defrancoization

"Callistus Valerius" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Got rid of the mavics, carnacs and looks. I hope my bike, is French free.

I will join and not race the tour de france this year.

RVD

Quoted message said:

There's been a lot of clarity about permissible activities since the flap last summer/fall about
the fellow who declared Saudi Arabia "to be the kernel of evil in

the

Quoted message said:

modern world." The key is, when speaking personally, don't claim to speak for RAND. I had figured
that most would know that if hadn't invoked the name of RAND or what my areas of specialty are
that I wasn't speaking for RAND. Given the displayed questionable logic, I may have assumed too
much from the readers.

I rest my case.

Quoted message said:

Any thing you want me to pass along to Charlie?

Nope. If I'm lucky, he won't remember me.

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Please supply the evidence that Saddam is tied to Al Qaeda. Saddam does

have links to other groups, but Al Qaeda is the only one

Quoted message said:

that matters in this debate because Al Qaeda is the only group which has

attacked the US on our soil.

It seems we have a fundamental disagreement on what is required before one is declared a threat
with which the country must deal. You seem to believe that the only threats that exist with which
the country must deal spawn from those who have previously attacked us. I believe you have to
expand the vision and ask not just "what has been done" but "what could be done" and "what is the
risk to the nation." The former inquiry requires looking at past acts. The latter inquiry requires
looking at past acts, known and surmised intentions, and capabilities. Incidentally, this is not a
new conception of threats to national security. JFK said, "We no longer live in a world where only
the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security." Similarly,
we no longer live in a world where only those who have attacked a nation or those with whom the
former have a clear link constitute a threat to a nation's security. That's why the WMD and the
refusal to relinquish it is important (the WMD raises the risk factor to an intolerable level,
which may not be achieved in the absence of the threat of a WMD attack). That's why the links to
terrorism, including those like Abu Ibrahim who attacked US interests are important. Making the
sorts of judgments that the latter inquiry requires is a difficult task. I know it's easier to curl
into a ball and repeat the mantra "they have not attacked us; they are not a threat" than it is to
make the difficult judgments. But this is what ensuring national security entails. Yes, there are
links to Al Qaeda, but no, they are not conclusive. Yes Saddam is active in training Islamic
terrorists to do things such as hijack
airlines(query.nytimes.comarticle page.htmlOpen ↗ 93BA35752C1A9679C8B63
-- you can also look for interviews with Sabah Khodad), but no, it's not irrefutable Al Qadea were
among those trained. That's where the disagreement lies. You would require such proof and require
it be irrefutable before action is undertaken. You have firm individual requirements that must meet
some firm threshold. I don't think that threats to national security can be evaluated by such a
check-the-box method. I think the total picture that the individual elements form is more important
and that it need not be required that each individual element reach some threshold. This is a
debate that has raged for decades, will rage for decades more, and has seen, on both sides, earnest
men passionately making earnest arguments, all of whom do so believing they are right

Quoted message said:

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Please supply the evidence that Saddam is tied to Al Qaeda. Saddam does

have links to other groups, but Al Qaeda is the only one

Quoted message said:

that matters in this debate because Al Qaeda is the only group which has

attacked the US on our soil.

It seems we have a fundamental disagreement on what is required before one is declared a threat
with which the country must deal. You seem to believe that the only threats that exist with which
the country must deal spawn from those who have previously attacked us.

<snip>

no.

I believe that when one analyzes Saddam's aims (expansionism), attacking the US does not fit in
with them.

Attacking the US is suicide.

Saddam is expansionist, yes. He would like control of Kuwaiti, Saudi and Iranian oil, yes. That's
what his past actions have been. He's used gas on Kurds and Iranians.

Did he use gas against anyone else? no. Did he use gas vs. the Allies in Gulf War 1? no.

Why didn't he use gas in Gulf War 1? He had plenty of the stuff. My answer is that he isn't
suicidal, therefore he didn't use it.

What's your answer to that question? Why didn't Saddam use gas in Gulf War 1 vs. the Allies?

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Why didn't he use gas in Gulf War 1? He had plenty of the stuff. My answer

is that he isn't suicidal, therefore he didn't use it.

Quoted message said:

What's your answer to that question? Why didn't Saddam use gas in Gulf War

1 vs. the Allies?

Quoted message said:

Yes, because we would have gone in and gotten him and because he's not suicidal, but it does not
follow that he won't use a terrorist group to surreptitiously use WMD against the US in the future.
This is now the third time I've made this point, so I encourage you to read this slowly or have
someone read it to you.

There is a distinction between the use of a WMD in the Gulf War and the use of a WMD in the future
using terrorists as a delivery mechanism. If, during the Gulf War, Saddam had lobbed a scud with WMD
at US forces, the US would have known that the WMD attack originated from Iraq, and more to the
point, Saddam undoubtedly believed that the US would have so known. This is very different from a
potential future attack using terrorists as a delivery mechanism for WMD.

