Ride an SUB not an SUV



"george conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "george conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "Scott M. Kozel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I see you've learned one of George Conklin's less admirable
>>>>> techniques...If
>>>>> someone disagrees with you or questions you further, declare the
>>>>> comment/question irrelevant, drivel, or nonsensical. Nice :)
>>>>
>>>> Because George is tired of seeing the same refuted arguments
>>>> posted over and over again. After a certain point there is
>>>> no need to be polite.
>>>
>>> It is like talking to religious fanatics. No amount of good research
>>> ever can change beliefs, espeically when no one even bother to look at
>>> probability and risk. If you post a refereed article, they just say,
>>> "You already posted that." After that, they back to whatever horse they
>>> were riding.

>>
>> Yes, that's exactly how it feels to try to debate with you.
>>

>
> You just can't stand refereed sources over your own sad emotions.


You as well...
 
"george conklin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote
> > "george conklin" <[email protected]> wrote
> >> "Scott M. Kozel" <[email protected]> wrote
> >>> "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I see you've learned one of George Conklin's less admirable
> >>>> techniques...If
> >>>> someone disagrees with you or questions you further, declare the
> >>>> comment/question irrelevant, drivel, or nonsensical. Nice :)
> >>>
> >>> Because George is tired of seeing the same refuted arguments
> >>> posted over and over again. After a certain point there is
> >>> no need to be polite.
> >>
> >> It is like talking to religious fanatics. No amount of good research
> >> ever can change beliefs, espeically when no one even bother to look at
> >> probability and risk. If you post a refereed article, they just say,
> >> "You already posted that." After that, they back to whatever horse they
> >> were riding.

> >
> > Yes, that's exactly how it feels to try to debate with you.

>
> You just can't stand refereed sources over your own sad emotions.


She just can't stand refereed sources over her own emotional outbursts.
 
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Matthew T. Russotto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Clark F Morris <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >The US took on a responsibility to those who cooperated with it after
> >the invasion. How it treats those people may determine how US troops
> >are treated in the future. Many people are risking their lives daily
> >to make Iraq work. I for one don't want to see them left to the
> >tender mercies of the various groups directing the suicide bombers.

>
> Iraq can't work. As soon as the US leaves, the civil war will heat up
> full time and continue until some group hostile to the US comes out on
> top. This is inevitable, unless the US maintains the occupation
> indefinitely.
>

As soon as the US leaves, the various parties realize there's nobody to
"protect" them and sit down and negotiate. Al Qaeda gets thrown out of
Iraq - if not killed first.

Currently, nearly ALL groups in Iraq are hostile to the US.
 
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> "Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> > "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in

message
> >> > news:[email protected]...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > Do stay on track - the issue is whether we spend hundreds of
> >> >> > billions
> >> >> > of
> >> >> > dollars on Iraqi's or whether we spend a tenth of that on our own
> >> > people.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > (and yes, there are reports that elections are not particularly

fair
> > in
> >> >> > LA.)
> >> >>
> >> >> Then why did you bring up your feeling that the people of Louisiana
> >> >> are
> >> >> somehow downtrodden in a way that Mississippians aren't?
> >> >
> >> > Your question is nonsensical.
> >>
> >> Obviously you don't have an answer then.
> >>

> > No, your question is nonsensical in this context. Your question might

be
> > more appropriate in context with the US Attorneys firings that are in

the
> > news.

>
> I see you've learned one of George Conklin's less admirable

techniques...If
> someone disagrees with you or questions you further, declare the
> comment/question irrelevant, drivel, or nonsensical. Nice :)
>

Then suppose you detail that relevance for us?
 
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Scott M. Kozel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > I see you've learned one of George Conklin's less admirable

techniques...If
> > someone disagrees with you or questions you further, declare the
> > comment/question irrelevant, drivel, or nonsensical. Nice :)

>
> Because George is tired of seeing the same refuted arguments
> posted over and over again. After a certain point there is
> no need to be polite.


If George was really tired of those "arguments", he wouldn't be here posting
stuff that is 60% gibberish, 35% lies, and 5% opinion.
 
