Re: Why they hate us, was (Re: funny things to do on a bike)



Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Jonesy) wrote:
>
> >You will notice Mark even defends the
> >spewings of Rush Limbaugh, *even after clearly admitting* that he
> >doesn't listen to Rush often. How on earth can you defend something
> >you have not heard yourself? Easy - Rush is conservative, so what he
> >says must be True(tm) and Right(tm). After all, conservatives are
> >never wrong, on anything, ever.

>
> What I said is that he can be entertaining (and he can...) and that
> (contrary to liberal opinion), having Rush state a fact doesn't change
> the veracity of that fact.


Unfortunately, Rush often presents lies as facts, so the problem is
how to tell the difference, and the True Believers (affectionately
known as "Dittoheads") don't even bother to try. For instance, he was
one of the main sources of the lie that Ken Lay had stayed in the
Lincoln Bedroom during the Clinton administration. I personally saw
that lie stated as fact on Limbaugh's website.

JP
 
Frank Krygowski wrote:

> gwhite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>

>
>>> "Less" [taxes] referred to "less than they did before the tax cut."
>>> I'm surprised there was anyone who couldn't figure that out!

>>
>> Just as I thought. Taxes are not to be questioned, they are only to
>> be paid. The guvmint knows what is best for us.

>
> Um... I'm sorry, but you're so deep into a non sequitur that you're
> absolutely impossible to follow.


I follow you. Taxes are to be blindly paid because you are morally
superior to evil rich folks.

>>> > What moron, rich, poor, or otherwise, wouldn't like to pay
>>>
>>>> less taxes?
>>>
>>>
>>> Since you ask: I'd think that people who had more money than they
>>> could ever hope of spending in any reasonable way, and who had some
>>> sense of social conscience, wouldn't care much about paying less taxes.

>>
>>
>> I see, they only need to be as moral (according to your description,
>> of course!), and have the grand social conscience that you do.

>
>
> Personally, I think that avarice is not moral. But that's just the
> opinion of me and several million religious leaders down through the
> ages. Pay us no mind.


Wow. You sure do keep track of a lot of religious leaders. And no, I
don't listen to someone because they are religious, I listen as long as
someone makes sense, which you do not.

>> I have no idea of what "spending in any reasonable way" is.

>
> Let me give you some extreme counter-examples. Read up on the personal
> fortune and spending of Bill Gates. Or, if you prefer history, Louis
> XIV of France. That level of personal luxury is not "spending in a
> reasonable way." How much palace does one person (or small family)
> really need?
>
> There are, and have been, very rich people who lived rather modestly and
> donated much to help others. There are more very rich people who live
> quite ostentatiously. I tend to admire the former.


The question isn't who is admired, or how moral one is regarding
individual wealth (as the judgement goes). The question is about
designing a political system (laws and rights) with the least amount of
defects and is best in terms of tradeoffs. Only a fool claims
perfection. The question is regarding the total balance. On the
balance, it is better to have a few filthy rich folks -- moral or not --
than to head down the road to serfdom: socialism.

> You seem to admire the latter.


You are cracked. I made no statement that could be inferred as admiration.

> Fine. But I don't think my kids and grandkids should be
> facing federal debt to help pay for Gates' mansion.


Give me a ****ing break. You could confiscate all his wealth and not
put a dent in the debt. And by the way, it isn't your kids and
grandkids money that is paying for the mansion, it is his money.
Preposterous!

>> If anything is wrong, it is to unquestionably hand over money to the
>> guvmint if one does not have to.

>
> If _anything_ is wrong? That seems to say that paying taxes ranks close
> to murder.


It causes a concentration of power. I'm not saying there are no
justifiable taxes, there are. My point is that one tactically avoids
concentration of power as much as possible.

> That's a foolish statement, indeed. And your (probably) deliberate
> misspelling doesn't make it sound any more intelligent.


The deliberate misspelling is accorded to your lemming style of "it is
right because they told me it was." Yes, the lemming is certainly lacking.

>>> I'm nowhere close to the salary level that got big dollar amounts
>>> back from Bush's tax cut plan. But, as examples, I _always_ vote for
>>> school levies, library levies, etc.

>>
>> My inclination is *not* to do so...

>
> I'm not surprised. Nor impressed.


You're punching air.

