Question for those who are anti-war . . .
Is there anyone who considers themselves opposed to the current military action in Iraq who does not also consider themselves opposed to President Bush? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
> From: Ronn!Blankenship [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Is there anyone who considers themselves opposed to the > current military > action in Iraq who does not also consider themselves opposed > to President Bush? I'm the opposite. I am, generally, opposed to President Bush but am a (somewhat reluctant) supporter of the action in Iraq. I started out against the use of military action but have turned my opinion around. Largely due to the discussions on this list. A useful mind exercise I like to play is turn things around. Would I feel the same about a given issue if the President were reversed? Could those of you who support the war and President Bush (expecially JDG and Gautam), would you feel the same way if it was President Gore pushing this action? - jmh Not That That Helps Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
--- Kevin Tarr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But I liked new Coke so... Why Kevin, and here I thought you were a patriotic American! For shame, sir -- what, pray tell, was wrong with the tried and true original Coca-Cola!?! The one made with the more expensive natural poison *cane sugar* rather than the cheapened version with corn squeezin's?!? Just for that, I think I'll change my mind about sending a picture of my "blizzard kill**" to Steve's Brin-L pix... (**the rare and ephemeral "snow stag," with a nose as red as a marashino (sp!) cherry, eyes dark as olives, and antlers like branches) GSV Disgustulated ;) __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
At 04:43 PM 3/25/03 -0800, Deborah Harrell wrote: Just for that, I think I'll change my mind about sending a picture of my "blizzard kill**" to Steve's Brin-L pix... (**the rare and ephemeral "snow stag," with a nose as red as a marashino (sp!) cherry, eyes dark as olives, and antlers like branches) Are you saying you hit one? -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
--- Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Deborah Harrell wrote: > > > >Just for that, I think I'll change my mind about > >sending a picture of my "blizzard kill**" to > Steve's Brin-L pix... (**the rare and ephemeral "snow >stag," with a nose as red as a marashino (sp!) cherry, > >eyes dark as olives, and antlers like branches) > > > Are you saying you hit one? No, my lad: I CREATED him! Out of the blizzard's gift to the thirsty land -- the fat flakes fell, branches creaked and snapped, ions danced in the swirling winds...carefully, the gloved hands fashioned a body, heraldicly couchant, then the proud head uplifted, crown`ed as is the beech tree... Until The Daystar Did Reclaim Its Own Maru __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
Deborah Harrell wrote: > > --- Kevin Tarr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > But I liked new Coke so... > > > > Why Kevin, and here I thought you were a patriotic > American! For shame, sir -- what, pray tell, was > wrong with the tried and true original Coca-Cola!?! > The one made with the more expensive natural poison > *cane sugar* rather than the cheapened version with > corn squeezin's?!? You know, they still make it the *right* way in Mexico. And I can get Coca-cola from Mexico if I go to a little effort. (At least I think I can -- closer to the border than Dallas, where my brother-in-law managed to pick up some.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
--- Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Deborah Harrell wrote: > > --- Kevin Tarr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > But I liked new Coke so... > > > > Why Kevin, and here I thought you were a patriotic > > American! For shame, sir -- what, pray tell, was > > wrong with the tried and true original > Coca-Cola!?! > > The one made with the more expensive natural > poison *cane sugar* rather than the cheapened version > with corn squeezin's?!? > > You know, they still make it the *right* way in > Mexico. And I can get > Coca-cola from Mexico if I go to a little effort. > (At least I think I can > -- closer to the border than Dallas, where my > brother-in-law managed to pick up some.) Hmm, I'll have to relay that information to my brother in San Antonio -- before they changed the formula in the States, he went and bought multiple *cases* of 'original' Coke. I think he drank the last about 2 years after the change-over... I Think The First Coca-Cola Contained Actual Coca Leaf Extract Maru __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