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Scott M. Kozel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "george conklin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote
> > > "george conklin" <[email protected]> wrote
> > >> "Scott M. Kozel" <[email protected]> wrote
> > >>> "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> I see you've learned one of George Conklin's less admirable
> > >>>> techniques...If
> > >>>> someone disagrees with you or questions you further, declare the
> > >>>> comment/question irrelevant, drivel, or nonsensical. Nice :)
> > >>>
> > >>> Because George is tired of seeing the same refuted arguments
> > >>> posted over and over again. After a certain point there is
> > >>> no need to be polite.
> > >>
> > >> It is like talking to religious fanatics. No amount of good research
> > >> ever can change beliefs, espeically when no one even bother to look

at
> > >> probability and risk. If you post a refereed article, they just say,
> > >> "You already posted that." After that, they back to whatever horse

they
> > >> were riding.
> > >
> > > Yes, that's exactly how it feels to try to debate with you.

> >
> > You just can't stand refereed sources over your own sad emotions.

>
> She just can't stand refereed sources over her own emotional outbursts.


She's noticed that Conklin's "refereed source" don't say what he claims they
say.
 
"Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" <[email protected]> wrote
> > "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > I see you've learned one of George Conklin's less admirable techniques...If
> > > someone disagrees with you or questions you further, declare the
> > > comment/question irrelevant, drivel, or nonsensical. Nice :)

> >
> > Because George is tired of seeing the same refuted arguments
> > posted over and over again. After a certain point there is
> > no need to be polite.

>
> If George was really tired of those "arguments", he wouldn't be here posting
> stuff that is 60% gibberish, 35% lies, and 5% opinion.


P-K-B. That's about what -you- do, Leroy.
 
"Scott M. Kozel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "george conklin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote
>> > "george conklin" <[email protected]> wrote
>> >> "Scott M. Kozel" <[email protected]> wrote
>> >>> "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> I see you've learned one of George Conklin's less admirable
>> >>>> techniques...If
>> >>>> someone disagrees with you or questions you further, declare the
>> >>>> comment/question irrelevant, drivel, or nonsensical. Nice :)
>> >>>
>> >>> Because George is tired of seeing the same refuted arguments
>> >>> posted over and over again. After a certain point there is
>> >>> no need to be polite.
>> >>
>> >> It is like talking to religious fanatics. No amount of good research
>> >> ever can change beliefs, espeically when no one even bother to look at
>> >> probability and risk. If you post a refereed article, they just say,
>> >> "You already posted that." After that, they back to whatever horse
>> >> they
>> >> were riding.
>> >
>> > Yes, that's exactly how it feels to try to debate with you.

>>
>> You just can't stand refereed sources over your own sad emotions.

>
> She just can't stand refereed sources over her own emotional outbursts.


Ooh, a man with a gift for restatement. I like (not).
 
"Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> -
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> > "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]...
>> >>
>> >> "Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> news:[email protected]...
>> >> > "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in

> message
>> >> > news:[email protected]...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:[email protected]...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> > Do stay on track - the issue is whether we spend hundreds of
>> >> >> > billions
>> >> >> > of
>> >> >> > dollars on Iraqi's or whether we spend a tenth of that on our own
>> >> > people.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > (and yes, there are reports that elections are not particularly

> fair
>> > in
>> >> >> > LA.)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Then why did you bring up your feeling that the people of Louisiana
>> >> >> are
>> >> >> somehow downtrodden in a way that Mississippians aren't?
>> >> >
>> >> > Your question is nonsensical.
>> >>
>> >> Obviously you don't have an answer then.
>> >>
>> > No, your question is nonsensical in this context. Your question might

> be
>> > more appropriate in context with the US Attorneys firings that are in

> the
>> > news.

>>
>> I see you've learned one of George Conklin's less admirable

> techniques...If
>> someone disagrees with you or questions you further, declare the
>> comment/question irrelevant, drivel, or nonsensical. Nice :)
>>

> Then suppose you detail that relevance for us?


That's what I was asking you to do.
 
dgk wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 10:21:47 -0500, [email protected]
> (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Clark F Morris <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> The US took on a responsibility to those who cooperated with it after
>>> the invasion. How it treats those people may determine how US troops
>>> are treated in the future. Many people are risking their lives daily
>>> to make Iraq work. I for one don't want to see them left to the
>>> tender mercies of the various groups directing the suicide bombers.