>>> I'm aware, though, that we've had school levies defeated by the
>>> people living in the McMansions out in what were recently
>>> cornfields. They have enough money to buy those places (I don't) but
>>> they don't want to give any of their money to the community.

>>
>> They are giving money to the community by virtue of them simply being
>> there

>
> Absolutely false.


You are off your rocker. You believe they somehow escape property
taxes, income taxes, sales taxes,... etcetera? LOL. Again, it is
simply that they apparently don't pay as much as one who deems himself
on the moral high ground (you) think they should.

>>>> Instead of justifying the taxes _to begin with_, which is the proper
>>>> approach, you prefer to presume that the government is the warden of
>>>> the people: over and above them. This is an abomination to free
>>>> people.
>>>
>>> I think you have very little ideea what I "prefer to presume."

>>
>> You come off like a socialist, which is anti-freedom and anti-noble.

>
> Sorry, but I am not a socialist.


You are.

> You are once again jumping to
> unwarranted conclusions.


Your confiscatory statements can be characterized classic socialist. So
I take it this fall you will be voting The American Socialist Party
(democrat) rather than The American Christian Party (republican). That
must be a tough choice for you: you need to choose between all those
millions of highly moral religious leaders and the socialist way. My
condolances, it must be tough to be in your shoes.

You are not even aware of your own ideological foundations. I can tell
you mine: they "start" (no such real thing) with works like Adam Smith's
_Wealth of Nations_ and the _Federalist Papers_. If you want to attack
the foundations, now you know where to start.

> It's clear to me that you are an ideologue who's not capable of rational
> discussion. Little wonder you don't value education, when it did so
> little for you.


I know ******** when I smell it. It did that for me.

> Buzz off.


Sounds like you've been coasting for a little too long. Time to muscle up.
 
gwhite wrote:
>
>
> I follow you. Taxes are to be blindly paid because you are morally
> superior to evil rich folks.
>


He probably is but that's not the point. It's clear that those people
Frank are talking about wouldn't pay ANYTHING if given the choice. What
the **** is wrong about people paying to best of their ability. I know
plenty of rich democrats and rich republicans, and it sure ain't the
republicans who are contributing to the upkeep of our communities.


>
>
> The question isn't who is admired, or how moral one is regarding
> individual wealth (as the judgement goes). The question is about
> designing a political system (laws and rights) with the least amount of
> defects and is best in terms of tradeoffs. Only a fool claims
> perfection. The question is regarding the total balance. On the
> balance, it is better to have a few filthy rich folks -- moral or not --
> than to head down the road to serfdom: socialism.
>


There's not just a few filthy rich folks, if you haven't noticed the middle
class is disappeaing.

>
> You are off your rocker. You believe they somehow escape property
> taxes, income taxes, sales taxes,... etcetera?


Escape property taxes? No. Sales taxes? Of course not. Income taxes?
Absolutely.

>
> Your confiscatory statements can be characterized classic socialist. So
> I take it this fall you will be voting The American Socialist Party
> (democrat) rather than The American Christian Party (republican). That
> must be a tough choice for you: you need to choose between all those
> millions of highly moral religious leaders


"Millions of highly moral religious leaders"? You're joking, right? Or do
you mean war-mongering, greedy, intolerant, hypocritical Christians that
are so far from Christ's path that it's pathetic?

Greg
 
David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote:
>
> [email protected] says...
> >
> > From http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/9708/msg00394.html :
> >
> > Extinguishing Media: USE METAL-X TYPE EXTINGUISHER, DRY SAND, OR ****.
> > Special Fire Fighting Proc: DON'T USE WATER.
> > Unusual Fire And Expl Hazrds: AUTOIGNITION TEMP: 1472F. PYROPHORIC IN
> > FINELY DIVIDED STATE AS A RESULT OF MACHINING OR GRINDING OPERATIONS.
> > RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL CLASS 7.
> >
> > Dust autoignites at room temperature? Don't use water to extinguish
> > it? Produces a radioactive ash particulate?

>
> No, it autoigintes at 1472F, which is a bit above room temperature.
> Except for the radioactivity, that description applies to many heavy
> metals.


A big chunk of the metal burns in air at that temperature. Uranium
_dust_ (like the stuff that you get when a uranium projectile hits
armor plate at 5000 feet/second) is "pyrophoric", as the quoted
material states, which means it combusts spontaneously in room
temperature air. If you look up some material data like the
OSHA/NIOSH document I referenced earlier, you'll see that specifically
stated.

