defrancoization

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

"BR" <[email hidden]> wrote

[snip]

Quoted message said:

You really work for RAND? I'd think they could do better.

I'm going to hazard a guess that BR is a RGS (RAND Graduate School) student. Most RAND folks are too
busy to post their opinions to newsgroups. Those who aren't are usually still smart enough to do so
from personal e-mail accounts.

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

Quoted message said:

wrong. Japan had been absolutely expansionist for 10 years. [censored]

outlined his objective in Mein Kampf. Finally, The Sudentenland

Quoted message said:

was handed to [censored] by Chamberlin and Co. - [censored] did not have to

invade.

Quoted message said:

I picked those examples purposely to illustrate that the "he's never done it before so he won't do
it in the future" argument depends entirely on how you characterize "it" and "done". Yes, [censored]
outlined intentions in MK, but he never invaded Czechoslovakia (and the Sudentenland was handed over
on the eve of the invasion that the hand over forestalled). Yes, Japan had been expansionist but it
had never attacked the US (or at least enough US assets that the fact that Hawaii was not then the
US was irrelevant). There was some measure of difference between those acts and what had been done
in the past. To predict those acts from what had been done in the past requires some degree of
extrapolation. Again, this is to illustrate that using the "one never did X in the past so one won't
do X in the future" is too limited. Seriously, are you being purposefully obtuse that these
explanations are required or did you honestly not see what was implied from the examples given?

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

Quoted message said:

I'm going to hazard a guess that BR is a RGS (RAND Graduate School)

student.

Quoted message said:

Most RAND folks are too busy to post their opinions to newsgroups.

That's right, although, most RGS students are busier than the researchers. Between the coursework
and working as researchers on RAND projects, we essentially have two full time jobs. Having finished
the coursework, I have the luxury of only having to work on projects full time and ride my bike part
time. Quite a life.

Robert, I'm curious, how had you heard of RGS? When I utter that acronym, or the words "RAND
Graduate School," most people look at me like I'm speaking another language.

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

wrong. Japan had been absolutely expansionist for 10 years. [censored]

outlined his objective in Mein Kampf. Finally, The Sudentenland

Quoted message said:

was handed to [censored] by Chamberlin and Co. - [censored] did not have to

invade.

Quoted message said:

I picked those examples purposely to illustrate that the "he's never done it before so he won't do
it in the future" argument depends entirely on how you characterize "it" and "done". Yes, [censored]
outlined intentions in MK, but he never invaded Czechoslovakia (and the Sudentenland was handed
over on the eve of the invasion that the hand over forestalled). Yes, Japan had been expansionist
but it had never attacked the US (or at least enough US assets that the fact that Hawaii was not
then the US was irrelevant). There was some measure of difference between those acts and what had
been done in the past.

That is a pathetic rationalization. An expansionist nation does expand vs. the same target over and
over. This is not Groundhog Day. When one target has been acquired, there will be more to come. That
behavior is consistent with almost every ambitious Empire in human history, from Alexander the
Great, to the Mongols, to Rome, to the British Empire.

Quoted message said:

To predict those acts from what had been done in the past requires some degree of extrapolation.
Again, this is to illustrate that using the "one never did X in the past so one won't do X in the
future" is too limited. Seriously, are you being purposefully obtuse that these explanations are
required or did you honestly not see what was implied from the examples given?

Saddam has only been expansionist in the past, not terroristic. If allowed to rearm, he could and
should be expected to be aggressive against his neighbors again.

There is no evidence of Saddam engaging in any terrorist activity in the 30 years he's been in a
position of power. Suddenly, after
9/11, he's a terrorist? Sorry, doesn't hold up.

Saddam would like to be in charge of the would-be Hussein Empire, hence his grabs at the Iranian and
Kuwaiti oilfields. Agressive? certainly. Expansionist? absolutely. Terrorist? no.

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

Quoted message said:

That is a pathetic rationalization. An expansionist nation does expand vs.

the same target over and over.

First, that's true only if successful on the first attempt. Second, Japan's attack on Pearl was a
departure from its previous expansionism. It shared characteristics with previous actions, but it
still was a departure. In my previous parlance, it was Y and prior actions were X.

Quoted message said:

There is no evidence of Saddam engaging in any terrorist activity in the

30 years he's been in a position of power. Suddenly, after

Quoted message said:

9/11, he's a terrorist? Sorry, doesn't hold up.