Deborah Harrell wrote: > Hmm, I'll have to relay that information to my brother > in San Antonio -- before they changed the formula in > the States, he went and bought multiple *cases* of > 'original' Coke. I think he drank the last about 2 > years after the change-over... I think my BIL got it at a Central Market store, run by HEB. (If he's in San Antonio, he ought to know what HEB is, anyway.) There's one at 4821 Broadway St. in San Antonio. If that doesn't pan out, I'll ask my BIL for further details. (Hey, if you can get it in Dallas, and it's from Mexico, you *have* to be able to get it in San Antonio, right? Closer to the border, higher rate of Mexican ancestry in the population) > I Think The First Coca-Cola Contained Actual Coca Leaf > Extract Maru That's the impression I'm under, as well. Plus, if I remember what I heard about it, it was *green*. Julia whose senior prom date was given a hoarded can of the stuff as he was waiting for her to get ready, a process complicated by the fact that her mother had to run out and get a fresh pair of sandal-toe hose *without* a run in it ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
Sorry if this is a late response. I'm I'm the middle of busy season right now, but this post just jumped out and demanded attention... Ronn!Blankenship wrote: > Is there anyone who considers themselves opposed to the current military > action in Iraq who does not also consider themselves opposed to President Bush? As a Canadian, I really don't care one way or the other about President Bush. He's just a name on the news, really. But this "Bush Doctrine" of pre-emptive warfare goes against everything I believe, and it really frightens me that a gigantic nation like the United States would even seriously contemplate such a thing, much less actually go to war on it. So yes, there are people who oppose the war in Iraq who have nothing to do with American politics. Most people around the world are that way, I suspect. Kevin Street ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
- Original Message - From: "Kevin Street" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 5:26 PM Subject: RE: Question for those who are anti-war . . . > Sorry if this is a late response. I'm I'm the middle of busy season right > now, but this post just jumped out and demanded attention... > > Ronn!Blankenship wrote: > > Is there anyone who considers themselves opposed to the current military > > action in Iraq who does not also consider themselves opposed to President > Bush? > > > As a Canadian, I really don't care one way or the other about President > Bush. He's just a name on the news, really. But this "Bush Doctrine" of > pre-emptive warfare goes against everything I believe, and it really > frightens me that a gigantic nation like the United States would even > seriously contemplate such a thing, much less actually go to war on it. I'm curious about this. Lets give a simple example, N. Korea without the ability to kill hundreds of thousands in Seoul. Would it have been wrong to stop their development of nuclear weapons and ICBMs? Why is stopping them more frightening than not stopping them? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm curious about this. Lets give a simple example, > N. Korea without the > ability to kill hundreds of thousands in Seoul. > Would it have been wrong > to stop their development of nuclear weapons and > ICBMs? Why is stopping > them more frightening than not stopping them? > > Dan M. Let me add a similar set of hypotheticals. Saddam Hussein acquires nuclear weapons and uses them to destroy New York? Is the US justified in responding? What is the (maximum) acceptable scale of its response? Saddam Hussein acquires nuclear weapons and _threatens_ to destroy New York. Same two questions. Saddam Hussein acquires nuclear weapons and makes no explicit threats. Same two questions. Saddam Hussein makes an open and public attempt to acquire nuclear weapons. He makes a covert and secret attempt to acquire them. In other words - do you reject all preventive actions? In which case it seems to me that your argument is that we should wait until _after_ New York is destroyed to do something. As a New Yorker, I disagree, and not terribly respectfully, actually, if that's your position. But I doubt that it is. So do you really oppose pre-emptive war? Or _this_ pre-emptive war? Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