There are very few common materials that do this.

Chalo Colina
 
"Kyle.B.H" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > It is recursive logic as well as
> > ethically insupportable to suggest that because another could
> > potentially do something to you, that you should do the same thing to
> > them as a preventive.

>
> Not that they could potentially, but that they intend to...big difference.
> Well then in answer to my question (which you again snipped out of your
> reply and failed to answer) ... "If I were pointing a gun to your head,
> wouldn't you shoot me first if you had the opportunity?"


No rational person now believes that this was the case with Iraq.
Most of the world didn't believe it in advance of the hostilities.
Saddam was clearly a guy who acted on his intents. He attacked or
imminently threatened *none* of the countries in the "coalition of the
willing". To suggest that the USA of all countries was at risk of
being attacked by Iraq is ludicrous.

Chalo Colina
 
gwhite wrote:
>
>
>> I follow you. Taxes are to be blindly paid because you are morally

> superior to evil rich folks.


Hmmm. I don't see where I said that. Such a transparent straw man
argument isn't likely to fool anyone with any intelligence.

>> [fk:] Personally, I think that avarice is not moral. But that's just the
>> opinion of me and several million religious leaders down through the
>> ages. Pay us no mind.

>
>
> Wow. You sure do keep track of a lot of religious leaders. And no, I
> don't listen to someone because they are religious, I listen as long as
> someone makes sense, which you do not.


Well, why not be blunt about your opinion? Just tell us: do you think
avarice _is_ moral? Don't be shy!


>
>>> I have no idea of what "spending in any reasonable way" is.

>>
>>
>> Let me give you some extreme counter-examples. Read up on the
>> personal fortune and spending of Bill Gates. Or, if you prefer
>> history, Louis XIV of France. That level of personal luxury is not
>> "spending in a reasonable way." How much palace does one person (or
>> small family) really need?
>>
>> There are, and have been, very rich people who lived rather modestly
>> and donated much to help others. There are more very rich people who
>> live quite ostentatiously. I tend to admire the former.

>
> The question isn't who is admired, or how moral one is regarding
> individual wealth (as the judgement goes).


For me, those are parts of "the question." Clearly, you care much more
about other things - primarily, money in your pocket.

> On the
> balance, it is better to have a few filthy rich folks -- moral or not --
> than to head down the road to serfdom: socialism.


I doubt there is any country on earth that does not "have a few filthy
rich folks." So your fearsome armageddon of socialism ("Horrors! We
won't have the rich!!") seems pretty unlikely.

> You are cracked.


Gosh! I hadn't heard such a witty rebuke since grade 9!


>> [fk:] Fine. But I don't think my kids and grandkids should be
>> facing federal debt to help pay for Gates' mansion.

>
> Give me a ****ing break...


.... but I hear obscenity enough from other low lifes. No need to spew
more.

> You could confiscate all his wealth and not
> put a dent in the debt. And by the way, it isn't your kids and
> grandkids money that is paying for the mansion, it is his money.
> Preposterous!


To spell it out more slowly for you:

Bush's tax cuts went predominanly to Gates and other super-rich. Partly
as a result of those tax cuts, the federal deficity soared. It will
have to be repaid.

In other words, part of the money Gates lavished on his self-cleaning
bathrooms will ultimately be paid to the government by us, and by our kids.

>> [fk:] [You seem] to say that paying taxes ranks
>> close to murder.

>
> It causes a concentration of power.


Then you really _do_ believe paying (at least certain) taxes is nearly
as bad as murder??

> I'm not saying there are no
> justifiable taxes, there are. My point is that one tactically avoids
> concentration of power as much as possible.


That's libertarian nonsense. There will _always_ be concentration of
power. Absent government intervention, power will become concentrated
in those most inclined to violence, and those with the largest amounts
of money. In a short time, those two groups will become one, and will
exercise absolute power. Think of organized crime, for example - and
think of the Mafia running the country.

One main purpose of representative government is to prevent such
dominance by a few. It's not perfect, of course, but I think most
people would rather have a reasonable tax burden used to support, say,
the police and the FBI, rather than turning the country over to the
likes of Al Capone.

