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

[Tom Sherman]

Freewheeling wrote:
> ... Tom, do you *know* anything about conditions in Iraq? If the Tikritis aren't driven out of
> office there won't be any substantial changes in the way Iraqis are governed. Just a change in the
> face on all the posters. There is virtually no civil society left, destroyed by years of murderous
> repression and dependance on the regime for all of the essentials of life; and the Shia are in no
> condition to assume power since most of their leadership have been murdered or coopted. The only
> group that is relatively intact, thanks to the NFZ, are the Kurds. If Iraq is to progress toward
> something like an open society it will have to rely on returning expatriots, and under a Tikriti
> regime there's just no incentive for that to happen....

Scott,

Would a unilateral US invasion of Iraq really improve things there? The possibilities of civil war
among the various ethnic factions, or the uniting of those factions in opposing an US occupation
would seem much more likely than the population greeting the US forces as liberators. And the
possible side effects of an invasion could be the toppling of politically moderate Arab governments
by anti-US fundamentalists and the increase in anti-US terrorism are not ones that most people in
the US really want to deal with.

Why not keep the weapons inspectors in Iraq on a permanent basis - it would be difficult for any
government to have much of a weapons program under those conditions, with military action being
withheld in return for full compliance with the inspections?

As for regime change in Iraq, it would help if most of the people in the country were able to do
more than try to merely survive. The destruction of Iraq's infrastructure and the economic sanctions
have only hurt the civilian population (an estimated 1/2 million deaths according to the UN) and
lead to anti-US sentiment in the Arab and/or Muslim worlds, while doing nothing to loosen the
Baathist grip on power.

Tom Sherman - Off to Wisconsin

 

[Freewheeling]

Tom:

"Would a unilateral US invasion of Iraq really improve things there? The possibilities of civil war
among the various ethnic factions, or the uniting of those factions in opposing an US occupation
would seem much more likely than the population greeting the US forces as liberators."

Why? I don't think I'll get into what it takes to establish civil society in Iraq, but the best hope
is an organization of expatriots called the INC (Iraqi National Congress). I doubt that they could
do it without help. I also suggested, to an Iraqi expatriot friend of mine, that they bring back the
Hashemite dynasty as figureheads in a parliamentary democracy. Iraq was really much better run under
the Hashemites, with all their problems, than in any of the governments after the 1958 revolution.
But alas, I don't think it's possible. Iraqis tend to think of the Hashemites as British lackies.
(The patriarch of the Hashemite dynasty was the "patron" of T.E. Lawrence, and they were the rulers
of Mecca and Medina before the Said dynasty drove them out.)

It won't be easy, but the longer we wait the tougher it'll be.

"Why not keep the weapons inspectors in Iraq on a permanent basis - it would be difficult for any
government to have much of a weapons program under those conditions, with military action being
withheld in return for full compliance with the inspections?"

Apart from the logistics of maintaining a military force in constant readiness to exert sanctions,
and the fact that the time will just give Saddam more flexibility in undermining the UN, no regime
that accepted such conditions indefinitely would be able to maintain the legitimacy to rule.
Besides, they don't *need* to stay indefinitely. Disarming Iraq would be a relatively simple matter
if they cooperated. And if they aren't cooperating, why stay any longer than necessary to establish
that fact? As Bush says, time's about up. And just as the girls all get prettier at closing time, a
time limit is a very useful motivator. If he's not going to cooperate now, he never will.

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

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> Freewheeling wrote:
> > ... Tom, do you *know* anything about conditions in Iraq? If the Tikritis aren't driven out of
> > office there won't be any substantial changes in
the
> > way Iraqis are governed. Just a change in the face on all the posters. There is virtually no
> > civil society left, destroyed by years of
murderous
> > repression and dependance on the regime for all of the essentials of
life;
> > and the Shia are in no condition to assume power since most of their leadership have been
> > murdered or coopted. The only group that is
relatively
> > intact, thanks to the NFZ, are the Kurds. If Iraq is to progress toward something like an open
> > society it will have to rely on returning
expatriots,
> > and under a Tikriti regime there's just no incentive for that to
happen....
>
> Scott,
>
> Would a unilateral US invasion of Iraq really improve things there? The possibilities of civil war
> among the various ethnic factions, or the uniting of those factions in opposing an US occupation
> would seem much more likely than the population greeting the US forces as liberators. And the
> possible side effects of an invasion could be the toppling of politically moderate Arab
> governments by anti-US fundamentalists and the increase in anti-US terrorism are not ones that
> most people in the US really want to deal with.
>
> Why not keep the weapons inspectors in Iraq on a permanent basis - it would be difficult for any
> government to have much of a weapons program under those conditions, with military action being
> withheld in return for full compliance with the inspections?
>
> As for regime change in Iraq, it would help if most of the people in the country were able to do
> more than try to merely survive. The destruction of Iraq's infrastructure and the economic
> sanctions have only hurt the civilian population (an estimated 1/2 million deaths according to the
> UN) and lead to anti-US sentiment in the Arab and/or Muslim worlds, while doing nothing to loosen
> the Baathist grip on power.
>
> Tom Sherman - Off to Wisconsin

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 13:08:33 -0500, "Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"First, I wasn't aware that anyone had debunked the GWB animal cruelty stories (if so please
>post where).

>Sounds like boy stuff to me. Most kids of that age would just see frogs as highly animate toys, not
>living entities.

Uh, not the kids I grew up with. Torturing small animals was never part of my daily amusement.

>Like I said, I can't believe you guys are making up your minds about national security based on
>that kind of stuff.

I'm not. My view of Gerorge W Bush is based on the fact that he's the product of a corrupt system.
If he had a shred of decency he'd have had the Florida election declared void and re-run - he might
even have won.

>Where do you get your ideas, from Barbara Streisand?

Who? Never heard of him.

>"Second, there are precedents in US history. Terrorists funded by the USA bombed undefended
>civilian targets on the UK mainland using explosives supplied from the USA, and the USA allowed
>the perpetrators to continue fundraising round the States. Or does it only count when the USA is
>the victim?"

>Again with the outrageous accusations, and no specifics.

You've never heard of Birmingham or Canary Wharf? Never heard of Gerry Adams? Or Martin McGuinness?
Maybe not.

>It's certainly OK, and quite American, to have reservations about the exercise of any statist
>authority, whether it involves war or the welfare society. But the absolutely unavoidable logical
>inference from the evidence (especially the behavioral evidence) is that Saddam *is* hiding WMD,
>which means he has something in mind for them.

In which case it's a bit puzzling that the inspectors can't find them. And even if he does, there
are other states which pose a threat to the security of their region - but these regions have no
oil, so attract no UN invasion forces.

>It isn't that it's un-American not to recognize that. It's just inexplicably dense. And in my
>experience only ideology has the capacity to make people that dense. Well, that and drugs.

I freely admit to acting under the influence of ideology. I am a Christian and have a profound
distaste for war. Dubya says he's a Christian, too, but he apparently skipped from the Old Testament
to the Apocrypha, missing the New Testament on the way.

>I see pretty much the standard anti-American crowd in Europe lined up on this, with a few
>exceptions.

I've seen people who even like Microsoft lined up against the war.

>the French will cave as soon as we agree to allow them the oil contracts they've signed up for.
>Same with the Russians. I don't know what to say about the Germans, except that it's not easy being
>that color.

Ah, bigotry - that I can recognise unaided.

>I didn't vote for Bush. (In fact, I voted for Nader.)

Smart man. I would have, too.

>But it would be an awful shame to eject Saddam if he didn't happen to have WMD. Except for the
>Marsh Arabs, the Kurds, the Shia of the holy cities in the south, and most of the Sunni population
>who aren't part of the Tikriti elite or their sycophants. His obvious determination to confound
>efforts to prove he has no WMD are, no doubt, due to his wierd sense of humor.

Maybe, maybe not. He's definitely barking mad. But having a barking mad leader doesn't of
itself justify invasion. What is the essential difference between Saddam and Gadaffi, Kim,
Assad, Than Shwe?

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Freewheeling]

Guy:

"Uh, not the kids I grew up with. Torturing small animals was never

part of my daily amusement."

Well I'm happy for you, but if you're suggesting that your childhood friends were morally superior
to mine by distorting what I said, I'd have to argue that you never quite grasped the notion of
intellectual honesty. I did not say that it was ever part of *anyone's* "daily amusement." I
suggested that it is not relevant to the current issue about national defense. In addition I gave an
example of an incident from my youth suggesting that lack of concern for animals is something that
many children are capable of, and grow out of. I'd also presume that you don't know any kids who
hunted regularly. I don't know any kids from my youth who didn't. Does that make your childhood
friends more "moral" than mine? I wouldn't be surprised if you thought so. I guess that's your
prerogative.

I know a woman who, as a little girl, used to eat caterpillars. I doubt that she'd step on a bug
now, but every time I see her I recall that green ooze coming out the corners of her mouth and it
cracks me up. The notion that such a thing would form the foundation of a political argument is
quite foreign to me, and suggests that you don't have much of an argument to begin with. Now, if you
can provide evidence that this behavior of GW was more than a phase it might be relevant to
something. However, my guess is that like most children, when he realized that reality of death
those behaviors underwent a change.

I feel silly even talking about this actually, it's so far afield from a reasonable discussion about
enormously important events... and since it does more than just "border on" character assassination.
If you want to talk about someone who did not outgrow insensitivity, but rather cultivated cruelty
and turned it into a political career I suggest you read a biography of Saddam Hussein.

"I'm not. My view of Gerorge W Bush is based on the fact that he's the

product of a corrupt system. If he had a shred of decency he'd have

had the Florida election declared void and re-run - he might even have

won."