>> Iraq can't work. As soon as the US leaves, the civil war will heat up
>> full time and continue until some group hostile to the US comes out on
>> top. This is inevitable, unless the US maintains the occupation
>> indefinitely.

>
> I disagree completely. It doesn't really matter until our government
> is out of power, because they have no intention of ever leaving Iraq.
> That's what the 14 permanent bases is all about.


We do have about 21 more months of 'you know who' and his 'hunting'
buddy, so that is how long we will have too many troops there and not at
home.
>
> But, assuming we do withdraw the military, things will likely come
> together in Iraq, although perhaps not to the liking of former US
> corporation Haliburton.
>
> Turkey will not allow the Kurds an independent country so they will
> have to negotiate. Saudi Arabia will not allow the Sunnis to be denied
> oil wealth so the Shias and Kurds will have to negotiate. Iran will
> back the Shia, so the Kurds and Sunnis will have to negotiate.


They all hate us, but they damn sure won't stop taking our money.
>
> None of them have a use for Al Queda, so all 1000 foreigners will be
> leaving and heading back to Afghanistan where our oil industry puppet
> Karzid has just assured us that the Taliban are defeated. That's the
> guy who can't leave Kabul but as long as Occidental Petroleum is
> happy, that's all that really matters anyway, right?
>
> Nope, they all know what this is about, which is more than I can say
> for the US public, although most of them are figuring it out. It is,
> and always was, about controlling Iraq's oil. Once we're gone, they'll
> work it out.


Yeah,
THEY can work it out, and we get to figure how to re-integrate a lot of
National Guard troops to civilian life. Add tens of thousands of new
amputees' and we have to support them for life if it was serious enough.
How come the National Guard never got to call up Bush Jr.???
Bill Baka
 
"Scott M. Kozel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "george conklin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote
>> > "george conklin" <[email protected]> wrote
>> >> "Scott M. Kozel" <[email protected]> wrote
>> >>> "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> I see you've learned one of George Conklin's less admirable
>> >>>> techniques...If
>> >>>> someone disagrees with you or questions you further, declare the
>> >>>> comment/question irrelevant, drivel, or nonsensical. Nice :)
>> >>>
>> >>> Because George is tired of seeing the same refuted arguments
>> >>> posted over and over again. After a certain point there is
>> >>> no need to be polite.
>> >>
>> >> It is like talking to religious fanatics. No amount of good research
>> >> ever can change beliefs, espeically when no one even bother to look at
>> >> probability and risk. If you post a refereed article, they just say,
>> >> "You already posted that." After that, they back to whatever horse
>> >> they
>> >> were riding.
>> >
>> > Yes, that's exactly how it feels to try to debate with you.

>>
>> You just can't stand refereed sources over your own sad emotions.

>
> She just can't stand refereed sources over her own emotional outbursts.


Real research takes time. Planners don't do research. They just have
policies. It is really sad.
 
"Scott M. Kozel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> "Scott M. Kozel" <[email protected]> wrote
>> > "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I see you've learned one of George Conklin's less admirable
>> > > techniques...If
>> > > someone disagrees with you or questions you further, declare the
>> > > comment/question irrelevant, drivel, or nonsensical. Nice :)
>> >
>> > Because George is tired of seeing the same refuted arguments
>> > posted over and over again. After a certain point there is
>> > no need to be polite.

>>
>> If George was really tired of those "arguments", he wouldn't be here
>> posting
>> stuff that is 60% gibberish, 35% lies, and 5% opinion.

>
> P-K-B. That's about what -you- do, Leroy.


That's for sure. From a man whose job used to be cutting down our
forests, but seems unemployed now.
 
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 10:21:47 -0500, [email protected]
(Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>Clark F Morris <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>The US took on a responsibility to those who cooperated with it after
>>the invasion. How it treats those people may determine how US troops
>>are treated in the future. Many people are risking their lives daily
>>to make Iraq work. I for one don't want to see them left to the
>>tender mercies of the various groups directing the suicide bombers.