- Original Message - From: "Kevin Street" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 5:26 PM Subject: RE: Question for those who are anti-war . . . > Sorry if this is a late response. I'm I'm the middle of busy season right > now, but this post just jumped out and demanded attention... > > Ronn!Blankenship wrote: > > Is there anyone who considers themselves opposed to the current military > > action in Iraq who does not also consider themselves opposed to President > Bush? > > > As a Canadian, I really don't care one way or the other about President > Bush. He's just a name on the news, really. But this "Bush Doctrine" of > pre-emptive warfare goes against everything I believe, and it really > frightens me that a gigantic nation like the United States would even > seriously contemplate such a thing, much less actually go to war on it. > > So yes, there are people who oppose the war in Iraq who have nothing to do > with American politics. Most people around the world are that way, I > suspect. > Soviet Russia used to do things like this, and you never saw this level of protest over it. China is still in Tibet and the protest is minimal in comparison. A lot is made by the rest of the world of Americas inconsistencies in foreign policy. But the rest of the world has been pretty inconsistent in the pursuit of peace. Its gonna be pretty hard to create peace when you turn your back on injustice. (And we are just as guilty in that regard.) xponent Reversible Maru rob The fist will run, grasp metal to gun. The spirit sings in crashing tones, We gain the battle drum. Our cries will shrill, the air will moan and crash into the dawn. The pen won't stay the demon's wings, The hour approaches pounding out the Devil's sermon. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
I wrote: > As a Canadian, I really don't care one way or the other about President > Bush. He's just a name on the news, really. But this "Bush Doctrine" of > pre-emptive warfare goes against everything I believe, and it really > frightens me that a gigantic nation like the United States would even > seriously contemplate such a thing, much less actually go to war on it. Dan M. wrote: > > I'm curious about this. Lets give a simple example, N. Korea without the > > ability to kill hundreds of thousands in Seoul. Would it have been wrong > > to stop their development of nuclear weapons and ICBMs? Why is stopping > > them more frightening than not stopping them? There's certainly nothing wrong with attempting to stop NK's development of nuclear weapons - and the US did in fact try to stop their development - by peaceful means. And until the current crisis, that seemed to be working. Now they say they still have some nuclear bombs, and they never fully disarmed. But with the US (apparently) preoccupied with Iraq, it looks like Kim Jong Il is trying to aggravate the crisis by making threatening gestures and beginning his nuclear arms program again. So the pre-emptive doctrine has already made international relations worse with one country by invading another. It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy, pushing rougue nations towards further aggression because they have nothing left to lose. I can't predict how history would have happened differently if the US (alone, or with a "coalition") had invaded North Korea in the seventies or eighties or nineties to stop its nuclear weapons program - but, imo, the situation probably wouldn't have improved. That's because there's no such thing as a simple example - invading North Korea would destabilize all of Southeast Asia, upsetting the balance of power there, kill an unknown number of people, and saddle the US with a costly satrapy that would drain its military and economic resources at a time when many other nations (like China, perhaps) would take advantage of the situation by making aggressive moves of their own. One preventive conflict might lead to many more. But would North Korea be a threat if no one invaded it? Maybe, but then again, maybe not. Almost certainly not if NK wasn't so isolated. I think the better path to follow is economic and political engagement. If Kim Jong Il's government were fully integrated into the world economy the way China is, they would have far less reason to use nuclear weapons or go to war at all. And the same would have true for Saddam's Iraq. Countries that benefit from the status quo have to think very hard before upsetting it. Kevn Street ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
In a message dated 3/31/03 7:13:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > In other words - do you reject all preventive actions? > In which case it seems to me that your argument is > that we should wait until _after_ New York is > destroyed to do something. As a New Yorker, I > disagree, and not terribly respectfully, actually, if > that's your position. But I doubt that it is. So do > you really oppose pre-emptive war? Or _this_ > pre-emptive war? > But this is a false dichotomy - doing nothing or launching war. We _weren't_ doing nothing. You can argue that the inspections were or were not working, but they were _something_. Were they enough? We'll never know now. My feeling was, Saddam is a terrible person and almost certainly was trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction. He needed to be stopped and gotten rid of. But I was not convinced we needed to launch a war _now_. I think the inspections should have been given more time while the US bolstered its case and brought more allies on-board. It is true that the indefensible position of the French (no war ever no matter what) made things more difficult. But if the USA wants to be the leader of the world, sometimes it has to do things the hard way. Sometimes it has to be the adult, and must always be cognizant of others' attitudes and ideas, even if it doesn't agree with them. In general, I'm anti-war. I don't see how anyone can be anything else. In some particular cases, I may be in favor of a particular war. In this case, I'm still not convinced that this was the only way to go or that this was the time to go this way. Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org "I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last." - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
Dan Minette wrote: > I'm curious about this. Lets give a simple example, > N. Korea without the > ability to kill hundreds of thousands in Seoul. > Would it have been wrong > to stop their development of nuclear weapons and > ICBMs? Why is stopping > them more frightening than not stopping them? Gautam Mukunda wrote: > Let me add a similar set of hypotheticals. Saddam > Hussein acquires nuclear weapons and uses them to > destroy New York? Is the US justified in responding? > What is the (maximum) acceptable scale of its > response? Of course the US would be justified in responding. No one has ever said that they wouldn't be, and the scale of response to such a terrible crime would no doubt be huge, to prevent anyone else from ever trying it again. There's nothing wrong with that. But why on Earth would Saddam Husein attack America? He'd have to be an idiot, since he has no territorial disputes with the US, and no possible way of beating them in a war. There's no reason. > Saddam Hussein acquires nuclear weapons and > _threatens_ to destroy New York. Same two questions. Not the same question at all. In the first case a crime has been committed, and in the second case, he's threatening to commit a crime. In the second case, the US should make it very clear to him what the consequences of such an action would be. (The obliteration of Baghdad, no doubt, and maybe other cities as well.) > Saddam Hussein acquires nuclear weapons and makes no > explicit threats. Same two questions. It's a completely different situation, Gautam. In this case, diplomatic and economic presure should be brought to bear on Iraq to make him disarm. Or failing that, at least pledge not to attack other nations pre-emptively. > Saddam Hussein makes an open and public attempt to > acquire nuclear weapons. > > He makes a covert and secret attempt to acquire them. > > In other words - do you reject all preventive actions? I don't understand how you can draw that conclusion. It just doesn't follow from your premises. Of course Saddam should be prevented from developing nuclear weapons, by diplomatic and economic means. If hasn't commited a crime yet, or even threatened anyone, how can you punish him? That's just vigilantism, the enemy of law and order. That kind of flawed reasoning would have gotten us all into world war III a long time ago if earlier statesmen had thought the same way. > In which case it seems to me that your argument is > that we should wait until _after_ New York is > destroyed to do something. As a New Yorker, I > disagree, and not terribly respectfully, actually, if > that's your position. But I doubt that it is. So do > you really oppose pre-emptive war? Or _this_ > pre-emptive war? We live in a dangerous world, Gautam, and while I certainly don't want to see New York destroyed or attacked, I certainly don't want the US (or anyone else) pre-emptively trying to neutralize threats to its safety by getting into unnecessary conflicts that only make the situation worse. So yes, I really do oppose pre-emptive wars, at least in the case where no aggressive act has been committed. Hopefully, no one will ever be stupid enough to attempt to destroy New York or anywhere else with weapons of mass destruction - but unfortunately, that's a risk we all have to live with. I mean, really - do you think New York will be made safer by this war? No. The invasion of Iraq is like a red flag to Islamic Fundamentalists. It makes their vendetta against the United States seem all the more logical, resonable, and seductive, because it seems to confirm their worst fears. Many future terrorists have been created in the last ten days, and the world is a more dangerous place because of that. Kevin Street ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