1. The Florida election was a virtual and statistical tie, that clearly would not have occurred in
the first place if the electorate had had a significant preference one way or the other.

2. Had either candidate adopted the ethical position that they espoused in their rhetoric they would
have won the election outright.

3. I didn't vote for either of them.

4. That election is totally irrelevant to the issue of national defense.

"You've never heard of Birmingham or Canary Wharf? Never heard of

Gerry Adams? Or Martin McGuinness? Maybe not."

You suggested these terrorists were "funded by the USA," which is an outright misrepresentation in
the sense that it conflates the common interpretation of that phrase as "funded by the USA as a
whole" with the smallish minority of the ethnic Irish-American community that never outgrew
ethnocentrism. And it is not I who support these balkanizing notions of "multiculturalism" that
encourage such minorities to identify with their divisive ethnic heritage, rather than assimilation
by the principles of an open society based on Lockeanism. Unless I miss my guess, you're the one
that supports that poverty stricken and useless concept of cultural identity.

"In which case it's a bit puzzling that the inspectors can't find them."

Puzzling to you maybe.

<quote>The unseen obstacle in their path (UNSCOM, and later UNMOVIC) was Hussein's concealment team,
composed of selected members of the Mukhabarat, the ultra-elite Special Republican Guards, and the
Special Security Service. Each individual was absolutely loyal to Saddam Hussein; most were related
to him.</quote> (Sandra Mackey, *The Reckoning*)

The ability to conceal WMD in an area as vast as Texas, where enough Variola to generate a "soft
kill" of the entire population of the US can be contained in a vial, and hidden in a common
refrigerator, has led Hans Blix to predict that it is virtually impossible for the inspection team
to uncover a "smoking gun." Indeed, he has frequently stressed unequivocally that this is not the
job of the inspection team. They are there to either verify or falsify the unrestrained cooperation
of the Iraqi regime in the process of its own disarmament. And ultimately the only completely
reliable test of that cooperation lies in the willingness to allow testimony of Iraqi scientists in
'safe harbor." Ironically, refusal to allow such safe harbor testimony may also be the only
completely reliable evidence we have that Saddam *has* WMD, and comes directly from Saddam himself.

"I freely admit to acting under the influence of ideology. I am a

Christian and have a profound distaste for war. Dubya says he's a

Christian, too, but he apparently skipped from the Old Testament to

the Apocrypha, missing the New Testament on the way."

And if the net loss of life (not to mention freedom) of not going to war is greater than that of
going to war? I'd suggest that your proper role is in establishing the conditions of an open society
*after* the way has been cleared by a successful intervention. And given the relative certainty of
that intervention (which rests completely on the unwilling shoulders of Saddam Hussein), I'm not
quite sure why you apparently haven't heard of the INC, or know very much about the details of Iraqi
history or society. I should think that if your principles are more than just rhetoric you need to
invest a bit more of your time on learning such details.

"Ah, bigotry - that I can recognise unaided."

You overestimate yourself, apparently. Green, son. It's a joke, based on the musical contributions
of a certain "frog."

"Maybe, maybe not. He's definitely barking mad. But having a barking

mad leader doesn't of itself justify invasion. What is the essential

difference between Saddam and Gadaffi, Kim, Assad, Than Shwe?"

If you knew anything about Saddam you'd know he's definitely not "mad." Not any more than ****** or
Stalin were "mad." The difference between he and Qadaffi is that Qadaffi had a revelation and got
out of the business of supporting terrorism and WMD development. He is able to suppress his own
people, but is not an extra-national threat. We'd be willing (reluctantly) to leave Saddam in place
if he had a "Qadaffi moment." Hafez al-Assad is dead, but he was never as repressive as Saddam. He,
and his son, belong to the Alywite clan who are a small minority in the Arab-Muslim world, and even
observe Christian holidays. One observer has noted that having the Alywites in control of Syria is
analogous to having the Jews assume control of post-WWI Germany. It's an open question as to whether
his son will be able to maintain control, but according to Robert Kaplan crossing the border from
Iraq into Syria "was like coming up for liberal humanist air."

Kim is different, but probably just as repressive. The big difference, of course, is the proximity
of China, and to a lesser extent Japan and Russia.

I suppose people will forgive me if I acknowledge I don't know much about Shwe. Ultimately the
important question may be more like: what's the essential difference between those rulers and
someone like Eduard Schevardnadze? Do you know the answer to that? (Hint: Schevardnadze *likes* open
society for some inexplicable reason. It comforts him, so he takes risks for the sake of it. Risks
that we *ought* to acknowledge and support, if we have any sense.)

--

--Scott

[email protected]

Cut the "tail" to send email.

<<snipped

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 15:35:40 -0500, "Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Uh, not the kids I grew up with. Torturing small animals was never part of my daily amusement."

>Well I'm happy for you, but if you're suggesting that your childhood friends were morally superior
>to mine by distorting what I said, I'd have to argue that you never quite grasped the notion of
>intellectual honesty.

Not what I was getting at at all, and sorry of you thought it was. I simply cannot understand how
someone could take pleasure out of blowing up animals, even frogs. I suppose Dubya may have been
just a "regular guy" - I suppose it's possible that his history of drunk driving, alcohol abuse,
drug abuse and draft avoidance marks him out as fairly typical of his generation. A child of the
Sixties. Perhaps I'm being harsh on him just because I think he stole the election. I freely admit
that I think the whole Florida thing stunk to high Heaven and back again.

>I suggested that it is not relevant to the current issue about national defense.

It has relevance only in the context of a fairly well-argued case that has been made that this kind
of thing is often a predictor of future antisocial behaviour (over here it definitely is - that kind
of thing is very uncommon; maybe less so in USA I don't know). The same piece notes that Bush
stumbles over his speech when attempting to be "touchy feely" but is bang on-message with never a
word out of place when talking war and destruction. I'm not saying I believe this analysis, just
that it is sufficiently palusible to make me even more uneasy. You've seen it I'm sure:
<http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/Conover120502/conover120502.html>

>In addition I gave an example of an incident from my youth suggesting that lack of concern for
>animals is something that many children are capable of, and grow out of. I'd also presume that you
>don't know any kids who hunted regularly.

Nope, that's true. I knew several who used to fish, and I used to fish as well, but not hunting -
but over here hunting is a wierd ritual with controversy all of its own.

>I don't know any kids from my youth who didn't. Does that make your childhood friends more "moral"
>than mine? I wouldn't be surprised if you thought so. I guess that's your prerogative.

No, I don't think that. For the record I find it deeply puzzling that anyone could take pleasure in
blowing up frogs, but adolescent boys do do some wierd things.

>I feel silly even talking about this actually, it's so far afield from a reasonable discussion
>about enormously important events... and since it does more than just "border on" character
>assassination.

It only has relevance in the context of the thesis of Bush as sociopath. That is in itself not
absolutely compelling, but as I say I find it disquieting.

>If you want to talk about someone who did not outgrow insensitivity, but rather cultivated cruelty
>and turned it into a political career I suggest you read a biography of Saddam Hussein.

Or any one of a dozen other dictators.

>1. The Florida election was a virtual and statistical tie, that clearly would not have occurred in
> the first place if the electorate had had a significant preference one way or the other.

Unless you believe that Bush's election agent in the state, who happened also to be the election
supervisor, exceeded her powers in instructing the people who generated the computerised lists of
"felons" to spread the net as wide as possible, including any with an 80% match (similar name, same
birth date, similar social security number), and moreover that the list of "felons" supplied by
another state which turned out to be mainly misdemeanors or expired convictions might in some way
be related to the fact that the governor of that other state was George Walker Bush himself, or
that the counting of forces overseas votes which were actually posted in the USA might have been
less than honest. And that's before you get started on butterfly ballots. The whole Florida
situation was so badly flawed that the only equitable resolution would have been to declare it void
and start again.

>2. Had either candidate adopted the ethical position that they espoused in their rhetoric they
> would have won the election outright.

Probably true. These days there's far too much "soft money" in politics in both the UK and the US,
the system is undeniably skewed in favour of maintaining a favourable environmentfor the rich and
powerful - but I guess that happens anywhere short of a revolution.

>3. I didn't vote for either of them.

Which I respect.

>4. That election is totally irrelevant to the issue of national defense.

You think the war would be happening if Gore had won?

>"You've never heard of Birmingham or Canary Wharf? Never heard of Gerry Adams? Or Martin
>McGuinness? Maybe not."

>You suggested these terrorists were "funded by the USA," which is an outright misrepresentation in
>the sense that it conflates the common interpretation of that phrase as "funded by the USA as a
>whole" with the smallish minority of the ethnic Irish-American community that never outgrew
>ethnocentrism.

Noraid was allowed by the federal authorities to fundraise openly, despite known provable links to
the IRA. How would you feel if we allowed Bin Laden to go round the pubs of London with a collecting
tin, or organise fundraising dinners in the Guildhall?

>Unless I miss my guess, you're the one that supports that poverty stricken and useless concept of
>cultural identity.

Say what? Where is that coming from?

>"In which case it's a bit puzzling that the inspectors can't find them." Puzzling to you maybe.

And to plenty of others.

><quote>The unseen obstacle in their path (UNSCOM, and later UNMOVIC) was Hussein's concealment
>team, composed of selected members of the Mukhabarat, the ultra-elite Special Republican Guards,
>and the Special Security Service. Each individual was absolutely loyal to Saddam Hussein; most were
>related to him.</quote> (Sandra Mackey, *The Reckoning*)

Sure - but there's no suggestion that this si still happening now. I have no doubt that Saddam had
gas bombs back then. He may even have a few now, but there's no hard evidence and his ability to
deliver them is pretty severely compromised.