>>>> I'm aware, though, that we've had school levies defeated by the
>>>> people living in the McMansions out in what were recently
>>>> cornfields. They have enough money to buy those places (I don't)
>>>> but they don't want to give any of their money to the community.
>>>
>>>
>>> They are giving money to the community by virtue of them simply being
>>> there

>>
>>
>> Absolutely false.

>
>
> You are off your rocker. You believe they somehow escape property
> taxes, income taxes, sales taxes,... etcetera? LOL.


There have been several studies that have shown that expansionist
developments like the ones I described are a net drain on a community
budget. The extension of infrastructure, the increased road
maintenance, the generation of the need for new or larger school
buildings, the need for more safety forces and law enforcement
personnel, all make these things money losers. Simultaneously, they
lower the desirability of housing in most American city centers, and
thereby produce negative effects in those older neighborhoods and inner
suburbs.

So, in effect, they pay some taxes, but they don't pay their way. And
again, they've refused to help with even local school levies on several
occasions.


> Your confiscatory statements can be characterized classic socialist.


It seems clear to me that this is a question of perspective. The last
time I took a survey on my economic views, I placed quite close to the
nation's center. Doubtlessly, you would place at the extreme
libertarian edge. From your viewpoint, Attila the Hun would probably
look like a socialist!

You've found a simple ideology that you can totally embrace. In a way,
that's enviable. It's going to save you lots of headaches - the kind
that come from hard thinking.

So I won't try to convert you to any rational position. It would be a
waste of time, and perhaps a little cruel. You know, similar to
throwing a non-swimmer into deep water.

Any future responses will actually be written for the amusement of other
readers, if any. And I'll try to keep those to a minimum.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]
 
I thought it might be
> >> > interesting to discuss in the context of terrorism
> >> > vs. preemption, between which you seem incapable of
> >> > differentaiting.
> >>
> >> "Preemption" is terrorism by another name, and it is in violation
> >> of all recognized laws of war.

> >
> > That's completely wrong. It is well established that a nation need
> > not wait until an enemy attacks to defend itself.

>
> That would be called "aggression."


But the costs of waiting until attacked have never been as great as they are
now. The justification for preemption is an entirely different equation in
the age of WMD's. Old rules no longer apply.
 
Kyle.B.H wrote:

> I thought it might be
>
>>>>>interesting to discuss in the context of terrorism
>>>>>vs. preemption, between which you seem incapable of
>>>>>differentaiting.
>>>>
>>>>"Preemption" is terrorism by another name, and it is in violation
>>>>of all recognized laws of war.
>>>
>>>That's completely wrong. It is well established that a nation need
>>>not wait until an enemy attacks to defend itself.

>>
>>That would be called "aggression."

>
>
> But the costs of waiting until attacked have never been as great as they are
> now.


I remember the periodic 'nuclear attack' drills in school during the
early '60s where we cowered under our desks and then marched down to the
designated shelter area stocked with the supplies that were supposed
to sustain us until the radiation levels dropped enough to venture
outside. At that time we were told we might have 15 minutes or so of
warning before all major population centers were annihilated in the
event of an enemy first strike. Living in a smaller town but downwind
from numerous ICBM silos we figured we might survive the initial blasts
but the shelter looked woefully inadequate to protect us from the fallout.

What 'cost of waiting' do you think is greater now than it was then?

The justification for preemption is an entirely different equation in
> the age of WMD's. Old rules no longer apply.


And when do you reckon the 'age of WMDs' started? Biological WMDs were
successfully utilized in the Middle Ages and before by flinging diseased
bodies over city walls and by contaminating water supplies. Chemical
WMDs saw widespread use in WWI and nuclear WMDs have been around for
about 60 years now. All three methods were used to much greater effect
in the past than they have been recently (fortunately). So the
international rules of law against preemptive aggression were developed
with recognition of the development and use of WMDs. They should
continue to apply, especially to countries with massive military forces.
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> Kyle.B.H wrote:
>
> > I thought it might be
> >
> >>>>>interesting to discuss in the context of terrorism
> >>>>>vs. preemption, between which you seem incapable of
> >>>>>differentaiting.
> >>>>
> >>>>"Preemption" is terrorism by another name, and it is in violation
> >>>>of all recognized laws of war.
> >>>
> >>>That's completely wrong. It is well established that a nation need
> >>>not wait until an enemy attacks to defend itself.
> >>
> >>That would be called "aggression."

> >
> >
> > But the costs of waiting until attacked have never been as great as they are
> > now.

