Re: More From the National Intelligence Estimate
On 4 Aug 2006 at 8:48, Nick Arnett wrote: > Now that you have read this, surely you cannot still believe that the > administration's arguments for the were supported by the intelligence. How > do we deal with this? An easy answer would be to blame conservatives and > run to the left. But blame has never healed any wounds. I think that > somehow we have to acknowledge what really happened, take responsibility for > it as a nation (rather than blaming one political faction), talk about it, > memorialize it and seek to identify whatever good might come out of it. I > don't think that our military power can redeem the error, but I do believe > the error can be redeemed. That Iraq is considered a "error to be redeemed" says a lot...that essentially there was no value in overthrowing a tyrant who had previous US support, that the loss of life before the invasion was not significant and so on. It was not an "error" to overthrow Saddam. Sure, your government lied to you about the reasons, and by all means call them to account for it, but overthrowing that sort of unstably dangerous tyrant isn't a mistake. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: More From the National Intelligence Estimate
On 05/08/2006, at 11:34 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: It was not an "error" to overthrow Saddam. Sure, your government lied to you about the reasons, and by all means call them to account for it, but overthrowing that sort of unstably dangerous tyrant isn't a mistake. It is if you're replacing him with a vacuum. Saddam could have waited another 6 month or a year, with more and more pressure. The "Coalition" could have genuinely won the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqis. There must have been better ways than what they chose. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: First Freedom First
On 3 Aug 2006 at 11:43, Dave Land wrote: > Folks, > > I just signed a petition at http://firstfreedomfirst.org/ aimed > at ensuring freedom of -- and from -- religion in America. It is > sponsored by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, > among others. I'm for that, too. 'Far as I can tell it prevents discussion of important issues, makes it impossible to discuss the motivations of certain people elected at least partially because of the religion (campaign issue or not) and also makes it harder to question religious policys put foward under another name. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: More From the National Intelligence Estimate
On 8/5/06, Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It was not an "error" to overthrow Saddam. Sure, your government lied to you about the reasons, and by all means call them to account for it, but overthrowing that sort of unstably dangerous tyrant isn't a mistake. That's part of what redeems it, if what results is better. By many objective measures, Iraq is much worse off now, some of which are the inevitable consequences of violence. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: More From the National Intelligence Estimate
On 5 Aug 2006 at 23:49, Charlie Bell wrote: > > On 05/08/2006, at 11:34 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > > > > > It was not an "error" to overthrow Saddam. Sure, your government lied > > to you about the reasons, and by all means call them to account for > > it, but overthrowing that sort of unstably dangerous tyrant isn't a > > mistake. > > It is if you're replacing him with a vacuum. Saddam could have waited > another 6 month or a year, with more and more pressure. The > "Coalition" could have genuinely won the "hearts and minds" of the > Iraqis. There must have been better ways than what they chose. The Americans could train their troops in peacekeeping tactics, yes. I still don't understand, to this day, why they do not. And setting up a central strong government...again, an American mistake. America doesn't have one (ffs!), and a government of limited- autonomy regions would of worked better. The war? That went really well. It's the peace which has been difficult. The "pressure" which hadn't topped him in...a lot of years...was not about to do anything except make him crack down harder on his populace. AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
What is WMD?