>
>Iraq can't work. As soon as the US leaves, the civil war will heat up
>full time and continue until some group hostile to the US comes out on
>top. This is inevitable, unless the US maintains the occupation
>indefinitely.


I disagree completely. It doesn't really matter until our government
is out of power, because they have no intention of ever leaving Iraq.
That's what the 14 permanent bases is all about.

But, assuming we do withdraw the military, things will likely come
together in Iraq, although perhaps not to the liking of former US
corporation Haliburton.

Turkey will not allow the Kurds an independent country so they will
have to negotiate. Saudi Arabia will not allow the Sunnis to be denied
oil wealth so the Shias and Kurds will have to negotiate. Iran will
back the Shia, so the Kurds and Sunnis will have to negotiate.

None of them have a use for Al Queda, so all 1000 foreigners will be
leaving and heading back to Afghanistan where our oil industry puppet
Karzid has just assured us that the Taliban are defeated. That's the
guy who can't leave Kabul but as long as Occidental Petroleum is
happy, that's all that really matters anyway, right?

Nope, they all know what this is about, which is more than I can say
for the US public, although most of them are figuring it out. It is,
and always was, about controlling Iraq's oil. Once we're gone, they'll
work it out.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Baxter <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Matthew T. Russotto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Iraq can't work. As soon as the US leaves, the civil war will heat up
>> full time and continue until some group hostile to the US comes out on
>> top. This is inevitable, unless the US maintains the occupation
>> indefinitely.
>>

>As soon as the US leaves, the various parties realize there's nobody to
>"protect" them and sit down and negotiate.


Now there's fantasy for you.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
dgk <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 10:21:47 -0500, [email protected]
>(Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>>
>>Iraq can't work. As soon as the US leaves, the civil war will heat up
>>full time and continue until some group hostile to the US comes out on
>>top. This is inevitable, unless the US maintains the occupation
>>indefinitely.

>
>I disagree completely. It doesn't really matter until our government
>is out of power, because they have no intention of ever leaving Iraq.
>That's what the 14 permanent bases is all about.
>
>But, assuming we do withdraw the military, things will likely come
>together in Iraq, although perhaps not to the liking of former US
>corporation Haliburton.
>
>Turkey will not allow the Kurds an independent country so they will
>have to negotiate. Saudi Arabia will not allow the Sunnis to be denied
>oil wealth so the Shias and Kurds will have to negotiate. Iran will
>back the Shia, so the Kurds and Sunnis will have to negotiate.


Another one believing in the fantasy of Iraq being filled with a bunch
of reasonable groups with reasonable aims who are only engaging in
violence because of the bad old United States.

Yeah, right. Nobody "has to" negotiate with anyone. If Turkey won't
allow the Kurds to set up an independent country, and the Kurds want
that bad enough, they don't have to negotiate; they can fight. Even if
Saudi Arabia doesn't like what the Shiites are doing, Saudi Arabia
lacks the military might to do anything about it. So the Sunnis and
the Shiites can continue to fight. And they'll both fight the Kurds
and the Turks. And that's not even considering the fighting within
those groups.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
 
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> dgk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 10:21:47 -0500, [email protected]
>> (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>>> Iraq can't work. As soon as the US leaves, the civil war will heat up
>>> full time and continue until some group hostile to the US comes out on
>>> top. This is inevitable, unless the US maintains the occupation
>>> indefinitely.

>> I disagree completely. It doesn't really matter until our government
>> is out of power, because they have no intention of ever leaving Iraq.
>> That's what the 14 permanent bases is all about.
>>
>> But, assuming we do withdraw the military, things will likely come
>> together in Iraq, although perhaps not to the liking of former US
>> corporation Haliburton.
>>
>> Turkey will not allow the Kurds an independent country so they will
>> have to negotiate. Saudi Arabia will not allow the Sunnis to be denied
>> oil wealth so the Shias and Kurds will have to negotiate. Iran will
>> back the Shia, so the Kurds and Sunnis will have to negotiate.