>[Hans Blix] has frequently stressed unequivocally that [the inspection team] are there to either
>verify or falsify the unrestrained cooperation of the Iraqi regime in the process of its own
>disarmament.

Not contentious.

>And ultimately the only completely reliable test of that cooperation lies in the willingness to
>allow testimony of Iraqi scientists in 'safe harbor." Ironically, refusal to allow such safe harbor
>testimony may also be the only completely reliable evidence we have that Saddam *has* WMD, and
>comes directly from Saddam himself.

This is a test which could have been specifically designed to ensure Saddam would not agree. He is
arrogant, proud, and a control freak.

>>"I freely admit to acting under the influence of ideology. I am a Christian and have a profound
>>distaste for war. Dubya says he's a Christian, too, but he apparently skipped from the Old
>>Testament to the Apocrypha, missing the New Testament on the way."

>And if the net loss of life (not to mention freedom) of not going to war is greater than that of
>going to war? I'd suggest that your proper role is in establishing the conditions of an open
>society *after* the way has been cleared by a successful intervention.

No. At the moment we have preparations for war on the basis that we are told by people with a
history of lies and deceit - our respective governments - that war is the only solution. It is
perfectly proper to remain highly sceptical, especially when there are at least two impure motives
which immediately suggest themselves in the case of GWB.

>If you knew anything about Saddam you'd know he's definitely not "mad." Not any more than ****** or
>Stalin were "mad."

Megalomania is of course itself a form of madness, but anyone who executes members of his own family
basically because they are scared of him is definitely one sandwich short of a picnic.

>Ultimately the important question may be more like: what's the essential difference between those
>rulers and someone like Eduard Schevardnadze?

A very different question. I think that Mikhail Gorbachev was one of the most inspiring leaders the
world has ever seen, because he had the courage to take a path away from certain power for life;
that was the last time I can recall being absolutely sure of anything in that region. The whole
Georgia issue is more complex and I find it hard to tell the good guys from the bad at times.

Anyway, I appreciate the time you've taken over this discussion. I do acknowledge that there are
reasons why Iraq is more dangerous than some other rogue states, but I remain fundamentally
unconvinced by the reasoning thus far advanced by Bush (or Blair, or anyne else). Maybe if Dubya was
to put his cards ont he table and be open about the fact that, yes, he has personal reasons for
wanting war, and yes he and his close advisers have business interests which would be helped by
removing Saddam, and yes, the CIA were instrumental in putting Saddam in place and so on - but they
seem determined to bury that stuff. Maybe in the States they are being more open about it, I don't
know, but over here it's like everybody in charge is in denial about the posible (and sometimes
blindingly obvious) venal motives these guys have, which always raises a red flag to me. Is that so
unreasonable?

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Freewheeling]

Guy:

"Not what I was getting at at all, and sorry of you thought it was. I simply cannot understand how
someone could take pleasure out of blowing up animals, even frogs. I suppose Dubya may have been
just a "regular guy" - I suppose it's possible that his history of drunk driving, alcohol abuse,
drug abuse and draft avoidance marks him out as fairly typical of his generation. A child of the
Sixties. Perhaps I'm being harsh on him just because I think he stole the election. I freely admit
that I think the whole Florida thing stunk to high Heaven and back again."

Thanks. Frankly I'm just tired of seeing political discourse carried out on this superficial level.
It's precisely what's going on in the Middle East, only there it has no opposition. I think it was
Friedman again, who observed that culture that resolve problems through blame rather than self
inspection don't prosper. I have some very substancial criticisms of Bush... the problem being that
if he does something about those I have to admit it. I don't get to keep flaying him alive. I got
over Florida on Sept. 12, 2001. George Bush is not the threat.

"It has relevance only in the context of a fairly well-argued case that has been made that this kind
of thing is often a predictor of future antisocial behaviour (over here it definitely is - that kind
of thing is very uncommon; maybe less so in USA I don't know). The same piece notes that Bush
stumbles over his speech when attempting to be "touchy feely" but is bang on-message with never a
word out of place when talking war and destruction. I'm not saying I believe this analysis, just
that it is sufficiently palusible to make me even more uneasy."

Boy, if that sort of thing is what we have to go in we're in deep dudu. I don't think GW is
especially violent or insensitive. I mean, if you're looking for males that are eloquently sensitive
and would still make an effective chief executive you may be looking till the cows come home. In
fact I don't think the US ever produced a President better that Teddy Roosevelt, and comfortably
"touchy feely" he was not. He also thought war was enobling, until he lost a son to it. It probably
*is* enobling, but so are a lot of things that are slightly less awful, and less degrading.

You know, one of the genuine problems with American war technology, in spite of the fact that it
stands the chance of minimizing civilian casualties more than any military in history, is that it's
so far beyond the capabilities of any of its allies. But to some extent this is the choice of those
allies, who are loathe to spend the money for such technologies, and then complain vociferously
about "American Hegemony" and "arrogance." If they made more of an investment, they'd be more than
bit players.

"No, I don't think that. For the record I find it deeply puzzling that anyone could take pleasure in
blowing up frogs, but adolescent boys do do some wierd things."

Basically, at a certain age they take pleasure in blowing anything up. It takes awhile for the
concept of accountability to sink in. I also recall reading some very credible psychological
literature that suggest that the hunting instinct in young men has to be acted out, and that if it
isn't boys can become arrested in their development and exhibit cruel behavior in later life based
on attempts to resolve these aggressive impulses. But who knows, huh?

My basic impulse on the Florida election is that the Democrats should have made an issue of election
reform as soon as the SC decision was announced. I did my best to get them interested in that, so
they'd "own" that issue, and nobody stood up to the plate. Now they have the opportunity to define
foreign policy in terms of the extension of open society, and instead their floundering around in
this anti-War and race card wasteland. If I didn't know better I'd say they were lazy. And if they
don't snap out of it, and if the Republicans don't do something really stupid, the Democratic Party
may become a minority party for decades. But chances are the Republicans *will* do something stupid,
which really doesn't give me much hope for the Democrats. The terrorist challenge is very real, and
it's only going to grow.

"Noraid was allowed by the federal authorities to fundraise openly, despite known provable links to
the IRA. How would you feel if we allowed Bin Laden to go round the pubs of London with a collecting
tin, or organise fundraising dinners in the Guildhall?"

You mean the way Belgium made a deal with Islamic terrorism that it could do anything it wanted, as
long as it didn't do it *here*? Actually, it's not all that easy to shut down radical fundraising.
The Patriot Act has made it easier though. We did not pay sufficient attention to terrorism, until
we figured out that it wasn't solely a "European problem" (or an Israeli problem.) Now we know mass
terrorism is our problem, but we suspect the French and Germans don't quite see it as theirs yet.
There's a reason why Australia is more onboard than Canada (which we always knew was a
counter-revolutionary country anyway).

Well, I gotta get back to watching the Buccaneers trounce the Raiders. Halftime's over.
Best of luck.