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Nick Arnett > Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 7:45 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: RFK Jr. interview > > On 8/4/06, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > It is in the first Key Judgment on page 5 of the report (page 9 in > > Acrobat). > > The first two sentences read: > > > > "We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) > > program in defiance of the UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has > > chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in > excess > > of > > UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear > > weapons > > program." > > > A program is not a weapon, just a plan to get rich is not money. You're > reading it the way you want to, not using the meanings it makes clear. Do > realize how very, very carefully they pick the language in these reports? > Who and how many people review it (which actually is classified)? Where > it says "weapons," if it mean "weapons of mass destruction," it would have > said so. Maybe you think this is nitpicking... but this is > an intelligence brief for the president and security council, they are > very, very precise in what they say. If they weren't, then how would the > consumers of the report know when they are talking about ordinary weapons, > which Iraq certainly had, and WMDs? _By definition_ chemical and biological weapons are WMD. Yes they are careful in what they write, but they do not anticipate a defense lawyer trying to explain a totally different meaning to a jury from the one intended. The common use of the term MWD, as well as the prevalent use by the Administration is the grouping of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. When the administration has deviated from this, it is by extending the definition to other forms of mass destruction. For example, the planes that hit the WTC and Pentagon were called, by some, WMD. Another example of a more consistent extension of WMD is the extension to the use of radiological weapons (e.g. a conventional bomb covered with Cs-137. So, while all WMD may not be biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons; all biological chemical or nuclear weapons are WMD. Thus, saying biological WMD weapons is redundant. The other lawyerly hair splitting that you did is to distinguish between massive supplies of things like sarin gas, and sarin gas weapons. For this distinction to be a valid one, one of two things has to be true. 1) There is another, legitimate reason for a country to have massive quantities of sarin gas besides having it ready for an attack. It is true that some materials that can be weaponized also has legitimate use. One good example of this comes from home grown terrorism: Oklahoma city. If a farmer has massive quantities of fuel oil and nitrogen fertilizer stored on his property, he probably has a very good reason for this. The fuel oil is for his diesel tractor, while the fertilizer is for his crops. Possession of these materials is not suspicious in his case. If a bunch of neo-Nazis have hundreds of pounds of fertilizer and barrels of fuel oil in a basement, it is very suspicious. They have no good reason to have these. Thus, further investigation is warranted. 2) The development of the delivery system is a significant problem, apart from the development of the active agent. The only example I can think of is the effort required to develop an atomic bomb, once one has the requisite number of kilos of enriched uranium or plutonium. With chemical and biological weapons, this is not the case. IIRC, the WMD attack on the Kurds involved the spraying of the villages from helicopters. Something akin to a simple crop duster is a sufficient delivery mechanism. With a couple of weeks, given a very simple machine shop and a charge card good at Home Depot, I could personally put together something that would work. A more efficient way of doing this from a distance would be missiles or artillery shells. The report noted that Hussein did have a number of these shells found earlier. Other shells, IIRC, were not properly accounted for. Even if he had none on hand, the ability to fill a rocket or a shell with high pressure gas or anthrax powder is fairly straightforward. I probably wouldn't want to do it myself, but there are machine shops I could have a rush order done in a week or so that I know of. > > Even if you stretch the implications of the intelligence as much as you > would, then it still doesn't present a foundation for what the > administration said to justify the war. It's not a matter of stretching the implications. It's a matter of taking the common understanding of the words. Having hundreds of tons of chemical agents, such as mustard gas or sarin, is considered by most to be, by definition, having WMD. I realize that the report didn't state that Iraq had delivery systems
RE: More From the National Intelligence Estimate
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Charlie Bell > Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 8:49 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: More From the National Intelligence Estimate > > > On 05/08/2006, at 11:34 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > > > > > It was not an "error" to overthrow Saddam. Sure, your government lied > > to you about the reasons, and by all means call them to account for > > it, but overthrowing that sort of unstably dangerous tyrant isn't a > > mistake. > > It is if you're replacing him with a vacuum. Saddam could have waited > another 6 month or a year, with more and more pressure. Given the situation, I don't think there was a way to ratchet up pressure from what it was. The US was forward deployed and combat ready in a way that it wasn't ready to sustain for a year. I think that the US could have got a resolution at the UN that would allow for the imposition of smart sanctions, but I think that, as the bribing of the French UN delegate shows, that even smart sanctions would have workarounds. I do agree, thought, that Hussein could have waited a couple of years, given what we knew at the time. We could have focused our effort on rebuilding Afghanistan, pouring a good deal of money into that small country. >The "Coalition" could have genuinely won the "hearts and minds" of the > Iraqis. There must have been better ways than what they chose. There were. And, the ironic part of it was that those better plans were available to be used before the war. The State Department, using their expertise in development, had a well developed, realistic plan for post war Iraq. In addition, the present ambassador, who by all accounts is very skilled at his job, was ready to step in and start things moving. Unfortunately, Bush decided to go for the Cheney/Rumsfeld "plan" which was nothing more than loosely sketched wishful thinking. Day care managers who had their resumes on the Heritage Foundation website ended up running the Iraq economy, while the youngest project manager in the history of the JFK school of government, who's experience was in international development in Russia, had his application tabled for months on end. He had the application in, knowing full well that he might die as a result, but feeling that success in Iraq was critical for the next 20 years. He is, of course, our own Gautam. This is where I fault the administration. To me, it has all the elements of a true tragedy. The quest, overturning a cruel dictator and bringing democracy and prosperity to the Iraqi people, is heroic. The quest is betrayed by the hubris of the key players: the Bush administration. As a result, they do untold damage to their own cause. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: What are WMD?