>
> I remember the periodic 'nuclear attack' drills in school during the
> early '60s where we cowered under our desks and then marched down to the
> designated shelter area stocked with the supplies that were supposed
> to sustain us until the radiation levels dropped enough to venture
> outside. At that time we were told we might have 15 minutes or so of
> warning before all major population centers were annihilated in the
> event of an enemy first strike. Living in a smaller town but downwind
> from numerous ICBM silos we figured we might survive the initial blasts
> but the shelter looked woefully inadequate to protect us from the fallout.
>
> What 'cost of waiting' do you think is greater now than it was then?
>
> The justification for preemption is an entirely different equation in
> > the age of WMD's. Old rules no longer apply.

>
> And when do you reckon the 'age of WMDs' started? Biological WMDs were
> successfully utilized in the Middle Ages and before by flinging diseased
> bodies over city walls and by contaminating water supplies. Chemical
> WMDs saw widespread use in WWI and nuclear WMDs have been around for
> about 60 years now. All three methods were used to much greater effect
> in the past than they have been recently (fortunately). So the
> international rules of law against preemptive aggression were developed
> with recognition of the development and use of WMDs. They should
> continue to apply, especially to countries with massive military forces.
>

And may I add that any sensible preemption strategy requires credible
evidence of imminent danger? In its absence, you could be at war
with any two-bit country with the theoretical capability and
intention to attack.

Hey, wait a minute . . . . isn't that Iraq?

Rick
 
In article <[email protected]>, Java Man wrote:
> And may I add that any sensible preemption strategy requires credible
> evidence of imminent danger?


With the news reports today that the CIA had warned against trusting
Ahmed Chalabi (who, according to the reports, provided much of the bogus
"intelligence" regarding alleged Iraqi WMD programs) from the beginning,
I will grant you permission to add that point. ;) Now it even appears he
was spying for Iran. It is going to be fascinating to watch the reaction
to this turn of events over the next several days.
 
"Kyle.B.H" <[email protected]> writes:

> I thought it might be
>> >> > interesting to discuss in the context of terrorism
>> >> > vs. preemption, between which you seem incapable of
>> >> > differentaiting.
>> >>
>> >> "Preemption" is terrorism by another name, and it is in
>> >> violation of all recognized laws of war.
>> >
>> > That's completely wrong. It is well established that a nation
>> > need not wait until an enemy attacks to defend itself.

>>
>> That would be called "aggression."

>
> But the costs of waiting until attacked have never been as great as
> they are now. The justification for preemption is an entirely
> different equation in the age of WMD's. Old rules no longer apply.


That's the convenient lie being espoused by the neo-conservative
fascists and empire builders inhabiting the inner circle of the White
House these days. "Gee, we've never had to deal with weapons of mass
destruction before, what'll we do? I know, pre-emptive first strike!"

Even though they've reversed course 180 degrees from the Reagan/Bush
to the Bush II adminstrations on every issue but tax cuts, you wanna
know the future that BushCo has created for you? The Middle East will
bleed us dry, and India and China will own what's left within 25
years. We'll be in the same position vis-a-vis world domination that
England is in today. Is that a future you want for your children? It
is the course of every empire in world history: empires end. What is
BushCo trying to do? Establish an unquestioned American Empire
through military superiority, suppression of international dissent,
and economic exploitation of the world's poor. Since they've got TVs
now, the rest of the world is on to us.

You might want to try cracking a history book or two, lest you allow
your nation to repeat the serious errors of the past.
 
Jim West <[email protected]> writes:

> In article <[email protected]>, Java Man wrote:
>> And may I add that any sensible preemption strategy requires
>> credible evidence of imminent danger?

>
> With the news reports today that the CIA had warned against trusting
> Ahmed Chalabi (who, according to the reports, provided much of the
> bogus "intelligence" regarding alleged Iraqi WMD programs) from the
> beginning, I will grant you permission to add that point. ;) Now it
> even appears he was spying for Iran. It is going to be fascinating
> to watch the reaction to this turn of events over the next several
> days.


Ah, the wages of trying to meddle in things you don't understand.
This administration is all hat and no cattle.
 
gwhite <gwhite@hocuspocus_ti.com> writes:

> The question isn't who is admired, or how moral one is regarding
> individual wealth (as the judgement goes). The question is about
> designing a political system (laws and rights) with the least amount
> of defects and is best in terms of tradeoffs. Only a fool claims
> perfection. The question is regarding the total balance. On the
> balance, it is better to have a few filthy rich folks -- moral or
> not -- than to head down the road to serfdom: socialism.