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

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 15:35:40 -0500, "Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"Uh, not the kids I grew up with. Torturing small animals was never part of my daily amusement."
>
> >Well I'm happy for you, but if you're suggesting that your childhood
friends
> >were morally superior to mine by distorting what I said, I'd have to
argue
> >that you never quite grasped the notion of intellectual honesty.
>
> Not what I was getting at at all, and sorry of you thought it was. I simply cannot understand how
> someone could take pleasure out of blowing up animals, even frogs. I suppose Dubya may have been
> just a "regular guy" - I suppose it's possible that his history of drunk driving, alcohol abuse,
> drug abuse and draft avoidance marks him out as fairly typical of his generation. A child of the
> Sixties. Perhaps I'm being harsh on him just because I think he stole the election. I freely admit
> that I think the whole Florida thing stunk to high Heaven and back again.
>
> >I suggested that it is not relevant to the current issue about national defense.
>
> It has relevance only in the context of a fairly well-argued case that has been made that this
> kind of thing is often a predictor of future antisocial behaviour (over here it definitely is -
> that kind of thing is very uncommon; maybe less so in USA I don't know). The same piece notes that
> Bush stumbles over his speech when attempting to be "touchy feely" but is bang on-message with
> never a word out of place when talking war and destruction. I'm not saying I believe this
> analysis, just that it is sufficiently palusible to make me even more uneasy. You've seen it I'm
> sure: <http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/Conover120502/conover120502.html>
>
> >In addition I gave an example of an incident from my youth suggesting that lack of concern for
> >animals is something that many children are capable of, and
grow
> >out of. I'd also presume that you don't know any kids who hunted
regularly.
>
> Nope, that's true. I knew several who used to fish, and I used to fish as well, but not hunting -
> but over here hunting is a wierd ritual with controversy all of its own.
>
> >I don't know any kids from my youth who didn't. Does that make your childhood friends more
> >"moral" than mine? I wouldn't be surprised if you thought so. I guess that's your prerogative.
>
> No, I don't think that. For the record I find it deeply puzzling that anyone could take pleasure
> in blowing up frogs, but adolescent boys do do some wierd things.
>
> >I feel silly even talking about this actually, it's so far afield from a reasonable discussion
> >about enormously important events... and since it
does
> >more than just "border on" character assassination.
>
> It only has relevance in the context of the thesis of Bush as sociopath. That is in itself not
> absolutely compelling, but as I say I find it disquieting.
>
> >If you want to talk about someone who did not outgrow insensitivity, but rather cultivated
> >cruelty and turned it into a political career I suggest you read a
biography
> >of Saddam Hussein.
>
> Or any one of a dozen other dictators.
>
> >1. The Florida election was a virtual and statistical tie, that clearly would not have occurred
> > in the first place if the electorate had had a significant preference one way or the other.
>
> Unless you believe that Bush's election agent in the state, who happened also to be the election
> supervisor, exceeded her powers in instructing the people who generated the computerised lists of
> "felons" to spread the net as wide as possible, including any with an 80% match (similar name,
> same birth date, similar social security number), and moreover that the list of "felons" supplied
> by another state which turned out to be mainly misdemeanors or expired convictions might in some
> way be related to the fact that the governor of that other state was George Walker Bush himself,
> or that the counting of forces overseas votes which were actually posted in the USA might have
> been less than honest. And that's before you get started on butterfly ballots. The whole Florida
> situation was so badly flawed that the only equitable resolution would have been to declare it
> void and start again.
>
> >2. Had either candidate adopted the ethical position that they espoused
in
> >their rhetoric they would have won the election outright.
>
> Probably true. These days there's far too much "soft money" in politics in both the UK and the US,
> the system is undeniably skewed in favour of maintaining a favourable environmentfor the rich and
> powerful - but I guess that happens anywhere short of a revolution.
>
> >3. I didn't vote for either of them.
>
> Which I respect.
>
> >4. That election is totally irrelevant to the issue of national defense.
>
> You think the war would be happening if Gore had won?
>
> >"You've never heard of Birmingham or Canary Wharf? Never heard of Gerry Adams? Or Martin
> >McGuinness? Maybe not."
>
> >You suggested these terrorists were "funded by the USA," which is an outright misrepresentation
> >in the sense that it conflates the common interpretation of that phrase as "funded by the USA as
> >a whole" with the smallish minority of the ethnic Irish-American community that never
outgrew
> >ethnocentrism.
>
> Noraid was allowed by the federal authorities to fundraise openly, despite known provable links to
> the IRA. How would you feel if we allowed Bin Laden to go round the pubs of London with a
> collecting tin, or organise fundraising dinners in the Guildhall?
>
> >Unless I miss my guess, you're the one that supports that poverty stricken and useless concept of
> >cultural identity.
>
> Say what? Where is that coming from?
>
> >"In which case it's a bit puzzling that the inspectors can't find them." Puzzling to you maybe.
>
> And to plenty of others.
>
> ><quote>The unseen obstacle in their path (UNSCOM, and later UNMOVIC) was Hussein's concealment
> >team, composed of selected members of the
Mukhabarat,
> >the ultra-elite Special Republican Guards, and the Special Security
Service.
> >Each individual was absolutely loyal to Saddam Hussein; most were related
to
> >him.</quote> (Sandra Mackey, *The Reckoning*)
>
> Sure - but there's no suggestion that this si still happening now. I have no doubt that Saddam had
> gas bombs back then. He may even have a few now, but there's no hard evidence and his ability to
> deliver them is pretty severely compromised.
>
> >[Hans Blix] has frequently stressed unequivocally that [the inspection team] are there to either
> >verify or falsify the unrestrained cooperation of the Iraqi regime in the process of its own
> >disarmament.
>
> Not contentious.
>
> >And ultimately the only completely reliable test of that cooperation lies in the willingness to
> >allow testimony of
Iraqi
> >scientists in 'safe harbor." Ironically, refusal to allow such safe
harbor
> >testimony may also be the only completely reliable evidence we have that Saddam *has* WMD, and
> >comes directly from Saddam himself.
>
> This is a test which could have been specifically designed to ensure Saddam would not agree. He is
> arrogant, proud, and a control freak.
>
> >>"I freely admit to acting under the influence of ideology. I am a Christian and have a profound
> >>distaste for war. Dubya says he's a Christian, too, but he apparently skipped from the Old
> >>Testament to the Apocrypha, missing the New Testament on the way."
>
> >And if the net loss of life (not to mention freedom) of not going to war
is
> >greater than that of going to war? I'd suggest that your proper role is
in
> >establishing the conditions of an open society *after* the way has been cleared by a successful
> >intervention.
>
> No. At the moment we have preparations for war on the basis that we are told by people with a
> history of lies and deceit - our respective governments - that war is the only solution. It is
> perfectly proper to remain highly sceptical, especially when there are at least two impure motives
> which immediately suggest themselves in the case of GWB.
>
> >If you knew anything about Saddam you'd know he's definitely not "mad."
Not
> >any more than ****** or Stalin were "mad."
>
> Megalomania is of course itself a form of madness, but anyone who executes members of his own
> family basically because they are scared of him is definitely one sandwich short of a picnic.
>
> >Ultimately the important question may be more like: what's the essential difference between those
> >rulers and someone like Eduard Schevardnadze?
>
> A very different question. I think that Mikhail Gorbachev was one of the most inspiring
> leaders the world has ever seen, because he had the courage to take a path away from certain
> power for life; that was the last time I can recall being absolutely sure of anything in that
> region. The whole Georgia issue is more complex and I find it hard to tell the good guys from
> the bad at times.
>
> Anyway, I appreciate the time you've taken over this discussion. I do acknowledge that there are
> reasons why Iraq is more dangerous than some other rogue states, but I remain fundamentally
> unconvinced by the reasoning thus far advanced by Bush (or Blair, or anyne else). Maybe if Dubya
> was to put his cards ont he table and be open about the fact that, yes, he has personal reasons
> for wanting war, and yes he and his close advisers have business interests which would be helped
> by removing Saddam, and yes, the CIA were instrumental in putting Saddam in place and so on - but
> they seem determined to bury that stuff. Maybe in the States they are being more open about it, I
> don't know, but over here it's like everybody in charge is in denial about the posible (and
> sometimes blindingly obvious) venal motives these guys have, which always raises a red flag to me.
> Is that so unreasonable?
>
> Guy
> ===
> ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
> dynamic DNS permitting)
> NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
> work. Apologies.

 

[Freewheeling]

Sorry, I had to respond to this:

">And ultimately the only completely reliable
>test of that cooperation lies in the willingness to allow testimony of
Iraqi
>scientists in 'safe harbor." Ironically, refusal to allow such safe harbor testimony may also be
>the only completely reliable evidence we have that Saddam *has* WMD, and comes directly from
>Saddam himself.

This is a test which could have been specifically designed to ensure Saddam would not agree. He is
arrogant, proud, and a control freak."

So, he get's to be unaccountable because he's a ****, and we oughtn't to expect more. We don't.
We're just willing to give him the opportunity. His attempt to suppress his scientists from
responding is a good deal more than a character flaw, however. And he certainly *would* be able to
aquiesce if he weren't a totalitarian dictator bent on developing an arsenal of mass destructive
weapons. I mean, he's allowing his own residences to be searched. How awful could it be to have a
few scientists interviewed in Switzerland?

By the way, the Mukhabarat are alive and well and functioning just as they've always been. In fact,
they're more sophisticated than ever. I don't have time to look up the cite, but Mackey has said as
much in interviews on CNN.