- Original Message - From: "Kevin Street" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 8:54 PM Subject: RE: Question for those who are anti-war . . . > Dan Minette wrote: > > I'm curious about this. Lets give a simple example, > > N. Korea without the > > ability to kill hundreds of thousands in Seoul. > > Would it have been wrong > > to stop their development of nuclear weapons and > > ICBMs? Why is stopping > > them more frightening than not stopping them? > > > Gautam Mukunda wrote: > > Let me add a similar set of hypotheticals. Saddam > > Hussein acquires nuclear weapons and uses them to > > destroy New York? Is the US justified in responding? > > What is the (maximum) acceptable scale of its > > response? > > Of course the US would be justified in responding. No one has ever said that > they wouldn't be, and the scale of response to such a terrible crime would > no doubt be huge, to prevent anyone else from ever trying it again. There's > nothing wrong with that. > > But why on Earth would Saddam Husein attack America? He'd have to be an > idiot, since he has no territorial disputes with the US, and no possible way > of beating them in a war. There's no reason. > > > > Saddam Hussein acquires nuclear weapons and > > _threatens_ to destroy New York. Same two questions. > > Not the same question at all. In the first case a crime has been committed, > and in the second case, he's threatening to commit a crime. In the second > case, the US should make it very clear to him what the consequences of such > an action would be. (The obliteration of Baghdad, no doubt, and maybe other > cities as well.) What if he has that capacity and takes over Kuwait, Saudia Arabia and the UAE, stating that he will hit 20 European cities if he is met with US or European resistance. He has already rolled the dice in trying to kill Bush Sr, so he is clearly willing to risk his life to meet his goals. How willing would the US be to send in an army to stop this invasion? The crime model assumes that there is a state that has overwhelming power with respect to the individual. The reason we can afford to wait until a crime has been committed is the fact that the state can still protect itself in that manner. If we use the criminal model for world affairs, we will need to resign ourselves to a world where many small states and terrorist have the ability to kill millions of people in any country. That, in my opinion, is a recipe for disaster. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
Robert Seeberger wrote: > Soviet Russia used to do things like this, and you never saw this level of > protest over it. > China is still in Tibet and the protest is minimal in comparison. > > A lot is made by the rest of the world of Americas inconsistencies in > foreign policy. But the rest of the world has been pretty inconsistent in the pursuit of > peace. Yes, Russia and China have done terrible things, in both this century and the last one. If it was possible, they should be brought to account for their crimes. But at the moment, they're just too powerful. A war to liberate Chechyna or Tibet would kill too many people to be worth the cost. The world is inconsistent about preventing aggression, and it shouldn't be. But at the moment, it's the only world we've got. The thing that bothers me so much here is that this time it's *America* who's the aggressor. The one major power that has (almost) never acted in an imperialistic manner, the country that has helped other nations far more than it has harmed them. A country that has, up until now, been an inspiration and model for the world. Yes, we expect more of the United States than other countries. And the United States should expect more of itself. Kevin Street ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
Dan Minette wrote: > If we use the criminal model for world affairs, we > will need to resign ourselves to a world where many small states and > terrorist have the ability to kill millions of people in any country. > That, in my opinion, is a recipe for disaster. But that's the world we live in now, and the situation isn't going to change anytime soon, if ever. Weapons of mass destruction are getting cheaper and easier to make all the time, and individuals and/or terrorist groups are going to get ahold of them sooner or later. That woud be the case even if the US "pacified" the world through the use of pre-emptive wars. The danger is an inescapable byproduct of modern civilization. But what world would have fewer terrorists - a world writhing under a Pax Americana, seething with discontent and rage against the United States, or a world where all the nations work together and rogue states are brought back into the international community - a world where we can help places like North Korea, Somalia and Iraq bcome more civilized by opening our civilization up to them, and finally putting a stop to the root causes of terrorism once and for all? IAAMOAC is something we should all keep in mind. Kevin Street ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