Underlying your claim that Saddam won't engage in such an attack because he knows that would be the
end of him is the assumption

<from prior message>

that Saddam believes the US would discover Iraqi fingerprints on such an attack. This is certainly
not certain. If Iraq can smuggle oil tankers out of her country, she can certainly smuggle a crate
of a virulent agent, and there is no guarantee that the US would trace it back to Iraq. Of course,
objective realities are irrelevant. What is relevant is what Saddam believes. Even if it is
guaranteed that we could trace any virulent agent back to its origin, if Saddam believes we
couldn't then he may not consider the costs of such an act to be very high, because he wouldn't
believe he'd be caught. [added for greater clarity -- Id Saddam so believed, then to Saddam, the
use of terrorists to deliver WMD would not be a death sentence because Saddam would not believe
that the US could trace the attack to Iraq. Therefore, the future liklihood of an attack is
predicated, in large part, on whether Saddam believes the US would trace the attack back to him.]
Do you know what he believes?

We don't know what he thinks. He's done stuff before that we'd say, "no way he does that, the costs
are too high." And he would only be deterred by high costs if _he believes_ we'd trace back bad
stuff to him. Given his history, it is unwise to base national security on such guesswork.

"Adam Hodges Myerson" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

My wife worked at RAND Europe in Leyden, where they did, in fact, speak another language.

Wow. I wonder how many other rbr'ers have links to RANDumb idiots.

I find it vaguely disquieting that your wife's RAND link makes me one step closer to Ronde Champ in
the six-degrees-of-separation scale. This cannot be a good thing.

And to BR: Charlie Wolf may remember me better under my former name before my operation: Heather
Halvorson.

Anyway, this was already done in Spain in the 70's.

-ilan

Robert Chung said:

And to BR: Charlie Wolf may remember me better under my former name before my operation: Heather
Halvorson.

!?!

i haven't even been reading most of this thread. i didn't even know rand was real, i thought it was
something made up by the tv show the simpson's (in conjunction with the reverse vampires...) i just
clicked on your post because i like you, and you usually have something to say that i want to hear-
AND THIS IS THE THANKS I GET???

actually, after reflecting, if you want to link your name to mine that's punishment enough for ya in
the long run...

Heather Halvorson

I wanted to stay out of this but -

First off, I believe you mean that my point is "moot" not "mute." Nonetheless, it is not moot - as
there were US troops in Australia well before December, 1941........even w/o Pearl Harbor, Japanese
aggression against Australia would've been repelled by American-led force. By the way, we would
provide the same military and financial assistance TODAY if Australia were invaded by a foreign
army...........no need to say "thank-you," just go on criticizing the very people who fund and
provide the blanket of protection you peacefully sleep under.

Secondly, to suggest that the war is a vehicle to increase the President's popularity is not only
incorrect and without basis in fact, it is offensive. The pending military action has actually hurt
Bush's popularity in the States.

If you think there is a better way to deal with Iraq than military action, put forth your theories
and we can argue the merits of your position However, to criticize an entire nation as supporters of
"war-mongering" when all we've done is liberate oppressed people over the past hundred years (while
protecting your population as well) is simply asinine.

"GK" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Frank Tantillo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Perhaps we should've let the Japanese keep moving in the Pacific back

in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the

Quoted message said:

forties.....surely Australia and New Zealand would've fallen quite

easily.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's easy to take pot shots at the US....like it or not, we saved the

world

Quoted message said:

at least twice in the last century (Nazism and Communism).....we share

our

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

God endowed wealth with the world...

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

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

Kurgan,

I apologize for my snippiness in my last response. Look, you're obviously a smart and well-read
fellow. IMHO, your analysis about Saddam being a rational actor and not being suicidal is correct.
Your conclusion that such characteristics will deter him from engaging in acts such as WMD
terrorist attacks against the US is a logical one. I wanted to point out that it was based on a
critical assumption: that Saddam believes that his participation in such acts would be detected. I
think it's unwise to rely on that assumption. It is a subject of fair debate whether a reluctance
to rely on this assumption justifies a war on a sovereign nation. Given what we know about Saddam,
I think it does. It raises a concern that it opens the door for the US or other nations to initiate
war to respond to any threat that arises (or lowers the bar as to what threats justify use of
force). It's the old slippery slope argument. I don't believe it applies, but it's fair to be
concerned that it does.

Quoted message said:

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Why didn't he use gas in Gulf War 1? He had plenty of the stuff. My answer

is that he isn't suicidal, therefore he didn't use it.

Quoted message said:

What's your answer to that question? Why didn't Saddam use gas in Gulf War

1 vs. the Allies?

Quoted message said:

Yes, because we would have gone in and gotten him and because he's not suicidal, but it does not
follow that he won't use a terrorist group to surreptitiously use WMD against the US in the
future. This is now the third time I've made this point, so I encourage you to read this slowly or
have someone read it to you.

Oh I've read it all right.

The potential cost is (worst case scenario for him): it does get traced to him - Death - the end of
all his life goals.

The potential benefit is (best case scenario for him): it doesn't get traced back to him while
some terrorist group (whose ultimate goal includes getting rid of Saddam) gets the credit in the
Arab street.