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

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 15:35:40 -0500, "Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"Uh, not the kids I grew up with. Torturing small animals was never part of my daily amusement."
>
> >Well I'm happy for you, but if you're suggesting that your childhood
friends
> >were morally superior to mine by distorting what I said, I'd have to
argue
> >that you never quite grasped the notion of intellectual honesty.
>
> Not what I was getting at at all, and sorry of you thought it was. I simply cannot understand how
> someone could take pleasure out of blowing up animals, even frogs. I suppose Dubya may have been
> just a "regular guy" - I suppose it's possible that his history of drunk driving, alcohol abuse,
> drug abuse and draft avoidance marks him out as fairly typical of his generation. A child of the
> Sixties. Perhaps I'm being harsh on him just because I think he stole the election. I freely admit
> that I think the whole Florida thing stunk to high Heaven and back again.
>
> >I suggested that it is not relevant to the current issue about national defense.
>
> It has relevance only in the context of a fairly well-argued case that has been made that this
> kind of thing is often a predictor of future antisocial behaviour (over here it definitely is -
> that kind of thing is very uncommon; maybe less so in USA I don't know). The same piece notes that
> Bush stumbles over his speech when attempting to be "touchy feely" but is bang on-message with
> never a word out of place when talking war and destruction. I'm not saying I believe this
> analysis, just that it is sufficiently palusible to make me even more uneasy. You've seen it I'm
> sure: <http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/Conover120502/conover120502.html>
>
> >In addition I gave an example of an incident from my youth suggesting that lack of concern for
> >animals is something that many children are capable of, and
grow
> >out of. I'd also presume that you don't know any kids who hunted
regularly.
>
> Nope, that's true. I knew several who used to fish, and I used to fish as well, but not hunting -
> but over here hunting is a wierd ritual with controversy all of its own.
>
> >I don't know any kids from my youth who didn't. Does that make your childhood friends more
> >"moral" than mine? I wouldn't be surprised if you thought so. I guess that's your prerogative.
>
> No, I don't think that. For the record I find it deeply puzzling that anyone could take pleasure
> in blowing up frogs, but adolescent boys do do some wierd things.
>
> >I feel silly even talking about this actually, it's so far afield from a reasonable discussion
> >about enormously important events... and since it
does
> >more than just "border on" character assassination.
>
> It only has relevance in the context of the thesis of Bush as sociopath. That is in itself not
> absolutely compelling, but as I say I find it disquieting.
>
> >If you want to talk about someone who did not outgrow insensitivity, but rather cultivated
> >cruelty and turned it into a political career I suggest you read a
biography
> >of Saddam Hussein.
>
> Or any one of a dozen other dictators.
>
> >1. The Florida election was a virtual and statistical tie, that clearly would not have occurred
> > in the first place if the electorate had had a significant preference one way or the other.
>
> Unless you believe that Bush's election agent in the state, who happened also to be the election
> supervisor, exceeded her powers in instructing the people who generated the computerised lists of
> "felons" to spread the net as wide as possible, including any with an 80% match (similar name,
> same birth date, similar social security number), and moreover that the list of "felons" supplied
> by another state which turned out to be mainly misdemeanors or expired convictions might in some
> way be related to the fact that the governor of that other state was George Walker Bush himself,
> or that the counting of forces overseas votes which were actually posted in the USA might have
> been less than honest. And that's before you get started on butterfly ballots. The whole Florida
> situation was so badly flawed that the only equitable resolution would have been to declare it
> void and start again.
>
> >2. Had either candidate adopted the ethical position that they espoused
in
> >their rhetoric they would have won the election outright.
>
> Probably true. These days there's far too much "soft money" in politics in both the UK and the US,
> the system is undeniably skewed in favour of maintaining a favourable environmentfor the rich and
> powerful - but I guess that happens anywhere short of a revolution.
>
> >3. I didn't vote for either of them.
>
> Which I respect.
>
> >4. That election is totally irrelevant to the issue of national defense.
>
> You think the war would be happening if Gore had won?
>
> >"You've never heard of Birmingham or Canary Wharf? Never heard of Gerry Adams? Or Martin
> >McGuinness? Maybe not."
>
> >You suggested these terrorists were "funded by the USA," which is an outright misrepresentation
> >in the sense that it conflates the common interpretation of that phrase as "funded by the USA as
> >a whole" with the smallish minority of the ethnic Irish-American community that never
outgrew
> >ethnocentrism.
>
> Noraid was allowed by the federal authorities to fundraise openly, despite known provable links to
> the IRA. How would you feel if we allowed Bin Laden to go round the pubs of London with a
> collecting tin, or organise fundraising dinners in the Guildhall?
>
> >Unless I miss my guess, you're the one that supports that poverty stricken and useless concept of
> >cultural identity.
>
> Say what? Where is that coming from?
>
> >"In which case it's a bit puzzling that the inspectors can't find them." Puzzling to you maybe.
>
> And to plenty of others.
>
> ><quote>The unseen obstacle in their path (UNSCOM, and later UNMOVIC) was Hussein's concealment
> >team, composed of selected members of the
Mukhabarat,
> >the ultra-elite Special Republican Guards, and the Special Security
Service.
> >Each individual was absolutely loyal to Saddam Hussein; most were related
to
> >him.</quote> (Sandra Mackey, *The Reckoning*)
>
> Sure - but there's no suggestion that this si still happening now. I have no doubt that Saddam had
> gas bombs back then. He may even have a few now, but there's no hard evidence and his ability to
> deliver them is pretty severely compromised.
>
> >[Hans Blix] has frequently stressed unequivocally that [the inspection team] are there to either
> >verify or falsify the unrestrained cooperation of the Iraqi regime in the process of its own
> >disarmament.
>
> Not contentious.
>
> >And ultimately the only completely reliable test of that cooperation lies in the willingness to
> >allow testimony of
Iraqi
> >scientists in 'safe harbor." Ironically, refusal to allow such safe
harbor
> >testimony may also be the only completely reliable evidence we have that Saddam *has* WMD, and
> >comes directly from Saddam himself.
>
> This is a test which could have been specifically designed to ensure Saddam would not agree. He is
> arrogant, proud, and a control freak.
>
> >>"I freely admit to acting under the influence of ideology. I am a Christian and have a profound
> >>distaste for war. Dubya says he's a Christian, too, but he apparently skipped from the Old
> >>Testament to the Apocrypha, missing the New Testament on the way."
>
> >And if the net loss of life (not to mention freedom) of not going to war
is
> >greater than that of going to war? I'd suggest that your proper role is
in
> >establishing the conditions of an open society *after* the way has been cleared by a successful
> >intervention.
>
> No. At the moment we have preparations for war on the basis that we are told by people with a
> history of lies and deceit - our respective governments - that war is the only solution. It is
> perfectly proper to remain highly sceptical, especially when there are at least two impure motives
> which immediately suggest themselves in the case of GWB.
>
> >If you knew anything about Saddam you'd know he's definitely not "mad."
Not
> >any more than ****** or Stalin were "mad."
>
> Megalomania is of course itself a form of madness, but anyone who executes members of his own
> family basically because they are scared of him is definitely one sandwich short of a picnic.
>
> >Ultimately the important question may be more like: what's the essential difference between those
> >rulers and someone like Eduard Schevardnadze?
>
> A very different question. I think that Mikhail Gorbachev was one of the most inspiring
> leaders the world has ever seen, because he had the courage to take a path away from certain
> power for life; that was the last time I can recall being absolutely sure of anything in that
> region. The whole Georgia issue is more complex and I find it hard to tell the good guys from
> the bad at times.
>
> Anyway, I appreciate the time you've taken over this discussion. I do acknowledge that there are
> reasons why Iraq is more dangerous than some other rogue states, but I remain fundamentally
> unconvinced by the reasoning thus far advanced by Bush (or Blair, or anyne else). Maybe if Dubya
> was to put his cards ont he table and be open about the fact that, yes, he has personal reasons
> for wanting war, and yes he and his close advisers have business interests which would be helped
> by removing Saddam, and yes, the CIA were instrumental in putting Saddam in place and so on - but
> they seem determined to bury that stuff. Maybe in the States they are being more open about it, I
> don't know, but over here it's like everybody in charge is in denial about the posible (and
> sometimes blindingly obvious) venal motives these guys have, which always raises a red flag to me.
> Is that so unreasonable?
>
> Guy
> ===
> ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
> dynamic DNS permitting)
> NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
> work. Apologies.

 

[Tom Sherman]

Freewheeling wrote:
>
> ... I got over Florida on Sept. 12, 2001. George Bush is not the threat....

What connection do the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 have with the systematic effort to
disenfranchise black voters in Florida before/during the 2000 election (not to mention the many
other occurrences in the US)?

As for Bush II being a threat, his policy of the US being above international law and opposing
and/or discarding every treaty that could interfere with the Bush doctrine of "Might is Right" is
why most of the educated population outside the US believes his administration is currently the
greatest threat to world peace.

I have a hard time seeing how anyone who managed to sit through his State of the Union speech this
week could not be disturbed by the number of times he said, "I will..." or the religious crusade
ending of his speech.

To be fair on the subject of State of the Union speeches, I must mention that Governor Locke's
response barely deserves to be rated "white bread and mayonnaise".

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

 

[Freewheeling]

"What connection do the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 have with the systematic effort to
disenfranchise black voters in Florida before/during the 2000 election (not to mention the many
other occurrences in the US)?"

There have been allegations of "disenfranchisement" but no determination. (Other than by a stacked
commission with an agenda of its own and no remedy to offer, which is fair I guess. It's politics.).
And there were a lot of voters in the panhandle that could just as easily argue "disenfranchisement"
if they wanted to grouse about it. But the reality is that the margin of error in the election
result in Florida was greater than the margin of votes between the candidates, and all the rest was
theater. (That's the definition of a statistical tie.) In New Mexico if there's a tie in an election
the candidates sit down and play a game of stud poker to determine the winner. They prolly shoulda
done that in Florida, but somebody'd still be *****in'.

Yeah that's a lot different from 9-11, which is why I forgot it. Just doesn't seem to measure up
somehow, in the scheme of things.

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

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> Freewheeling wrote:
> >
> > ... I got over Florida on Sept. 12, 2001. George Bush is not the threat....
>
> What connection do the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 have with the systematic effort to
> disenfranchise black voters in Florida before/during the 2000 election (not to mention the many
> other occurrences in the US)?
>
> As for Bush II being a threat, his policy of the US being above international law and opposing
> and/or discarding every treaty that could interfere with the Bush doctrine of "Might is Right" is
> why most of the educated population outside the US believes his administration is currently the
> greatest threat to world peace.
>
> I have a hard time seeing how anyone who managed to sit through his State of the Union speech this
> week could not be disturbed by the number of times he said, "I will..." or the religious crusade
> ending of his speech.
>
> To be fair on the subject of State of the Union speeches, I must mention that Governor Locke's
> response barely deserves to be rated "white bread and mayonnaise".
>
> Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

 

[Freewheeling]

"I have a hard time seeing how anyone who managed to sit through his State of the Union speech this
week could not be disturbed by the number of times he said, "I will..." or the religious crusade
ending of his speech."

You know that the speech got a 70% approval rating? Here's what a British/Irish friend of mine said
about the speech, which he heard at 2:00 AM in the UK:

<quote> I watched his speech with interest because here in GB we only ever get soundbites from these
events,but this one was broadcast live in its entirety,probably because it went out at 2am here.

The only other time I've seen an entire speech from A US President was a few years ago when Clinton
was televised in Florida.

I was amazed at Clinton's charisma,fluency,& rapport with his audience....I never understood the
saying 'he could talk the birds down from the trees' till I saw that. Dubya was a disappointment in
comparison,but his message to the world beyond America seemed to me to be quite clear.

The US is the repository of freedom & we're going to make sure that our system is exported
everywhere. He said to the Iraqis (doubt whether many will hear it).....'you are not surrounded by
your enemy,your enemy is ruling you'..not the exact words maybe, but that's the gist.

An unmistakeable message in the Eisenhower/Kennedy tradition that the US is back on the liberation
trail. As I've said now & then on these forums, I believe that the 'Western' way must be prepared to
impose itself definitively on the rest of the world, or else be subjugated by tyrants & fall,so I
wasn't appalled by his speech.

What worries me is the lack of debate ...nevertheless it seems clear to me that this is what Bush is
really talking about & I'm sure the message hasn't been lost outside the Republic...he means it.

Going back to Clinton....I wonder how much personality has to do with these things,not just with the
main players,but also with the likes of you & I. I'm sure we all agree with the ideals of
life,liberty,& the pursuit of happi ness for all mankind,but how best to achieve that is a big bone
of contention.