>
> Another one believing in the fantasy of Iraq being filled with a bunch
> of reasonable groups with reasonable aims who are only engaging in
> violence because of the bad old United States.
>
> Yeah, right. Nobody "has to" negotiate with anyone. If Turkey won't
> allow the Kurds to set up an independent country, and the Kurds want
> that bad enough, they don't have to negotiate; they can fight. Even if
> Saudi Arabia doesn't like what the Shiites are doing, Saudi Arabia
> lacks the military might to do anything about it. So the Sunnis and
> the Shiites can continue to fight. And they'll both fight the Kurds
> and the Turks. And that's not even considering the fighting within
> those groups.


There's always gas to eliminate the problem and leave the buildings
standing. I would vote for about 10 Megatons each over Baghdad and
Tehran but that might be politically incorrect to the Russians who would
get a bit of fallout.
We have now been there longer than WWII and accomplished much less,
unless bankrupting the country counts for something.
Bill Baka
 
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 04:17:17 -0700, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:

>dgk wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 10:21:47 -0500, [email protected]
>> (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> Clark F Morris <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> The US took on a responsibility to those who cooperated with it after
>>>> the invasion. How it treats those people may determine how US troops
>>>> are treated in the future. Many people are risking their lives daily
>>>> to make Iraq work. I for one don't want to see them left to the
>>>> tender mercies of the various groups directing the suicide bombers.
>>> Iraq can't work. As soon as the US leaves, the civil war will heat up
>>> full time and continue until some group hostile to the US comes out on
>>> top. This is inevitable, unless the US maintains the occupation
>>> indefinitely.

>>
>> I disagree completely. It doesn't really matter until our government
>> is out of power, because they have no intention of ever leaving Iraq.
>> That's what the 14 permanent bases is all about.

>
>We do have about 21 more months of 'you know who' and his 'hunting'
>buddy, so that is how long we will have too many troops there and not at
>home.
>>


I don't know if that's the case. The Democrats are really controlled
by the same corporate interests as the Republicans. Well, most of the
Democrats, certainly Hillary. I think the original plan, as advanced
by the Project for a New American Century, was to install a government
friendly to "American" interests. Now, my interests are not the same
as those of GE, ADM, Halliburton, etc. But, let's face it, until
things change dramatically our way of life requires big oil.

But Chalabi, who was supposed to be the front of the friendly
government, proved to have other interests, apparently those of Iran.

The most astonishing thing to me was that, even before this all broke,
our big ally in Iraq was the Committee for the Islamic Revolution in
Iraq. I mean really, we overthrew a guy who was a secular bulwark
against Islamic extremism and replaced him with, what?
 
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:14:56 -0500, [email protected]
(Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>dgk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 10:21:47 -0500, [email protected]
>>(Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>>>
>>>Iraq can't work. As soon as the US leaves, the civil war will heat up
>>>full time and continue until some group hostile to the US comes out on
>>>top. This is inevitable, unless the US maintains the occupation
>>>indefinitely.

>>
>>I disagree completely. It doesn't really matter until our government
>>is out of power, because they have no intention of ever leaving Iraq.
>>That's what the 14 permanent bases is all about.
>>
>>But, assuming we do withdraw the military, things will likely come
>>together in Iraq, although perhaps not to the liking of former US
>>corporation Haliburton.
>>
>>Turkey will not allow the Kurds an independent country so they will
>>have to negotiate. Saudi Arabia will not allow the Sunnis to be denied
>>oil wealth so the Shias and Kurds will have to negotiate. Iran will
>>back the Shia, so the Kurds and Sunnis will have to negotiate.

>
>Another one believing in the fantasy of Iraq being filled with a bunch
>of reasonable groups with reasonable aims who are only engaging in
>violence because of the bad old United States.
>


Most folks around the world want only two things, a place to live and
a job. Islam, for the most part, is a peaceful religion. Extremists
exist in all types of religions and exploit them for their own
agendas. Remove the US occupation and the extremists will be on the
outs.

Look at Iran. Before we invaded Iraq, the mullahs were clinging to
power and there were large pro-western demonstrations. As soon as we
invaded, the mullahs were firmly back in power.