Is it better to be the serf of Bill gates than the serf of a socialist
government? Unfreedom is unfreedom, no matter who is holding the
rains. Unfortunately, binary thinkers like yourself seem incapable of
seeing anything between libertarianism and socialism. Grow up and get
a politcal philosophy that works.
 
"Peter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Kyle.B.H wrote:
>
> > I thought it might be
> >
> >>>>>interesting to discuss in the context of terrorism
> >>>>>vs. preemption, between which you seem incapable of
> >>>>>differentaiting.
> >>>>
> >>>>"Preemption" is terrorism by another name, and it is in violation
> >>>>of all recognized laws of war.
> >>>
> >>>That's completely wrong. It is well established that a nation need
> >>>not wait until an enemy attacks to defend itself.
> >>
> >>That would be called "aggression."

> >
> >
> > But the costs of waiting until attacked have never been as great as they

are
> > now.

>
> I remember the periodic 'nuclear attack' drills in school during the
> early '60s where we cowered under our desks and then marched down to the
> designated shelter area stocked with the supplies that were supposed
> to sustain us until the radiation levels dropped enough to venture
> outside. At that time we were told we might have 15 minutes or so of
> warning before all major population centers were annihilated in the
> event of an enemy first strike. Living in a smaller town but downwind
> from numerous ICBM silos we figured we might survive the initial blasts
> but the shelter looked woefully inadequate to protect us from the fallout.


irrelevant

>
> What 'cost of waiting' do you think is greater now than it was then?
>
> The justification for preemption is an entirely different equation in
> > the age of WMD's. Old rules no longer apply.

>
> And when do you reckon the 'age of WMDs' started? Biological WMDs were
> successfully utilized in the Middle Ages and before by flinging diseased
> bodies over city walls and by contaminating water supplies. Chemical
> WMDs saw widespread use in WWI and nuclear WMDs have been around for
> about 60 years now. All three methods were used to much greater effect
> in the past than they have been recently (fortunately). So the
> international rules of law against preemptive aggression were developed
> with recognition of the development and use of WMDs. They should
> continue to apply, especially to countries with massive military forces.


irrelevant.

Your screed makes no mention whatsoever of MAD. If you don't know what it
is, look it up. MAD no longer applies in the age of stateless terrorism,
especially when the aggressors look forward to their deaths. Preemption is
the only way to truly minimize the threat of a WMD deployment in the US.
 

> >

> And may I add that any sensible preemption strategy requires credible
> evidence of imminent danger? In its absence, you could be at war
> with any two-bit country with the theoretical capability and
> intention to attack.
>
> Hey, wait a minute . . . . isn't that Iraq?



Not true either. The offending country only has to possess WMD's, and
demonstrate the likelihood of sharing them with islamic terrorists (who
have, of course, proven that they woudl love nothing more than to destroy
us.)
 

> >

> And may I add that any sensible preemption strategy requires credible
> evidence of imminent danger? In its absence, you could be at war
> with any two-bit country with the theoretical capability and
> intention to attack.
>
> Hey, wait a minute . . . . isn't that Iraq?



Not true either. The offending country only has to possess WMD's, and
demonstrate the likelihood of sharing them with islamic terrorists (who
have, of course, proven that they woudl love nothing more than to destroy
us.)
 

> >
> > But the costs of waiting until attacked have never been as great as
> > they are now. The justification for preemption is an entirely
> > different equation in the age of WMD's. Old rules no longer apply.

>
> That's the convenient lie being espoused by the neo-conservative
> fascists and empire builders inhabiting the inner circle of the White
> House these days. "Gee, we've never had to deal with weapons of mass
> destruction before, what'll we do? I know, pre-emptive first strike!"


See previous post re MAD. My aplogies for loose phrasing. WMD's don't
change the equation - the nature of the enemy does.
 
"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Kyle.B.H" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > I thought it might be
> >> >> > interesting to discuss in the context of terrorism
> >> >> > vs. preemption, between which you seem incapable of
> >> >> > differentaiting.
> >> >>
> >> >> "Preemption" is terrorism by another name, and it is in
> >> >> violation of all recognized laws of war.
> >> >
> >> > That's completely wrong. It is well established that a nation
> >> > need not wait until an enemy attacks to defend itself.
> >>
> >> That would be called "aggression."