You Americans have a government willing & able to rearrange the world's furniture to the world's
benefit,& we in GB have one prepared to back you. I want to hear the political class putting the
case for that to the people who elected them...soundbites aren't good enough. </quote>

-- Patrick Dorrity, an unpretentious halfbreed Irishman

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

 

[Tom Sherman]

Freewheeling wrote:
>
> "I have a hard time seeing how anyone who managed to sit through his State of the Union speech
> this week could not be disturbed by the number of times he said, "I will..." or the religious
> crusade ending of his speech."
>
> You know that the speech got a 70% approval rating?...

Scott,

First comment: I am proud to say I am not in the 70%.

Second comment: As a political scientist, I assume you are well aware that polls can be designed to
obtain a biased result. It would not surprise me in the least if that was true in this case (I am
not aware of the actual poll questions).

Third comment: People in the US feel obligated to agree with the "President" [1] in a time of
"crisis" [2] - I hope this explains Bush II popularity ratings.

Fourth comment: Some (US) mass media pundits (with an agenda besides objectivity) said Bush gave an
excellent speech, and since they are pundits, they must be right? (Especially if it is repeated
often enough.)

I am sure the Europeans (and others) were happy to be told (by implication) that all their efforts
to improve quality of life in the world were worthless, since only what the US does matters. Whoever
provides direction to Bush's speechwriters (**** Cheney, Karl Rove?) must enjoy antagonizing the
rest of the world.

[1] In quotes for the obvious reason
[2] We (the US population) are constantly told by the Bush administration and the mass media that we
are in a crisis (not of our own creation).

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

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

 

[Mike O'Brien]

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote
| I am sure the Europeans (and others) were happy to be told (by implication) that all their efforts
| to improve quality of life in the world were worthless, since only what the US does matters.
| Whoever provides direction to Bush's speechwriters (**** Cheney, Karl Rove?) must enjoy
| antagonizing the rest of the world.

Tom:

another "perspective"

Provided by Joe Galloway, author of We Were Soldiers. This one is definitely NOT tongue in cheek.
the author, was a teen-aged Marine who marched and fought as a rifleman to and from the Chosin
reservoir in Korea in 1950. He switched to the Army, and served as a Special Forces officer in
Vietnam. After Vietnam he joined the CIA, and went back to Korea. He's been there, done that, and
has some specific thoughts on countries that don't "like" the USA..
-----------------
If you aren't interested in the ramblings of an old man, please delete now. If you're still there,
pull up a chair and listen. Is there anyone else out there who's sick and tired of all the polls
being taken in foreign countries as to whether or not they "like" us? The last time I looked, the
word "like" had nothing to do with foreign policy. I prefer 'respect' or 'fear'. They worked for
Rome, which civilized and kept the peace in the known world a hell of a lot longer than our puny two
centuries-plus.

I see a left-wing German got elected to office recently by campaigning against the foreign policy of
the United States. Yeah, that's what I want, to be lectured about war and being a "good neighbor" by
a German. Their head honcho said they wouldn't take part in a war against Iraq. Kind of nice, to see
them taking a pass on a war once in while. Perhaps we needed to have the word "World" in front of
War. I think it's time to bring our boys home from Germany. Outside of the money we'd save, we'd
make the Germans "like" us a lot more, after they started paying the bills for their own defense.

Last time I checked, France isn't too fond of us either. They sort of liked us back on June 6th,
1944, though, didn't they? If you don't think so, see how nicely they take care of the enormous
American cemeteries up above the Normandy beaches. For those of you who've studied history, we have
a few cemeteries in places like Belleau Woods and Chateau Thierry, also. For those of you who
haven't studied it, that was from World War One, the first time Europe screwed up and we bailed out
the French. That's where the US Marines got the title 'Devil Dogs' or, if you still care about what
the Germans think, "Teufelhunde". I hope I spelled that right; sure wouldn't want to offend anyone,
least of all a German.

Come to think of it, when Europe couldn't take care of their Bosnian problem recently, guess who had
to help out there also. Last time I checked, our kids are still there. I sort of remember they said
they would be out in a year. Gee, how time flies when you're having fun.

Now we hear that the South Koreans aren't too happy with us either. They "liked" us a lot better, of
course, in June, 1950. It took more than 50,000 Americans killed in Korea to help give them the
lifestyle they currently enjoy, but then who's counting? I think it's also time to bring the boys
home from there. There are about 37,000 young Americans on the DMZ separating the South Koreans from
their "brothers" up North. Maybe if we leave, they can begin to participate in the "good life" that
North Korea currently enjoys. Uh huh. Sure.

I also understand that a good portion of the Arab/Moslem world now doesn't "like" us either. Did
anyone ever sit down and determine what we would have to do to get them to like us? Ask them what
they would like us to do. Die?. Commit ritual suicide? Bend over? Maybe we should follow the advice
of our dimwitted, dullest knife in the drawer, Senator Patty Murray, and build more roads,
hospitals, day care centers, and orphanages like Osama bin Laden does. What with all the orphans
Osama has created, the least he can do is build some places to put them. Senator Stupid says if we
would only "emulate" Osama, the Arab world would love us. Sorry Patty; in addition to the fact that
we already do all of those things around the world and have been doing them for over sixty years, I
don't take public transportation, and I certainly wouldn't take it with a bomb strapped to the guy
next to me. Don't get me wrong: I'm not in favor of going to war. Been there, done that. Several
times, in fact.

But I think we ought to have some polls in this country about other countries, and see if we "like"
THEM. Problem is, if you listed the countries, not only wouldn't the average American know if he
liked them or not, he wouldn't be able to find them. If we're supposed to worry about them, how
about them worrying about us? We were nice to the North Koreans in 1994, as we followed the policies
of Neville Clinton. And it seemed to work; they didn't re-start nuclear weapons program for a whole
year or so. In the meantime, we fed them when they were starving, and put oil in their stoves when
they were freezing.

In a recent visit to Norway, I engaged in a really fun debate with my cousin's son, a student at a
Norwegian University. I was lectured to by this thankless squirt about the American "Empire", and
scolded about dropping the atomic bomb on the Japanese. I reminded him that empires usually keep the
stuff they take; we don't, and back in 1945 most Norwegians thought dropping ANY kind of bomb on
Germany or Japan was a good idea. I also reminded him that my uncle, his grandfather, and others in
our family spent a significant time in Sachsenhausen concentration camp, courtesy of the Germans,
and they didn't all survive. I further reminded him that if it wasn't for the "American Empire" he
would probably be speaking German or Russian.

Sorry about the rambling, but I just took an unofficial poll here at our house, and we don't seem to
like anyone.

Regards,

Mike O'Brien

Trying to keep the barbarians from the gate, but they all have fake ID's

 

[Tom Sherman]

Mike O'Brien wrote:
>
> ... Is there anyone else out there who's sick and tired of all the > polls being taken in foreign
> countries as to whether or not they > "like" us? The last time I looked, the word "like" had
> nothing to do > with foreign policy. I prefer 'respect' or 'fear'. They worked for > Rome, which
> civilized and kept the peace in the known world a hell of > a lot longer than our puny two
> centuries-plus.

I see that "rule by force" worked out well in the long run for the Roman Empire - is that why most
of it was overun by "barbarians"?

> I see a left-wing German got elected to office recently by campaigning against the foreign policy
> of the United States. Yeah, that's what I > want, to be lectured about war and being a "good
> neighbor" by a German. Their head honcho said they wouldn't take part in a war > against Iraq.
> Kind of nice, to see them taking a pass on a war once in > while....

The last time Germany started a war was 1939. Anyone who was an adult then is now over 82 years
old, therefore the vast majority of the German population bears absolutely no responsibility for
any actions taken by the German state in WW2 or any previous wars. To imply otherwise is
jingoist slander.

> Last time I checked, France isn't too fond of us either. They sort of > liked us back on June 6th,
> 1944, though, didn't they? If you don't > think so, see how nicely they take care of the enormous
> American > cemeteries up above the Normandy beaches. For those of you who've > studied history, we
> have a few cemeteries in places like Belleau Woods > and Chateau Thierry, also. For those of you
> who haven't studied it, > that was from World War One, the first time Europe screwed up and we >
> bailed out the French....

The French may well be rude and arrogant at times and feel culturally superior to other nations, but
that hardly has much bearing on what they think of US foreign policy.

As for WW1, (unlike WW2) there was no real moral high ground among the European nations at war -
there was even some support in the US for entering the war on the German/Austro-Hungarian side. If
the US had not become involved, a peace settlement less punitive to Germany than the Treaty of
Versailles could have occurred, and an atmosphere in Germany where the National Socialists could
come to power would not have been created.

The real brunt of defeating Germany in WW2 was left to the Soviet Union (although US industrial
production was vital to both the Soviet and British war efforts). Less than 300,000 US servicemen
died in the European/North African theater in WW2 (and approximately 1 in every 300 US residents
overall in WW2) and US civilian casualties in WW2 were negligible, while somewhere between 1 in 8
and 1 in 10 residents of the Soviet Union died. Even after the Normandy invasion by US/British
forces, the primary German war effort was directed to the Eastern Front (the Germans realized it was
better to be occupied by/surrender to the US/GB than to the Soviets).

> Come to think of it, when Europe couldn't take care of their Bosnian problem recently, guess who
> had to help out there also. Last time I > checked, our kids are still there. I sort of remember
> they said they > would be out in a year. Gee, how time flies when you're having fun.

In addition, the same Kosovo agreement that Milosevic accepted after the NATO air strikes could
arguably have been obtained through negotiation if Clinton had not been determined to use military
force (to provide a reason for NATO's continued existence and to distract attention from his
personal indiscretions). Many observers also contend the air strikes actually increased the violence
against the Kosovars by Serbian/Yugoslavian forces rather than protecting the Kosovars.