Wow. That's just flat out false. Aside from the reports proffered by the IC of both England and the
US as to Saddam's ties with Al Qaeda, which I'm quite sure you'll dismiss as propaganda or otherwise
unreliable, even the open source material is replete with reports of Iraqi support for terrorism.
And I'm not referring to recent reports, which you'll find "too convenient," but reports that
stretch back to the 80's, through the 90's, and into this century. Check some old newspaper reports
or state department documents or reports from independent organizations. You can limit yourself to
those published before 9/11, which you'll find more reliable because that is before we "suddenly
labeled Saddam a terrorist." You'll find that Iraq provided safe-haven to MEK, Abu Ibrahim, the ALF,
the PLF, the PKK, the PFLP, and the ANO. I may be rusty on these. I can't remember if the PFLP was
based in part in Iraq or if there was just contact between high level PFLP and Iraqi officials.
Regardless, there was Iraqi support of all of these organizations. True, most of these organizations
do not/did not target western assets. There is, of course, the exception of Abu Ibrahim, who had
been the head of the 15 May Organization (a PFLP splinter group) and who had masterminded several
bombings and attempted bombings of US passenger aircraft. Note that the Abu Ibrahim I'm talking
about is not Richard Reid (Abu Ibrahim was a part of one of his aliases).

Oh, and there's the matter of Saddam making payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Other than all that, Saddam doesn't support terrorism.

"BR" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Robert, I'm curious, how had you heard of RGS?

I did a post-doc at RAND and I still work with people there. Charlie Wolf and Jim Thomson would
probably prefer that you use a personal e-mail address when publicly posting personal opinions. An
RGS student once got into some warmish water for this reason. Oddly enough, it was 12 years ago
during the (first) war against Iraq.

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

ocean-<< Except we have already sent our military to the Gulf - for no apparent reason I
might add.

Think it might be a good idea to stay friends with the US and how close is Bali to AU??

Just heard from the opposition in our government that our 50yr ANZUS agreement with the US does not
require us to join the US on "pre-emptive" strikes (or bombing of countries just because we don't
like them). But we are because our PM is an imbecile.

Quoted message said:

<< ?? When did Iraq attack America anyways?

Do some research regarding US foreign policy-a good google search could be 'pre-emptive defense'-

We were all with you after Sept 11, we sent SAS troops to Afgahnistan, but we can all see through
this 'pre-emptive defense' [censored]. As everyone knows, Iraq is an enemy you created (along with Iran
and every other victim of "US foreign policy"😉.

Now with 250,000 troops in the Gulf, Bush has painted himself in a corner, and Rumsfeld looks to
have buried the fate of Tony Blair with his "helpful" comments. These guys are clowns?

As for Sept 11, the good work is being done right now, the searching of the Paki/Afgan border in
light of new leads from the recently captured Al Queada No.3. You would think that would be
enough for now.

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

Quoted message said:

I did a post-doc at RAND and I still work with people there. Charlie Wolf and Jim Thomson would
probably prefer that you use a personal e-mail

address

Quoted message said:

when publicly posting personal opinions. An RGS student once got into some warmish water for this
reason. Oddly enough, it was 12 years ago during

the

Quoted message said:

(first) war against Iraq.

I had hoped that RGS marketing was gaining traction. I am working with Charlie right now on a
project. Thanks for the advice. 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
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. Any thing you want me to pass along to Charlie?

"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 have to get rid of my Avocet speedometer, Triathlon Zombie armwarmers, Stanford, UC
Berkeley, U of Washington jerseys, and finally, my Ritchey frame. Oh, and the stars and stripes
jersey someone gave me.

I'm waiting for the UK to make up its mind before removing the half dozen Harry Potter stickers.

-ilan

P.S. Actually, if France vetoes and the US goes to war anyway, I'll probably
wear the stars and stripes jersey just to [censored] the frogs.

in article [email hidden], BR at [email hidden] wrote on
3/12/03 5:45 PM:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

I'm going to hazard a guess that BR is a RGS (RAND Graduate School)

student.

Quoted message said:

Most RAND folks are too busy to post their opinions to newsgroups.

That's right, although, most RGS students are busier than the researchers. Between the coursework
and working as researchers on RAND projects, we essentially have two full time jobs. Having
finished the coursework, I have the luxury of only having to work on projects full time and ride
my bike part time. Quite a life.

Robert, I'm curious, how had you heard of RGS? When I utter that acronym, or the words "RAND
Graduate School," most people look at me like I'm speaking another language.

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

Adam

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

That is a pathetic rationalization. An expansionist nation does expand vs.

the same target over and over.

First, that's true only if successful on the first attempt. Second, Japan's attack on Pearl was a
departure from its previous expansionism. It shared characteristics with previous actions, but it
still was a departure. In my previous parlance, it was Y and prior actions were X.