Matthew, seriously, what do you thing the invasion of Iraq was all
about? The fact that I even have to ask that question says a lot.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
dgk <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:14:56 -0500, [email protected]
>(Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>
>>
>>Another one believing in the fantasy of Iraq being filled with a bunch
>>of reasonable groups with reasonable aims who are only engaging in
>>violence because of the bad old United States.

>
>Most folks around the world want only two things, a place to live and
>a job. Islam, for the most part, is a peaceful religion. Extremists
>exist in all types of religions and exploit them for their own
>agendas. Remove the US occupation and the extremists will be on the
>outs.


Fantasy. Utter fantasy. Remove the US occupation and you still have left
every grudge, every grievance, every complaint that one Iraqi group
has against another, not to mention the complaints they have with
Iraq's neighbors (and Iraq's neighbors likely ambitions in Iraq). The
idea that Iraq is filled with reasonable people turned to radicalism
by the US occupation is simply a fairy tale.

>Look at Iran. Before we invaded Iraq, the mullahs were clinging to
>power and there were large pro-western demonstrations. As soon as we
>invaded, the mullahs were firmly back in power.


Before we invaded Iraq, the mullahs in Iran had been in power for many
years, and they still remain so. They were never in any danger of
being ousted.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
 
On Apr 9, 8:35 pm, "Fred G. Mackey" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Head wrote:
> > On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 07:09:23 GMT, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> >>So why are these people driving these lame ass SUV's?

>
> >>Again.

>
> > People drive lame-ass SUV's because they occasionally need one and only have
> > money enough for 1 vehicle. They occasionally need one because:

>
> That's the reason some people drive them. Others drive them for no good
> reason other than we have a thing called freedom in the US.


I'd call it "freedom to pollute"... But should there be such a
freedom, or freedom should be better understood to mean...

Herbert J. Muller. (1964). Freedom in the Western World:
>From the Dark Ages to the Rise of Democracy

"I am adhering to the broad but relatively neutral definition of
freedom as 'the condition of being able to choose and carry out
purposes.' This includes the most common meaning of the absence of
external constraints, or freedom from coercion; the idea of actual
ability with available means, or effective freedom to do what one
wishes; and the assumption of a power of deliberate choice between
known alternatives, involving freedom of mind and spirit, which is
hardest to specify but still distinguishes human freedom from the
ability of other animals to carry out their instinctive purposes. In
the words of Christian Bay, 'A person is free to the extent that he
has the capacity, the opportunity, and the incentive to give
expression to what is in him and to develop his potentialities.'

"So defined, I repeat, freedom means concretely freedoms of various
kinds, which may be at least roughly specified. Among the most
fundamental is political freedom, involving some means of control of
rulers by the ruled, some protection of the individual against
government by legal rights or civil liberties."

But for most of history...

The ruling powers tended to adopt one or a combination of these:

plutocracy - rule through wealth
militarism - rule through military power
sacerdotalism - rule through religious dogma and practice
oligarchy - rule through a small cabal

"In general, the common people enjoyed little if any freedom, serving
at the behest of their rulers. The rulers kept their subjects under
control through conditioning them with religions which sanctioned the
ruler's power. Common people were forced to work at mind- and body-
destroying jobs which gave them no time or energy for reflective
thought or unified reform activities."

So the "freedom" to drive an SUV (Supersized Unnecessary Vehicle) has
more to do with the freedom MONEY buys you (PLUTOCRACY) and little to
do with human freedom (DEMOCRACY), in which we still may not do much
better than the cavemen, with due respect to those who didn't use the
stick as a way of life. ;)

"The outstanding ingredient which the Greeks contributed to the
evolution of human freedom was the concept of democracy: the rule of
citizens. The idea now became a part of human thought: that common
people could and should govern themselves, without having to bow to a
military, political, economic, or religious ruler. This concept was to
play an important role throughout modern history, as people returned
to the idea that they could rule themselves. As we shall see, this
ideal of citizen self-rule is still unrealized, even in twenty-first-
century America. However, the ideal continues to have a powerful
influence over human thought and serves as a goal toward which we can
aspire."

http://www.hermes-press.com/history1.htm

So, I guess, FREEDOM COMES IN A BICYCLE, at least democracy does...
 

Similar threads