--- Kevin Street <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But why on Earth would Saddam Husein attack America? > He'd have to be an > idiot, since he has no territorial disputes with the > US, and no possible way > of beating them in a war. There's no reason. He was willing to assassinate George Bush. What do you think our response would have been had he succeeded? Why do you think _your_ standards of reasonability are the same as those of someone who has people dropped feet first into shredding machines? His standards are (hopefully) different. > > Saddam Hussein acquires nuclear weapons and > > _threatens_ to destroy New York. Same two > questions. > > Not the same question at all. In the first case a > crime has been committed, > and in the second case, he's threatening to commit a > crime. In the second > case, the US should make it very clear to him what > the consequences of such > an action would be. (The obliteration of Baghdad, no > doubt, and maybe other > cities as well.) Why would he care? Does he have any history of solicitude for the lives of his people? For that matter, would we really do it? Kill millions of innocents because of the actions of one man? Maybe in 1945, but now? > > > > Saddam Hussein acquires nuclear weapons and makes > no > > explicit threats. Same two questions. > > It's a completely different situation, Gautam. In > this case, diplomatic and > economic presure should be brought to bear on Iraq > to make him disarm. Or > failing that, at least pledge not to attack other > nations pre-emptively. And you think this would work why? After 12 years of diplomatic and economic pressure such as no other country in the world has ever seen, it took 250,000 American soldiers on his border to force him to accept weapons inspectors and _not_ cooperate with them. Wo what sort of diplomatic and economic pressure do you think someone who _does not care_ about public opinion or the economic status of his people is likely to respond to? > I don't understand how you can draw that conclusion. > It just doesn't follow > from your premises. Of course Saddam should be > prevented from developing > nuclear weapons, by diplomatic and economic means. > If hasn't commited a > crime yet, or even threatened anyone, how can you > punish him? That's just > vigilantism, the enemy of law and order. That kind > of flawed reasoning would > have gotten us all into world war III a long time > ago if earlier statesmen > had thought the same way. _What_ diplomatic and economic means. You can keep chanting that, but you kind of have to give an example. Maybe 12 years of sanctions, total diplomatic isolation, and (just to kap things off) repeated bombing campaigns? Except that didn't work. Invading Iran. Invading Kuwait. Using chemical weapons on his own population. Attempting to assassinate George Bush. Violating a ceasefire agreement in which he agreed to give up WMD. Violating _18_ UN Resolutions calling on him to give up WMD. Which one of these actions is _not_ a crime? For that matter, this isn't about punishment. It's about prevention. If 5 million Americans have died, it's too damn late. The world has changed. An old joke in my old office - what's the easiest way to get a nuclear weapon into the US? Federal Express. In fact, given that we _still_ haven't caught the anthrax terrorists, why do you think we'd catch Saddam if he tried something like that? Heck, that might have been him. _We don't know_. Don't you think he might have noticed that? > We live in a dangerous world, Gautam, and while I > certainly don't want to > see New York destroyed or attacked, I certainly > don't want the US (or anyone > else) pre-emptively trying to neutralize threats to > its safety by getting > into unnecessary conflicts that only make the > situation worse. So yes, I > really do oppose pre-emptive wars, at least in the > case where no aggressive > act has been committed. Hopefully, no one will ever > be stupid enough to > attempt to destroy New York or anywhere else with > weapons of mass > destruction - but unfortunately, that's a risk we > all have to live with. No. It's a risk _I_ have to live with. And Bob, plus any other New Yorkers on the list. It is, rather noticeably, _not_ a risk you have to live with. That's really one of the central distinctions, isn't it. If your proposed containment policy goes wrong, we do the dying. That changes the calculus a little bit, doesn't it? In this particular case, however, we have _multiple_ aggressive acts committed. So, even if I accepted the general principle you have described - and I don't - it doesn't apply in this case in even the tiniest degree. Again, you're saying that the US would have to wait until after NYC is destroyed before acting - before, I didn't think that anyone could seriously believe that, but I think that actually _is_ what you're saying. We have here: 1. An aggressive leader (multiple invasions of his neighbors) 2.