Correct the header. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What be WMD?
- Original Message - From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 1:20 PM Subject: RE: What are WMD? > Correct the header. :-) > > Dan M. Modernized now. xponent Header Follies Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Once more into the 9-11 breach
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060805/ap_on_go_ot/sept11_commission_7 The Sept. 11 commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by the Pentagon and FAA about their response to the 2001 terror attacks that it considered an investigation into possible deception, the panel's chairmen say in a new book. Republican Thomas Kean and Democrat Lee Hamilton also say in "Without Precedent" that their panel was too soft in questioning former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and that the 20-month investigation may have suffered for it. The book, a behind-the-scenes look at the investigation, recounts obstacles the authors say were thrown up by the Bush administration, internal disputes over President Bush's use of the attacks as a reason for invading Iraq, and the way the final report avoided questioning whether U.S. policy in the Middle East may have contributed to the attacks. Kean and Hamilton said the commission found it mind-boggling that authorities had asserted during hearings that their air defenses had reacted quickly and were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93, which appeared headed toward Washington. In fact, the commission determined after it subpoenaed audiotapes and e-mails of the sequence of events that the shootdown order did not reach North American Aerospace Command pilots until after all of the hijacked planes had crashed. The book states that commission staff, "exceedingly frustrated" by what they thought could be deception, proposed a full review into why the FAA and the Pentagon's NORAD had presented inaccurate information. That ultimately could have led to sanctions. Due to a lack of time, the panel ultimately referred the matter to the inspectors general at the Pentagon and Transportation Department. Both are preparing reports, spokesmen said this week. "Fog of war could explain why some people were confused on the day of 9/11, but it could not explain why all of the after-action reports, accident investigations and public testimony by FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue," the book states. The questioning of Giuliani was considered by Kean and Hamilton "a low point" in the commission's examination of witnesses during public hearings. "We did not ask tough questions, nor did we get all of the information we needed to put on the public record," they wrote. Commission members backed off, Kean and Hamilton said, after drawing criticism in newspaper editorials for sharp questioning of New York fire and police officials at earlier hearings. The editorials said the commission was insensitive to the officials' bravery on the day of the attacks. "It proved difficult, if not impossible, to raise hard questions about 9/11 in New York without it being perceived as criticism of the individual police and firefighters or of Mayor Giuliani," Kean and Hamilton said. Congress established the commission in 2002 to investigate government missteps leading to the Sept. 11 attacks. Its 567-page unanimous report, which was released in July 2004 and became a national best seller, does not blame Bush or former President Clinton but does say they failed to make anti-terrorism a high priority before the attacks. The panel of five Republicans and five Democrats also concluded that the Sept. 11 attacks would not be the nation's last, noting that al-Qaida had tried for at least 10 years to acquire weapons of mass destruction. In their book, which goes on sale Aug. 15, Kean and Hamilton recap obstacles they say the panel faced in putting out a credible report in a presidential election year, including fights for access to government documents and an effort to reach unanimity. Among the issues: Iraq. The commission threatened to splinter over the question of investigating the administration's use of 9/11 as a reason for going to war. The strongest proponent was original member Max Cleland, a Democratic former senator who later stepped down for separate reasons. If Cleland had not resigned, the commission probably would not have reached unanimity, according to the book. Ultimately, commissioners decided to touch briefly on the Iraq war by concluding there was no "collaborative relationship" between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida; the administration had asserted there were substantial contacts between the two. Israel. The commission disagreed as to how to characterize al-Qaida's motives for attacking the U.S., with Hamilton arguing that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the presence of U.S. forces in the Middle East were major contributors. Unidentified members believed that "listing U.S. support for Israel as a root cause of al-Qaida's opposition to the United States indicated that the United States should reassess that policy," which those commission members di
Re: Since planetary science has been ruled "on-topic" :)
