> intervention in order to stop the internecine struggles turning into a potentially nuclear
> conflict.
>
> >Look, if you don't care about this stuff except to use it as part of some bogus argument against
> >US policy in Iraq, just don't bother.
>
> Ah, the good old "bogus" card. Like "bogus" asylum seekers in the UK
> - allows you to demonise the entire group and its supporters by extension.
>
> >If you *do* care about it, read up a little on the details.
>
> Strange to relate I spend a lot of time reading up on the details. But you probably wouldn't like
> my sources.
>
> 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.

 

[Freewheeling]

No, I'm talking about an effective doubling of the aid and development funds awarded to countries
with an improving record in civil, political and press freedom, together with a whole range of
similar incentives.

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

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> Freewheeling wrote:
> >
> > ... By the way, do you know anything about the current Bush >
initiatives to promote and encourage open society? You sound like you > don't.
>
> Scott,
>
> I assume you are talking about the recently leaked draft of the revisions [1] to the US Patriot
> Act [2] that were being prepared in secret by the Department of Justice?
>
> [1] Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 <
>
http://www.publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/report.asp?ReportID=502&L1=10&L2=10&L3
=&L4=0&L5=0
> >
> [2] US Patriot Act - United and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to
> Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act
>
> Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side) Various HPV's

 

[Freewheeling]

Tom:

If they currently had an *effective* strategic capability they wouldn't be playing this game of hide
and seek at all. The danger, fortunately, isn't what they have at the moment but what they're
working on. And even if we were, by some unaccountable miracle, to remove *all* their current
capability the fact that they could simply utilized their knowledge base and ability to bypass the
economic sanctions to get going again represents an ongoing political and military problem.

Furthermore, they need not have an effective strategic capability to destroy a city. A container the
size of a refrigerator, hidden in a shipping container at a major port could do it, on the nuclear
side. Even simpler if they employ biological or chemical.
--
--Scott [email protected] Cut the "tail" to send email.

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> Freewheeling wrote:
> > ...
> > 1. The idea that Saddam might not have WMD is about as likely as my
ability
> > to project myself into a Roadrunner cartoon, and save Wiley Coyote from himself. Where do you
> > get this stuff? Tell me what you think he's
hiding
> > from the inspectors (as documented, and as can be inferred from the
whole
> > history of rope-a-dope, push a marshmallow as far as it'll allow,
nonsense).
> > OF COURSE he has WMD! Sheesh! Only that paedophile pervert Scott
Ritter
> > thinks he doesn't, and Sean Penn....
>
> Scott,
>
> So what if Iraq does still have some left over Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)? Would Iraq
> really use them first on another country at this point, knowing that the US would respond with
> massive military retaliation (and would have both strong domestic and international support for
> military action)? Hussein is certainly a brutal thug, but his primary goal is self-preservation as
> the leader of Iraq.
>
> As for Iraq continuing to develop WMD's, why not keep a large UN inspection team in Iraq as long
> as Hussein is in power? Constant on the ground inspections combined with US satellite and aerial
> surveillance would force Iraq to constantly move proscribed materials and equipment around, and
> effectively restrict their use in producing WMD's. Better yet, there would be strong international
> backing for this approach, and the US could likely get other nations to foot most of the bill. If
> Iraq can be effectively contained, why inflame the entire Arab and Muslim worlds with an invasion
> that will cause massive (directly and indirectly) civilian casualties, destroy the post WW2 system
> of international law, make the US a rouge nation in the eyes of the world that follows the
> principle of "Might makes right", and might well lead to a worldwide recession?
>
> What the (proposed) invasion of Iraq is really about is Bush's crusade to remake the rest of the
> world, by force if necessary, to fit his corporatist/Christian vision.
>
> As for Scott Ritter, maybe he really is a pedophile. Or could the two incidents have been
> deliberate set-ups by the government to destroy his credibility? [1] It would not be the first
> time dirty tactics have been used by the US government to try to destroy a political opponent.
>
> [1] The cases were apparently too weak to prosecute.
>
> Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)
>
> "If we are an arrogant nation, they will resent us, if we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll
> welcome us." - G.W. Bush, 2000 Inaugural Speech