RE: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
At 07:24 PM 3/31/2003 -0700, you wrote: I wrote: > As a Canadian, I really don't care one way or the other about President > Bush. He's just a name on the news, really. But this "Bush Doctrine" of > pre-emptive warfare goes against everything I believe, and it really > frightens me that a gigantic nation like the United States would even > seriously contemplate such a thing, much less actually go to war on it. Dan M. wrote: > > I'm curious about this. Lets give a simple example, N. Korea without the > > ability to kill hundreds of thousands in Seoul. Would it have been wrong > > to stop their development of nuclear weapons and ICBMs? Why is stopping > > them more frightening than not stopping them? There's certainly nothing wrong with attempting to stop NK's development of nuclear weapons - and the US did in fact try to stop their development - by peaceful means. And until the current crisis, that seemed to be working. Now they say they still have some nuclear bombs, and they never fully disarmed. But with the US (apparently) preoccupied with Iraq, it looks like Kim Jong Il is trying to aggravate the crisis by making threatening gestures and beginning his nuclear arms program again. So the pre-emptive doctrine has already made international relations worse with one country by invading another. It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy, pushing rougue nations towards further aggression because they have nothing left to lose. I can't predict how history would have happened differently if the US (alone, or with a "coalition") had invaded North Korea in the seventies or eighties or nineties to stop its nuclear weapons program - but, imo, the situation probably wouldn't have improved. That's because there's no such thing as a simple example - invading North Korea would destabilize all of Southeast Asia, upsetting the balance of power there, kill an unknown number of people, and saddle the US with a costly satrapy that would drain its military and economic resources at a time when many other nations (like China, perhaps) would take advantage of the situation by making aggressive moves of their own. One preventive conflict might lead to many more. But would North Korea be a threat if no one invaded it? Maybe, but then again, maybe not. Almost certainly not if NK wasn't so isolated. I think the better path to follow is economic and political engagement. If Kim Jong Il's government were fully integrated into the world economy the way China is, they would have far less reason to use nuclear weapons or go to war at all. And the same would have true for Saddam's Iraq. Countries that benefit from the status quo have to think very hard before upsetting it. Kevn Street Kevin, slow down. Please, 100% I want to engage you in a peaceful discussion, but I want to make sure we are talking about the same situation. We have been engaging NK for years, they give our aid to the military. Everything they do is for the military. This is the first communist country that had a succession follow bloodlines like kings. There is so much hardnosed control by the rulers that the population has nothing. If they have a radio, it must be set to one station and sealed, no radio free Korea. The population is told that the USA gives NK rice and other supplies as a tribute, to keep NK from attacking the USA or Japan. Your first paragraph is also wrong. The US tried peaceful means and it seemed to be working? Did they build their bombs in the last 18 months? NK will not go to the UN. They will not talk with SK or China or Japan. They are only making noise because they want more money from the US, while not abiding by any rules we'd like them to follow. The US was supposed to build them a nuclear reactor next year. Do you think we should go forward with that agreement? How can we engage them when they don't act rational? Kevin T. - VRWC Sorry, it's late ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
- Original Message - From: "Kevin Street" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 9:05 PM Subject: RE: Question for those who are anti-war . . . > Robert Seeberger wrote: > > Soviet Russia used to do things like this, and you never saw this level of > > protest over it. > > China is still in Tibet and the protest is minimal in comparison. > > > > A lot is made by the rest of the world of Americas inconsistencies in > > foreign policy. But the rest of the world has been pretty inconsistent in > the pursuit of > > peace. > > Yes, Russia and China have done terrible things, in both this century and > the last one. If it was possible, they should be brought to account for > their crimes. But at the moment, they're just too powerful. A war to > liberate Chechyna or Tibet would kill too many people to be worth the cost. > The world is inconsistent about preventing aggression, and it shouldn't be. > But at the moment, it's the only world we've got. > > The thing that bothers me