> >
> > But the costs of waiting until attacked have never been as great as
> > they are now. The justification for preemption is an entirely
> > different equation in the age of WMD's. Old rules no longer apply.

>
> That's the convenient lie being espoused by the neo-conservative
> fascists and empire builders inhabiting the inner circle of the White
> House these days. "Gee, we've never had to deal with weapons of mass
> destruction before, what'll we do? I know, pre-emptive first strike!"


I'll boil it down for you.

WMD's exist. There are people that would use them against us in a
heartbeat. Our government is obligated to do everything in its power to
prevent this from happening. This will cost money. Innocents will die.
Soldiers will die. None of your sob stories even enter into the equation.

Why do pacifists like you never imagine this situation? A nuke goes off in
Boston harbor, killing half a million, causing mass chaos throughout the US
as people evacuate big cities. US borders are closed. Massive harm is done
to the US and world economy, tens of millions are laid off as the world
economy grinds to a halt. Nevermind what our retaliation (despite the lack
of an equilateral MAD doctrine) would do to innocents. THE ISLAMISTS ARE
MORE THAN HAPPY TO START WORLD WAR III. They'd all love to die. We are
trying to stop WWIII from happening. I realize that killing thousands to
save millions is not an easy mental excercise.

A few hundred billion spent in the middle east (small potatoes as a % of GDP
compared to WWII), sounds like a bargain, doesn't it? You see, we may be
pissing a lot of muslims off, heck, even creating 'more terrorists', but it
doesn't matter. Nukes and chemical weapons matter, and we have to act
against unfriendly states known to produce and potentially proliferate them,
because a state is what it takes. Two years ago there were 3 states with
the capability and the intent - now there are 2. Everything going on in
Iraq right now is just noise, but if we succeed, then Iran will take care if
itself. Leaving us with one that is an entirely different animal. (and I
suppose Pakistan, which is also a different situation). I odn't suggest we
invade all these countries, but they all have to be dealt with sooner or
later.
 
Kyle.B.H wrote:

> ...
> WMD's exist. There are people that would use them against us in a
> heartbeat. Our government is obligated to do everything in its power to
> prevent this from happening. This will cost money. Innocents will die.
> Soldiers will die. None of your sob stories even enter into the equation....


Why has the Bush II administration done so little to remove the threat
of an unintentional nuclear exchange with Russia? There have already
been several false alarms on the Russian side, and more are likely to
happen as the Russian's early warning systems are outdated and poorly
maintained. The possibility of a false alarm on the US side is smaller,
but still possible.

To prevent an unwanted and unintended nuclear exchange that will
completely destroy the US and Russia (and likely human civilization),
the first priority should be to eliminate ICBM mounted nuclear weapons,
and the second should be to reduce the total number of nuclear weapons
in the world to a level where an exchange would not threaten world
civilization.

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area
 
In article <UQIrc.22609$zw.7083@attbi_s01>, [email protected] says...
>
> > >

> > And may I add that any sensible preemption strategy requires credible
> > evidence of imminent danger? In its absence, you could be at war
> > with any two-bit country with the theoretical capability and
> > intention to attack.
> >
> > Hey, wait a minute . . . . isn't that Iraq?

>
>
> Not true either. The offending country only has to possess WMD's,


missed that on for Iraq.

> and
> demonstrate the likelihood of sharing them with islamic terrorists (who
> have, of course, proven that they woudl love nothing more than to destroy
> us.)
>

As you're drawing up your hit list, be sure to include countries
which protect their WMDs so poorly that they pose an equivalent
threat. Like former USSR countries . . . . see quote below.

"As fears rise over terrorists trying to possess nuclear bombs, a
disturbing trend is emerging in the shadowy world of weapons
smuggling: More thieves are trafficking in plutonium and highly
enriched uranium, the essential materials for a nuclear device," the
Chicago Tribune reported.

"The Tribune noted that "all the trafficking cases since 1999 have
occurred in Europe or the countries of the former Soviet Union."


One more criterion, discussed widely on this newsgroup before the
war, is that to be worthwhile a war must INCREASE US protection
against terrorism, not spawn more terrorists.

How do you think you're doing in Iraq on that score?

Rick