Fine, then. If that's the case, I suppose that lunar orbital dynamics are not entirely off topic, so you may enjoy reading about "3753 Cruithne", Earth's "second moon", with its very unusual compound "kidney bean"/"horseshoe" orbit with a period around the "kidney bean" of about 380 days, while that orbit follows the "horseshoe" pattern around the earth every 770 years or so: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3753_Cruithne Furthermore, I hope that an extremely funny couple of clips from the British "humour programme" QI that mention Cruithne (and teach us that it is pronounced "Crew-in-yay" or some such) would not meet with the kind of rage that accompanies, say, a review of recently declassified bits of the National Intelligence Estimate of 2002 or further info about 9/11: http://youtube.com/watch?v=tKmYyGyGEV8 Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
> Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Behalf Of Deborah Harrell > > > Dan Minette wrote: > > > > >DanM wrote: > > <> > > > ...The thesis is that the mother and > > > society owe the child at least a chance at life. > > > For a right-to-life > > > person, every child has an inalienable right to > > > life. The only possible > > > exception is when their right to life conflicts > with the right to life of > > > the mother. The mother's health is important, > > > of course, but not as > > > critical as the child's life. One would wish, > > > of course, to choose both, > > > but when push comes to shove, the right to life > > > predominates. > > Disagree. I would not forbide a mentally > competent > > woman, who knows that being pregnant will most > likely > > kill her, from continuing the pregnancybut to > >say that a woman whose > > pregnancy will probably kill her *must* continue > > is contributing to the murder of a realized, as > >opposed to potential, human life. > I didn't say that. Anti-abortion laws supported by > the right to life > movement usually have exceptions for pregnancies > that put the mother's life at serious risk. Hmm, I was probably overreacting re: the recent South Dakota law, which does not except it (if what I've read is correct). > BTW, I was trying to lay out two positions: the > pro-choice and the pro-life > positions. My point was that folks tend to argue > from their own axioms, > ignoring the axioms of those they differ with. And I was refusing to have my pro-choice stance deny _any_ protection to the unborn (teratogens etc.) > > By such 'pushing and shoving' rights, one would be > > justified in dropping certain persons in power > into a > > combat zone since they have been, and are, and > will > > be, responsible for multiple civilian deaths of > men, > > women, and children, as well as some unborn. > > I'm not sure that pacifism is required to support > the right to life. Perhaps not. My attempt was to point out the inconsistancies in being anti-abortion yet shrugging off civilian deaths in war as unavoidable collateral damage. (Probably a bit snippy having recently heard that Iraqi civilian casualties are ~ 100/*day* now.) > > Once again, one could argue that anyone who starts > > a war and causes any "collateral damage" is a > > cold-blooded killer... > So, are you arguing that, for example, that the > bombing that delayed Hussein > getting the bomb until after Gulf War I is > equivalent to cold blooded > killing, even though it may have saved millions of > lives? But we didn't *start* that war - Hussein invaded Kuwait. (OK, we were partly responsible for SH being in power at that time; if you take that position, then I'd concede that the US bears some blame.) Finishing a war is one thing; starting quite another. > > > The scenario I proposed was a "half-a-loaf" > thought. > > > If it is impossible to > > > stop all murder, it is still worthwhile to stop > > > some. And, with this > > > scenario, the right-to-life people have at least > > > a chance to save every > > > child's life. A chance to save a human life is > > > better than no chance to save a human life. > > > > Unless it's the woman whose pregnancy is > > life-threatening to her? > > In outlining the right to life movement's position, > I did not equate health > to life. Exceptions to anti-abortion laws for the > mother's health means > that any possible deterioration in the mother's > health is grounds for > abortion. It's basically abortion on > demand...especially if, as it always > is, mental health is included. All the woman would > need to say is that > thinking about carrying to term makes her depressed, > and there is a valid DSM-IV diagnosis. > > Exceptions for the mother's life means that she has > to have some significant > risk of dying from pregnancy for the pregnancy to be > terminated. I understand your position better. WRT a woman with poor mental health raising a child, and that child being neglected/abused: what do you think of the _Freakonomics_ position that crime is down since RvW b/c those aborted didn't enter a life of crime? (I think it's an interesting observation, but unproven.) > > "If one accepts" - From a medical standpoint, an > 8- or > > 15-week fetus is not an infant or a child. > > Medical categories are just that, categories. Women > are different from men, > premature infants display less cognitive ability > than some grown non-human > primatesyet killing an infant is murder, just as > killing an adult is, > and just as killing an ape isn't. Nor, under law, is aborting a 15-week fetus. BTW, Alberto, interesting take; Charles Dart would approve. > > Now _you_ are judging which life is more valuable > >than another. > > No, I'm judging that 5 million deaths is worse that > 500. ? Sorry, missing that? Please clarify. > > > One of the ideas that came from the > > >Enlightenment is that "all men are
Re: Since planetary science has been ruled "on-topic" :)