Quoted message said:

Kurgan,

I apologize for my snippiness in my last response.

No need to apologize, nearly all of us get snippy in these exchanges. I've made less than
flattering comments about you - no doubt the snippiness aimed my way is deserved. Thanks for the
sentiment though.

"Frank Tantillo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I wanted to stay out of this but -

what self control!

Quoted message said:

Secondly, to suggest that the war is a vehicle to increase the President's popularity is not only
incorrect and without basis in fact, it is offensive.

Many major foreign policy decisions in the past have been made with domestic considerations at the
forefront. All presidents take the next election into consideration when making nearly any decision.

Why? because they are polliticians. That is what politicians do.

People have a desire to look up to the head of the nation, especially if you agree with said
administration's policy, however, I feel that desire obstructs an unmitigated fact about every
modern president:

they are in office in large part because they have made backroom promises to special interests who
in turn help them get elected.

heather halvorson said:

Robert Chung said:

And to BR: Charlie Wolf may remember me better under my former name before my operation: Heather
Halvorson.

!?!

i haven't even been reading most of this thread. i didn't even know rand was real, i thought it was
something made up by the tv show the simpson's (in conjunction with the reverse vampires...) i just
clicked on your post because i like you, and you usually have something to say that i want to hear-
AND THIS IS THE THANKS I GET???

actually, after reflecting, if you want to link your name to mine that's punishment enough for ya
in the long run...

Heather Halvorson

Why are you picking on Heather, she is a hell of a better person than you will ever be!

Sparhawk

Sparhawk said:

heather halvorson said:

Robert Chung said:

=20

Why are you picking on Heather, she is a hell of a better person than you will ever be!

Well Chung gave us the powermeter pages, Heather gives us nothing but [censored] links. Ah wait.

"Ewoud Dronkert" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Sparhawk said:

heather halvorson said:

Robert Chung wrote:

Quoted message said:

Why are you picking on Heather, she is a hell of a better person than you will ever be!

Well Chung gave us the powermeter pages, Heather gives us nothing but [censored] links. Ah wait.

Damn. When you put it that way, you're right. She *is* a hell of a better person.

postscript- i hope every one realizes anything i write in capital letters with lots of !??!?'s is
not to be taken seriously.

i laughed to read rc's post, expecting a political thang, and instead finding robert pretending to
be me in his pre-op days. usually i have to watch out for bob schwartz for that kind of thing.

heather

heather halvorson said:

Robert Chung said:

And to BR: Charlie Wolf may remember me better under my former name before my operation: Heather
Halvorson.

!?!

i haven't even been reading most of this thread. i didn't even know rand was real, i thought it
was something made up by the tv show the simpson's (in conjunction with the reverse vampires...) i
just clicked on your post because i like you, and you usually have something to say that i want to
hear- AND THIS IS THE THANKS I GET???

actually, after reflecting, if you want to link your name to mine that's punishment enough for ya
in the long run...

Heather Halvorson

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Saddam is expansionist, yes. He would like control of Kuwaiti, Saudi

and Iranian oil, yes. That's what his past actions have been.

Quoted message said:

He's used gas on Kurds and Iranians.

Did he use gas against anyone else? no. Did he use gas vs. the

Allies in Gulf War 1? no.

Apparently the answer is yes. There are reports that there were gas-type artillary rounds found
around the American lines after the war. They tested positive for gas. There was also be numerous
reports by soldiers that they've had long term symptoms like those fom gas effects.

Quoted message said:

Why didn't he use gas in Gulf War 1? He had plenty of the stuff. My

answer

Quoted message said:

is that he isn't suicidal, therefore he didn't use it.

And mine is that he didn't have it in a form to use against the American advance.

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Frank Tantillo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Secondly, to suggest that the war is a vehicle to increase the

President's

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

popularity is not only incorrect and without basis in fact, it is

offensive.

Quoted message said:

Many major foreign policy decisions in the past have been made with domestic considerations at the
forefront. All presidents take the next election into consideration when making nearly any

decision.

Like Lyndon Johnson did? Like Richard Nixon did? Oooh, oooh, like Jimmy Carter did? Like Gerald Ford
did? Henry, if you must say something why don't you think about it first?

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

ocean-<< but we can all see through this 'pre-emptive defense' [censored].

'You' can and who is 'we'-

<< As everyone knows, Iraq is an enemy you created (along with Iran and every other victim of "US
foreign policy"😉.

"everyone' is a big word.

Apparantly, in this case, "everyone" means everyone but America.

Quoted message said:

This war is going to happen, whether some people 12,000 miles away think it's a good idea or not.

You *are* 12,000 miles away. Thats why you don't know what you are doing.

Quoted message said:

It is the first of many exercises for the US,

..and Americans wonder why they are hated the world over.

Quoted message said:

and the US will be safer because of it.

Iran-Contra didn't make you safe.

Read a newspaper feature on Condolese Rice yesterday. She defined "rogue" states as those who went
against agreements they had sgned or broke international law.

So, if America goes to war without a UN resolution, would this mean the US becomes a rogue state?
I think so.

Lots of class!