Please remember that Bush II threatened to scuttle all the UN peacekeeping missions (including those
in the Balkans) over the issue of the authority of the International War Crimes Tribunal over US
forces involved in peacekeeping operations.

As for the use of force, remember, it was a non-violent protest by the Yugoslavians after their
rigged elections that deposed Milosevic, and not NATO military action.

> Now we hear that the South Koreans aren't too happy with us either. > They "liked" us a lot
> better, of course, in June, 1950. It took more > than 50,000 Americans killed in Korea to help
> give them the lifestyle > they currently enjoy, but then who's counting? I think it's also time >
> to bring the boys home from there. There are about 37,000 young > Americans on the DMZ separating
> the South Koreans from their > "brothers" up North. Maybe if we leave, they can begin to
> participate > in the "good life" that North Korea currently enjoys. Uh huh. Sure.

The South Koreans were happy with the Clinton administration's efforts to engage in dialog with
North Korea and its support of efforts to improved the relationship between the two Korean nations.
Bush's discontinuation of this policy (if Clinton supported it, it must be bad) and public
statements about North Korea was a virtual slap in the face to the governments of BOTH South and
North Korea.

Bush declaring North Korea to be part of an "Axis of Evil" may have played well to a portion of his
domestic audience, but it has had a destabilizing effect on the Korean situation. North Korea
rightly feels that Bush may intend to attack them after he is done with Iraq, so they feel it is in
their best interest to have nuclear weapons and ballistic missile delivery systems as a deterrent to
US attack. The South Koreans are rightly concerned about this development, as they will bear the
brunt of any damage inflicted by North Korea in a war involving North Korea.

> I also understand that a good portion of the Arab/Moslem world now > doesn't "like" us either. Did
> anyone ever sit down and determine what > we would have to do to get them to like us? Ask them
> what they would > like us to do. Die?. Commit ritual suicide? Bend over? Maybe we should > follow
> the advice of our dimwitted, dullest knife in the drawer, > Senator Patty Murray, and build more
> roads, hospitals, day care > centers, and orphanages like Osama bin Laden does....

Clinton devoted much political effort to obtaining an Israeli-Palestinian settlement. Bush, again
dropped all US efforts as "Clintonian Policy" and tried to ignore the situation. After being forced
to confront it, he declared Arial Sharon a "man of peace" - a virtual slap in the face to all of the
Arabs who remember the Sabra and Shattila refugee camps massacres that Sharon allowed to occur
(according to an ISRAELI COMMISSION) in 1982. The US insists on the UN Security Council resolutions
concerning Iraq being enforced, while showing no concern over the many UN Security Council
resolutions ignored by Israel. Bush also looks the other way as Israel continues to build illegal
Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip, as Israeli settlers attack Palestinians
and destroy their homes and crops under the protection of the IDF, and as the IDF uses
disproportionate force and (illegal under international law) "targeted killings".

The US also has rounded up many Arabs and Muslims in (and outside) the US and has detained them
indefinitely without any legal representation. These detainees are often held in circumstances that
violate international law, and the US has failed to provide evidence that any of them are actually
involved in terrorist activities. Is due process and following treaties that the US is party to too
much to ask?

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

"Peace is not made with friends. Peace is made with enemies." - Yitzhak Rabin

"If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your
partner." - Nelson Mandela

 

[Freewheeling]

Tom:

First comment: All four of your comments can't be simultaneously true. You're like the lawyer
who wants to argue that his client wasn't in the neighborhood, but he assailed the victim in
self defence.

I notice that the Peace Movement likes to convince itself it's on the crest of a wave, by
simultaneously quoting and disparaging polls. I'm a social scientist and a survey analyst. You
aren't on the crest of a wave. But if I were your political opponent I'd hope you continue to
beieve you are.

I don't see anything strong about taking a "moral" position that leaves the most ruthless tyrants on
earth in power, and grasping for more. My advice is to wait until after the real wave breaks, and
then put your strength where your mouth is: in Iraq. They'll need it.

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

<<snipped

 

[Freewheeling]

"The last time Germany started a war was 1939. Anyone who was an adult then is now over 82 years
old, therefore the vast majority of the German population bears absolutely no responsibility for
any actions taken by the German state in WW2 or any previous wars. To imply otherwise is
jingoist slander."

You don't seem to have a problem "slandering" the US for stuff it did 50 to 200 years ago, as long
as it's on the negative side of the ledger. What's up with that?

"The French may well be rude and arrogant at times and feel culturally superior to other nations,
but that hardly has much bearing on what they think of US foreign policy."

Sorry, but it has everything to do with what they think of US foreign policy. They sell the nuclear
technology to Iraq upon which it bases its weapons program, then rank the Israelis for destroying
said reactors. Much later, when it comes time to face the guy down they get all "high and mighty."
And it was German firms sold the chemicals to Iraq that were used in al-Ansar on the Kurds.
"Somebody unsoil our drawers for us, so we don't have to acknowledge where that smell comes from."

"As for WW1, (unlike WW2) there was no real moral high ground among the European nations at war -
there was even some support in the US for entering the war on the German/Austro-Hungarian side. If
the US had not become involved, a peace settlement less punitive to Germany than the Treaty of
Versailles could have occurred, and an atmosphere in Germany where the National Socialists could
come to power would not have been created."

What a pantload. It was Wilson arguing his 14 points who was over-ruled by the Euros bent on
punishing the Germans. And besides, that was *two* generations ago. I thought all that stuff was
irrelevant?

"Less than 300,000 US servicemen died in the European/North African theater in WW2 (and
approximately 1 in every 300 US residents overall in WW2) and US civilian casualties in WW2 were
negligible, while somewhere between 1 in 8 and 1 in 10 residents of the Soviet Union died."

Something like 30 million at the hands of Stalin alone (encompassing the war years). If we'd only
stayed out the Russians could've bequeathed their enlightened system on Western Europe... except
for the fact that they had a military machine obviously composed of cannon fodder and would never
have defeated the Germans in the first place. It was US, and allied, technology, training,
morale, and generalship that defeated the Germans. And in case you hadn't noticed, we also
defeated the Russians.

"As for the use of force, remember, it was a non-violent protest by the Yugoslavians after their
rigged elections that deposed Milosevic, and not NATO military action."

Funny how it occurred *after* the military action though, huh?

"Bush declaring North Korea to be part of an "Axis of Evil" may have played well to a portion of his
domestic audience, but it has had a destabilizing effect on the Korean situation. "

I really can't believe this ****. WORDS destabilized the Korean situation? Like, not their dumbass
actions or anything. The insensitivity of calling their regime "evil" did it? I have news for you,
their regime *is* evil.

As for Israel/Palestine here's what'll work, according to Tom Friedman:

1. After a moratorium on all suicide bomber attacks guaranteed by the Arab Nations, by force if
necessary;
2. Withdrawal of Israel from all the occupied territories; plus
3. Dissolution of all the Israeli settlements (but no "right of return" of Palestinians to Israel).
4. Establishment of a Palestinian State with Jerusalem as capital (with access to the Temple Mount
guaranteed in perpetuity by a well-armed international force). In return for which:
5. The Arab and Muslim states establish "full normalization of relations" with Israel.

If I were President I'd cram this down the throats of all three constituencies involved in the
dispute. I'd use my foot, not my hands. Better they fear and respect us than like us, but better
they fear, respect *and* like us, than not.