Dave Land wrote: > > If that's the case, I suppose that lunar orbital dynamics > Long time ago, I used to work on this topic... > are not > entirely off topic, so you may enjoy reading about "3753 Cruithne", > Earth's "second moon", with its very unusual compound "kidney > bean"/"horseshoe" orbit with a period around the "kidney bean" of > about 380 days, while that orbit follows the "horseshoe" pattern > around the earth every 770 years or so: > It's not a moon, it's a "Trojan". The Trojan resonance is that defined by a 1:1 relation in the period relative to the primary [in this case, the Sun]. Cruithne orbits the Sun, it's a small body, so it's an asteroid. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Deborah Harrell > Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 5:34 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: RE: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex > > > And I was refusing to have my pro-choice stance > deny _any_ protection to the unborn (teratogens etc.) OK, fine. Then the question on the table should be who is a protected person being and what is not. > > Perhaps not. My attempt was to point out the > inconsistancies in being anti-abortion yet shrugging > off civilian deaths in war as unavoidable collateral > damage. (Probably a bit snippy having recently heard > that Iraqi civilian casualties are ~ 100/*day* now.) > But we didn't *start* that war - Hussein invaded > Kuwait. (OK, we were partly responsible for SH being > in power at that time; if you take that position, then > I'd concede that the US bears some blame.) Finishing > a war is one thing; starting quite another. I was referring to the earlier bombing of the Iraqi reactor by Israel, probably with tacit US support. Without it, Hussein would have invaded Kuwait having already had a significant nuclear arsenal. He was within a year of getting enough plutonium for his first bomb when the Israelis bombed the reactor. Well, maybe he would have used the bomb against Tehran earlier, that's always possible...but the point is that that bombing raid probably saved a number of lives. > > I understand your position better. WRT a woman with > poor mental health raising a child, and that child > being neglected/abused: what do you think of the > _Freakonomics_ position that crime is down since RvW > b/c those aborted didn't enter a life of crime? (I > think it's an interesting observation, but unproven.) > > > > "If one accepts" - From a medical standpoint, an > > 8- or > > > 15-week fetus is not an infant or a child. > > > > Medical categories are just that, categories. Women > > are different from men, > > premature infants display less cognitive ability > > than some grown non-human > > primatesyet killing an infant is murder, just as > > killing an adult is, > > and just as killing an ape isn't. > > Nor, under law, is aborting a 15-week fetus. Nor is aborting a 8.5 month fetus as long as a hospital and physician can be found for a go-ahead. My sister said she knows personally of highly questionable late term abortions where she's workedno indication of life threatening illness to the mother at all. From what she told me, before birth, the only person that matters is the motherthe fetus is not human until borneven thought it would be viable. Now, I have a hunch you wouldn't agree with that. But, then wouldn't it make sense to have no legal late term abortions (where late term is after viability) unless the mother's life is in danger. You said no hospital would do that. But, the fact that my sister worked at a hospital that did does seem to contradict that. > > > Now _you_ are judging which life is more valuable > > >than another. > > > > No, I'm judging that 5 million deaths is worse that > > 500. > > ? Sorry, missing that? Please clarify. If a women died trying to abort in a back alley, that is certainly a human death. But, from the right-to-life movement's perspective, 500 deaths of women attempting abortion must be weighted against the deaths of millions of people when women can easily find abortions. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: More From the National Intelligence Estimate
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Andrew Crystall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > It was not an "error" to overthrow Saddam. Sure, your government > lied to you about the reasons, Which lies were these? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: More From the National Intelligence Estimate
On 06/08/2006, at 3:19 AM, Dan Minette wrote: Given the situation, I don't think there was a way to ratchet up pressure from what it was. The US was forward deployed and combat ready in a way that it wasn't ready to sustain for a year. Because of the way they ramped up. There was a UN weapons inspection program. Yes, Saddam was still playing games with the terms of the last UNSC resolution, but the US wasn't going to wait for the report from Hans Blix. I think that the US could have got a resolution at the UN that would allow for the imposition of smart sanctions, but I think that, as the bribing of the French UN delegate shows, that even smart sanctions would have workarounds. I'm not talking about sanctions. I'm talking about a phased renewal. It was obvious in the first 24 hours that Saddam had zero response, the brave fighting talk of the legendary Iraqi Information Minister aside. The plan showed zero flexibility. Pause, regroup, and get the engineers into the southern towns reconnecting water and power asap. Make it better. Then move on. I do agree, thought, that