Quoted message said:

There is no evidence of Saddam engaging in any terrorist activity in the

30 years he's been in a position of power. Suddenly, after

Quoted message said:

9/11, he's a terrorist? Sorry, doesn't hold up.

Wow. That's just flat out false. Aside from the reports proffered by the IC of both England and
the US as to Saddam's ties with Al Qaeda,

<snip>

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 that matters in this debate because Al Qaeda is the only group which
has attacked the US on our soil. Links to groups like the Palestinians don't apply otherwise we
should be going in to depose Arafat also.

observer.co.uk0,3858,4596852,00.htmlOpen ↗ <snip> Veteran CIA analyst Melvin Goodman,
who heads the National Security Project and maintains contacts with former colleagues, summarises
what many in the intelligence community on both sides of the Atlantic believe. 'I've talked to my
sources at the CIA,' he said last week, 'and all of them are saying the evidence [of a link between
al-Qaeda and Saddam] is simply not there.' <snip><end>

There are many other sites which state the same thing. The CIA and the FBI would like to come up
with evidence. It would be good career advancement for any intelligence officer who could.

The problem with your hypothesis is Saddam and Al Qaeda have divergent goals. Even in bin Laden's
latest recorded speech, where he spoke of attacking US forces when the war starts, he spoke of the
"socialist devils" who govern Iraq. The US is #1 on Al Qaeda's hit list. Saddam is not far behind.
Familial dynasties and the pan-Islamist State do not mix.

Quoted message said:

Any thing you want me to pass along to Charlie?

I would tell him it's time to be more selective with admissions.

Adam Hodges Myerson said:

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

Ik verstanden die!

(hmm, about 2 or maybe 3 people will get this).

Ilan Vardi said:

I'm waiting for the UK to make up its mind before removing the half dozen Harry Potter stickers.

J K Rowling is a Kiwi. No worries with the stickers. STF

Ilan Vardi said:

P.S. Actually, if France vetoes and the US goes to war anyway, I'll probably
wear the stars and stripes jersey just to [censored] the frogs.

aren't you doing a good enough job of that already?

heather

in article [email hidden], Ewoud Dronkert at [email hidden]
wrote on 3/13/03 1:43 PM:

Quoted message said:

Adam Hodges Myerson said:

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

Ik verstanden die!

(hmm, about 2 or maybe 3 people will get this).

My favorite is when the Dutch would pretend not to understand a word of what the Flemish would say,
even though the only real difference I could hear is that the Flemish trail off at the end of their
words like French. Same thing when I was in Germany and Switzerland. The Germans would act like the
Swiss were speaking Martian.

Adam

You can send all that stuff to me Ilan. I'l see it all gets a good home. Though I'm surprised
that you have a working Avocet computer since all of mine die intermittently and I'm right next
to the source.

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

Quoted message said:

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

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

French free.

Quoted message said:

I will have to get rid of my Avocet speedometer, Triathlon Zombie armwarmers, Stanford, UC
Berkeley, U of Washington jerseys, and finally, my Ritchey frame. Oh, and the stars and stripes
jersey someone gave me.

I'm waiting for the UK to make up its mind before removing the half

dozen

Quoted message said:

Harry Potter stickers.

-ilan

P.S. Actually, if France vetoes and the US goes to war anyway, I'll

probably

Quoted message said:

wear the stars and stripes jersey just to [censored] the frogs.

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

Quoted message said:

Ilan Vardi said:

P.S. Actually, if France vetoes and the US goes to war anyway,

I'll probably

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

wear the stars and stripes jersey just to [censored] the frogs.

aren't you doing a good enough job of that already?

That reminds me of the old joke where the cripple crawls into the Cathedral of Notre Dame and
crawls up to the altar and looks up at the cross and says, "Why me, Lord? Why me?" Then a light
shows down from one of the stained glass windows onto the cripple like a searchlight and a voice
comes booming into the great Cathedral saying, "I don't know what it is about you Harry but you
really [censored] me off."

heather halvorson <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Ilan Vardi said:

P.S. Actually, if France vetoes and the US goes to war anyway, I'll probably
wear the stars and stripes jersey just to [censored] the frogs.

aren't you doing a good enough job of that already?

heather

Good point. Thanks.

-ilan

P.S. Heather, have you tried out any freedom kisses yet?

Ilan Vardi said:

P.S. Heather, have you tried out any freedom kisses yet?

nah, i dislike other people's tongues touching me.

unpatriotically yours, h