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

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> Mike O'Brien wrote:
> >
> > ... Is there anyone else out there who's sick and tired of all the >
polls being taken in foreign countries as to whether or not they > "like" us? The last time I
looked, the word "like" had nothing to do > with foreign policy. I prefer 'respect' or 'fear'. They
worked for > Rome, which civilized and kept the peace in the known world a hell of > a lot longer
than our puny two centuries-plus.
>
> I see that "rule by force" worked out well in the long run for the Roman Empire - is that why most
> of it was overun by "barbarians"?
>
> > I see a left-wing German got elected to office recently by campaigning against the foreign
> > policy of the United States. Yeah, that's what I >
want, to be lectured about war and being a "good neighbor" by a
> > German. Their head honcho said they wouldn't take part in a war >
against Iraq. Kind of nice, to see them taking a pass on a war once in > while....
>
> The last time Germany started a war was 1939. Anyone who was an adult then is now over 82 years
> old, therefore the vast majority of the German population bears absolutely no responsibility for
> any actions taken by the German state in WW2 or any previous wars. To imply otherwise is jingoist
> slander.
>
> > Last time I checked, France isn't too fond of us either. They sort of >
liked us back on June 6th, 1944, though, didn't they? If you don't > think so, see how nicely they
take care of the enormous American > cemeteries up above the Normandy beaches. For those of you
who've > studied history, we have a few cemeteries in places like Belleau Woods > and Chateau
Thierry, also. For those of you who haven't studied it, > that was from World War One, the first
time Europe screwed up and we > bailed out the French....
>
> The French may well be rude and arrogant at times and feel culturally superior to other nations,
> but that hardly has much bearing on what they think of US foreign policy.
>
> As for WW1, (unlike WW2) there was no real moral high ground among the European nations at war -
> there was even some support in the US for entering the war on the German/Austro-Hungarian side. If
> the US had not become involved, a peace settlement less punitive to Germany than the Treaty of
> Versailles could have occurred, and an atmosphere in Germany where the National Socialists could
> come to power would not have been created.
>
> The real brunt of defeating Germany in WW2 was left to the Soviet Union (although US industrial
> production was vital to both the Soviet and British war efforts). Less than 300,000 US servicemen
> died in the European/North African theater in WW2 (and approximately 1 in every 300 US residents
> overall in WW2) and US civilian casualties in WW2 were negligible, while somewhere between 1 in 8
> and 1 in 10 residents of the Soviet Union died. Even after the Normandy invasion by US/British
> forces, the primary German war effort was directed to the Eastern Front (the Germans realized it
> was better to be occupied by/surrender to the US/GB than to the Soviets).
>
> > Come to think of it, when Europe couldn't take care of their Bosnian problem recently, guess who
> > had to help out there also. Last time I >
checked, our kids are still there. I sort of remember they said they > would be out in a year. Gee,
how time flies when you're having fun.
>
> In addition, the same Kosovo agreement that Milosevic accepted after the NATO air strikes could
> arguably have been obtained through negotiation if Clinton had not been determined to use military
> force (to provide a reason for NATO's continued existence and to distract attention from his
> personal indiscretions). Many observers also contend the air strikes actually increased the
> violence against the Kosovars by Serbian/Yugoslavian forces rather than protecting the Kosovars.
>
> Please remember that Bush II threatened to scuttle all the UN peacekeeping missions (including
> those in the Balkans) over the issue of the authority of the International War Crimes Tribunal
> over US forces involved in peacekeeping operations.
>
> As for the use of force, remember, it was a non-violent protest by the Yugoslavians after their
> rigged elections that deposed Milosevic, and not NATO military action.
>
> > Now we hear that the South Koreans aren't too happy with us either. >
They "liked" us a lot better, of course, in June, 1950. It took more > than 50,000 Americans killed
in Korea to help give them the lifestyle > they currently enjoy, but then who's counting? I think
it's also time > to bring the boys home from there. There are about 37,000 young > Americans on the
DMZ separating the South Koreans from their > "brothers" up North. Maybe if we leave, they can begin
to participate > in the "good life" that North Korea currently enjoys. Uh huh. Sure.
>
> The South Koreans were happy with the Clinton administration's efforts to engage in dialog with
> North Korea and its support of efforts to improved the relationship between the two Korean
> nations. Bush's discontinuation of this policy (if Clinton supported it, it must be bad) and
> public statements about North Korea was a virtual slap in the face to the governments of BOTH
> South and North Korea.
>
> Bush declaring North Korea to be part of an "Axis of Evil" may have played well to a portion of
> his domestic audience, but it has had a destabilizing effect on the Korean situation. North Korea
> rightly feels that Bush may intend to attack them after he is done with Iraq, so they feel it is
> in their best interest to have nuclear weapons and ballistic missile delivery systems as a
> deterrent to US attack. The South Koreans are rightly concerned about this development, as they
> will bear the brunt of any damage inflicted by North Korea in a war involving North Korea.
>
> > I also understand that a good portion of the Arab/Moslem world now >
doesn't "like" us either. Did anyone ever sit down and determine what > we would have to do to
get them to like us? Ask them what they would > like us to do. Die?. Commit ritual suicide? Bend
over? Maybe we should > follow the advice of our dimwitted, dullest knife in the drawer, >
Senator Patty Murray, and build more roads, hospitals, day care > centers, and orphanages like
Osama bin Laden does....
>
> Clinton devoted much political effort to obtaining an Israeli-Palestinian settlement. Bush, again
> dropped all US efforts as "Clintonian Policy" and tried to ignore the situation. After being
> forced to confront it, he declared Arial Sharon a "man of peace" - a virtual slap in the face to
> all of the Arabs who remember the Sabra and Shattila refugee camps massacres that Sharon allowed
> to occur (according to an ISRAELI COMMISSION) in 1982. The US insists on the UN Security Council
> resolutions concerning Iraq being enforced, while showing no concern over the many UN Security
> Council resolutions ignored by Israel. Bush also looks the other way as Israel continues to build
> illegal Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip, as Israeli settlers attack
> Palestinians and destroy their homes and crops under the protection of the IDF, and as the IDF
> uses disproportionate force and (illegal under international law) "targeted killings".
>
> The US also has rounded up many Arabs and Muslims in (and outside) the US and has detained them
> indefinitely without any legal representation. These detainees are often held in circumstances
> that violate international law, and the US has failed to provide evidence that any of them are
> actually involved in terrorist activities. Is due process and following treaties that the US is
> party to too much to ask?
>
> Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)
>
> "Peace is not made with friends. Peace is made with enemies." - Yitzhak Rabin
>
> "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your
> partner." - Nelson Mandela

 

[Tom Sherman]

Freewheeling wrote:
>
> Tom:
>
> First comment: All four of your comments can't be simultaneously true. You're like the lawyer who
> wants to argue that his client wasn't in the neighborhood, but he assailed the victim in self
> defence.

Scott,

I did not explicitly state this, but I was not claiming that all three
[1] reasons would be simultaneously true for a particular individual, as of course they would not
be. I assume that you agree the possibility exists that reasons for approving (or disapproving)
of a speech may differ among individuals.

[2] I exclude the first comment, as it was a personal statement about myself and therefore not
really related to the other three.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

 

[Mikael Seierup]

I like americans... I'm not to happy about your foreign policy at the moment. Theres a big
difference.

Regards Mikael

 

[Skip]

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... <snip>

Too bad Mr. Mandela couldn't get this message across to his wife (now ex-wife) Winnie when she was
encouraging that her political enemies get the "necklace" - an auto tire filled with petrol and lit
while around their neck. I don't think Winnie was any good at partnering up with enemies.

> "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your
> partner." - Nelson Mandela

 

[Tom Sherman]

Freewheeling wrote:
>
> "As for WW1, (unlike WW2) there was no real moral high ground among the European nations at war -
> there was even some support in the US for entering the war on the German/Austro-Hungarian side. If
> the US had not become involved, a peace settlement less punitive to Germany than the Treaty of
> Versailles could have occurred, and an atmosphere in Germany where the National Socialists could
> come to power would not have been created."
>
> What a pantload. It was Wilson arguing his 14 points who was > over-ruled by the Euros bent on
> punishing the Germans. And besides, > that was *two* generations ago. I thought all that stuff was
> > irrelevant?

You misunderstand my point - without US involvement in the war, Germany would not have been as
soundly defeated militarily and would have been in a position to negotiate a peace settlement more
favorable to itself (which the French and British might have accepted so as to stop the carnage). My
argument had nothing to do with Wilson's idea of an appropriate peace settlement.

> "Less than 300,000 US servicemen died in the European/North African theater in WW2 (and
> approximately 1 in every 300 US residents overall in WW2) and US civilian casualties in WW2 were
> negligible, while somewhere between 1 in 8 and 1 in 10 residents of the Soviet Union died."
>
> Something like 30 million at the hands of Stalin alone (encompassing the war years). If we'd only
> stayed out the Russians could've bequeathed their enlightened system on Western Europe... except
> for the fact that they had a military machine obviously composed of cannon fodder and would never
> have defeated the Germans in the first place. It was US, and allied, technology, training, morale,
> and generalship that defeated the Germans. And in case you hadn't noticed, we also defeated the
> Russians.

How many battles did Georgi Zukhov lose while fighting the Wehrmacht? None that I am aware of.

As for the US defeating the Russians, I believe much of the credit has to go to Gorbachev
recognizing the "Leninist" Soviet system was fundamentally broken beyond repair and needed to be
changed. The Reagan era US military buildup actually made it more difficult for Gorbachev to effect
change within the Soviet Union, due to fears of US military aggression.

> "As for the use of force, remember, it was a non-violent protest by the Yugoslavians after their
> rigged elections that deposed Milosevic, and not NATO military action."
>
> Funny how it occurred *after* the military action though, huh?

Similar removals of the governments of Poland, East Germany, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia occurred
without foreign military intervention.

> "Bush declaring North Korea to be part of an "Axis of Evil" may have played well to a portion of
> his domestic audience, but it has had a destabilizing effect on the Korean situation. "
>
> I really can't believe this ****. WORDS destabilized the Korean situation? Like, not their dumbass
> actions or anything. The insensitivity of calling their regime "evil" did it? I have news for you,
> their regime *is* evil.

Not just words, but the policy that went along with them. I certainly won't argue the point about
the moral quality of the North Korean government (I agree), but why do they receive different
treatment from the US than many other brutal and totalitarian governments?

> As for Israel/Palestine here's what'll work, according to Tom > Friedman:
>
> 1. After a moratorium on all suicide bomber attacks guaranteed by the Arab Nations, by force if
> necessary;
> 2. Withdrawal of Israel from all the occupied territories; plus
> 3. Dissolution of all the Israeli settlements (but no "right of return" of Palestinians to
> Israel).
> 4. Establishment of a Palestinian State with Jerusalem as capital (with access to the Temple Mount
> guaranteed in perpetuity by a well-armed international force). In return for which:
> 5. The Arab and Muslim states establish "full normalization of relations" with Israel.
>
> If I were President I'd cram this down the throats of all three constituencies involved in the
> dispute. I'd use my foot, not my hands. Better they fear and respect us than like us, but better
> they fear, respect *and* like us, than not.

Certainly a reasonable plan in that while most will not be happy with it, all but the most radical
on each side would grudgingly accept it. However, this is not Bush Administration policy, which
seems to be accepting whatever Sharon does.

The US certainly could do much to compel Israel to accept such a settlement, considering the amount
of aid the US provides to Israel, and even more importantly, the veto power the US has in the UN
Security Council which has been used many times on Israel's be half.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

 

[Tom Sherman]

Mikael Seierup wrote:
>
> I like americans... I'm not to happy about your foreign policy at the moment. Theres a big
> difference.

Mikael,

Please remember the US government is primarily run for the benefit of those who are able to donate
large sums to political campaigns, and not to the benefit of the majority of the population.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

"There are two things you need for success in politics. Money -- and I can't think of the other." --
Senator Mark Hanna (R-Ohio), 1903