Hussein could have waited a couple of years, given what we knew at the time. We could have focused our effort on rebuilding Afghanistan, pouring a good deal of money into that small country. Also true, and something I was arguing strongly at the time. The "Coalition" could have genuinely won the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqis. There must have been better ways than what they chose. There were. And, the ironic part of it was that those better plans were available to be used before the war. The State Department, using their expertise in development, had a well developed, realistic plan for post war Iraq. In addition, the present ambassador, who by all accounts is very skilled at his job, was ready to step in and start things moving. Unfortunately, Bush decided to go for the Cheney/Rumsfeld "plan" which was nothing more than loosely sketched wishful thinking. Day care managers who had their resumes on the Heritage Foundation website ended up running the Iraq economy, while the youngest project manager in the history of the JFK school of government, who's experience was in international development in Russia, had his application tabled for months on end. He had the application in, knowing full well that he might die as a result, but feeling that success in Iraq was critical for the next 20 years. He is, of course, our own Gautam. This is where I fault the administration. To me, it has all the elements of a true tragedy. The quest, overturning a cruel dictator and bringing democracy and prosperity to the Iraqi people, is heroic. The quest is betrayed by the hubris of the key players: the Bush administration. As a result, they do untold damage to their own cause. And the biggest missed opportunity of all - where's the pressure on Mugabe, and the other African dictators? While the American military can't take any more on right now, the diplomatic corps ought to be sending strong messages to these tyrants - buck up or you're next. Not this year, maybe not next year, but your card is marked. It would be the single best bit of evidence that the Bush Administration is after democracy, not revenge or power games or oil. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What be WMD, me hearties? Aaaaarrrrrrrrr!
On 06/08/2006, at 7:13 AM, Robert Seeberger wrote: Modernized now. Pop culture topicalised now... Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What be WMD, me hearties? Aaaaarrrrrrrrr!
Charlie Bell wrote: On 06/08/2006, at 7:13 AM, Robert Seeberger wrote: Modernized now. Pop culture topicalised now... It's always fun when pirates are in fashion. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Since planetary science has been ruled "on-topic" :)
At 04:47 PM Saturday 8/5/2006, Dave Land wrote: Fine, then. If that's the case, I suppose that lunar orbital dynamics are not entirely off topic, Sorry 'bout that. I forwarded the message from another list and forgot to change the subject line (which referred to a comment made in an earlier message on that list) . . . My goof. so you may enjoy reading about "3753 Cruithne", Earth's "second moon", It probably comes as no surprise that I am already familiar with that object and its unusual orbit. -- Ronn! :) "Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever." -- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 5 Aug 2006, at 11:59PM, Dan Minette wrote: If a women died trying to abort in a back alley, that is certainly a human death. But, from the right-to-life movement's perspective, 500 deaths of women attempting abortion must be weighted against the deaths of millions of people when women can easily find abortions. Isn't the real question about whether the state owns one's body or oneself? And how women's bodies are still seen as property in a patriarchal society? How does a state which permits and taxes the sale of carcinogenic tobacco products and does nothing about the obesity and diabetes causing products of the food industry have any legitimate interest in the intimate contents of a woman's own body? -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ And yes, OSX is marvelous. Its merest bootlace, Windows is not worthy to kiss. - David Brin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of William T Goodall > Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 8:01 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex > > > On 5 Aug 2006, at 11:59PM, Dan Minette wrote: > > If a women died trying to abort in a back alley, that is certainly > > a human > > death. But, from the right-to-life movement's perspective, 500 > > deaths of > > women attempting abortion must be weighted against the deaths of > > millions of > > people when women can easily find abortions. > > > > Isn't the real question about whether the state owns one's body or > oneself? And how women's bodies are still seen as property in a > patriarchal society? How does a state which permits and taxes the > sale of carcinogenic tobacco products and does nothing about the > obesity and diabetes causing products of the food industry have any > legitimate interest in the intimate contents of a woman's own body? If it is a state that protects people not from themselves, but from other people who wish to do them harm, then this can be inherently consistent behavior. It depends on who we call people, and what we call things. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
At 08:01 PM Saturday 8/5/2006, William T Goodall wrote: On 5 Aug 2006, at 11:59PM, Dan Minette wrote: If a women died trying to abort in a back alley, that is certainly a human death. But, from the right-to-life movement's perspective, 500 deaths of women attempting abortion must be weighted against the deaths of millions of people when women can easily find abortions. Isn't the real question about whether the state owns one's body or oneself? There's a question? -- Ronn! :) "Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever." -- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 6 Aug 2006, at 2:06AM, Dan Minette wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:brin-l- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William T Goodall Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 8:01 PM Isn't the real question about whether the state owns one's body or oneself? And how women's bodies are still seen as property in a patriarchal society? How does a state which permits and taxes the sale of carcinogenic tobacco products and does nothing about the obesity and diabetes causing products of the food industry have any legitimate interest in the intimate contents of a woman's own body? If it is a state that protects people not from themselves, but from other people who wish to do them harm, then this can be inherently consistent behavior. It depends on who we call people, and what we call things. It may be consistent but it is also absurd. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible." - Bertrand Russell ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: More From the National Intelligence Estimate
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It is if you're replacing him with a vacuum. Saddam could have > waited > another 6 month or a year, with more and more pressure. The > "Coalition" could have genuinely won the "hearts and minds" of the > Iraqis. There must have been better ways than what they chose. I completely disagree. Prior to 9/11 the "containment" strategy against Iraq was on the verge of falling apart. Smuggling to Iraq was rampant, and France, Russia, and China were becoming ever more open about their desire to end to sanctions regime on Iraq altogether. Moreover, I think that 9/11 created a unique political moment in the US, during which this country had reached the conclusion that leaving failed states to fester, even in far corners of the world, could pose a direct threat to the United States. It is my opinion, that this sentiment would have dissipated over time as 9/11 faded into memory, just as the biological terrorism attacks on the US in late 2001 have been nearly forgotten by most. In short, I believe that the post-9/11 world was a singular opportunity to marshall political support for removing Saddam Hussein's Baathist dictatorship and liberating Iraq. I think that the Bush Administration was faced with the choice of either seizing that opportunity at that moment, or else forfeiting that opportunity for the long term. --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Because of the way they ramped up. There was a UN weapons > inspection program. Was there a UN weapons inspection program on-the-ground in Iraq before the US ramped up the pressure? > > I think that the US could have > > got a resolution at the UN that would allow for the imposition of > > smart > > sanctions, but I think that, as the bribing of the French UN > > delegate shows, > > that even smart sanctions would have workarounds. > > I'm not talking about sanctions. I'm talking about a phased > renewal. It was obvious in the first 24 hours that Saddam had > zero response, > the brave fighting talk of the legendary Iraqi Information > Minister aside. The plan showed zero flexibility. Pause, > regroup, and get the engineers into the southern towns > reconnecting water and power asap. > Make it better. Then move on. This could have given Saddam the ability to burn the oilfields, blow up dams, or engage in other scorched earth tactics. It could also have given him the opportunity to prepare the use of the WMD's which we believed him to have. > And the biggest missed opportunity of all - where's the pressure > on Mugabe, and the other African dictators? While the American > military can't take any more on right now, the diplomatic corps > ought to be sending strong messages to these tyrants - buck up or > you're next. Not this year, maybe not next year, but your card is > marked. It would be the single best bit of evidence that the Bush > Administration is after democracy, not revenge or power games or > oil. I suspect that a fair examination of the evidence would reveal that the USA has been very outspoken against today's worst dicators in the DPRK, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Burma, Iran, Syria, and Cuba. I believe that Secretary Rice has often referred to these countries as "outposts of tyranny." The US has also been a leader in the crisis in Sudan. While the US has not explicitly threatened to occupy these countries, there is not currently political support in the US for threatening the invasion of another country outside the Middle East, nor do I expect that most of the other world's democracies would welcome such rhetoric from the US. Make no mistake, however, the US has been very strong and very public in its critiques of these countries. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: More From the National Intelligence Estimate
On 06/08/2006, at 12:33 PM, jdiebremse wrote: The US has also been a leader in the crisis in Sudan. :-o I'm just going to have to withdraw from this thread. Charlie Different Realities Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