so much here is that this time it's *America* > who's the aggressor. The one major power that has (almost) never acted in an > imperialistic manner, the country that has helped other nations far more > than it has harmed them. A country that has, up until now, been an > inspiration and model for the world. > > Yes, we expect more of the United States than other countries. And the > United States should expect more of itself. > It is very kind of you to state things so diplomatically. And I for one appreciate such efforts. Thank you! I serious problem that I see is the propensity for the peace movement to live in the moment with little serious consideration for the future. Where were these supposed peace protestors when France, Russia, China, and NK were not just arming third world nations, but helping them build a WMD infrastructure? The peace movement tends to be blind to the past, unless it is looking for recriminating evidence, and is absolutely blind to the future. Where the peace movement should focus a large share of its attention is upon the weapons manufacturers in their own nations and in creating weapons embargoes on countries like NK. How about a push for a moratorium on the export of artillery and tanks and the like? Ammunition? Land mines? This stuff isn't manufactured onsite, these are export items. A lot could be done to insure a future peace by pushing the UN and working within our own countries. The US is not so much the worlds Sheriff as it is the worlds Janitor. xponent Atomic Janitor Maru rob Workings of man Set to ply out historical life Reregaining the flower of the fruit of his tree All awakening All restoring you Workings of man Crying out from the fire set aflame By his blindness to see that the warmth of his being Is promised for his seeing his reaching so clearly Workings of man Driven far from the path Rereleased in inhibitions So that all is left for you all is left for you all is left for you all this left for you NOW... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
Robert Seeberger wrote: Where the peace movement should focus a large share of its attention is upon the weapons manufacturers in their own nations and in creating weapons embargoes on countries like NK. How about a push for a moratorium on the export of artillery and tanks and the like? Ammunition? Land mines? This stuff isn't manufactured onsite, these are export items. A lot could be done to insure a future peace by pushing the UN and working within our own countries. The US is not so much the worlds Sheriff as it is the worlds Janitor Funny you should mention it. In a documentary a couple of days ago something was mentioned about how the US might have been instrumental in keeping Saddam in power. It was speculated that perhaps the US needed a big middle east boogy man in order to sell billions worth of weapons to Iraq's scared neighbours. Although utterly unprovable it did make for a pretty believable case. Seeing this, it just occured to me that if Bush set out to rectify this policy it could make him a real hero. Then again he would have to admit that a number of his predecessors did something very greedy and utterly stupid like selling large amounts of weapons into an on purpose destabelized region. Sonja GCU: Nah... or did they? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
At 11:37 AM 4/1/2003 +0200, you wrote: Robert Seeberger wrote: Where the peace movement should focus a large share of its attention is upon the weapons manufacturers in their own nations and in creating weapons embargoes on countries like NK. How about a push for a moratorium on the export of artillery and tanks and the like? Ammunition? Land mines? This stuff isn't manufactured onsite, these are export items. A lot could be done to insure a future peace by pushing the UN and working within our own countries. The US is not so much the worlds Sheriff as it is the worlds Janitor Funny you should mention it. In a documentary a couple of days ago something was mentioned about how the US might have been instrumental in keeping Saddam in power. It was speculated that perhaps the US needed a big middle east boogy man in order to sell billions worth of weapons to Iraq's scared neighbours. Although utterly unprovable it did make for a pretty believable case. Seeing this, it just occured to me that if Bush set out to rectify this policy it could make him a real hero. Then again he would have to admit that a number of his predecessors did something very greedy and utterly stupid like selling large amounts of weapons into an on purpose destabelized region. Sonja GCU: Nah... or did they? There are two different things to look at. Did the US at some point keep him in power? Maybe. Did they do it to sell other countries weapons? No. In the early Eighties, Iran was a bigger threat. It was okay for Iraq to attack Iran because neither of them would become the big dog of the region. From what I've read, the US was only interested in having both countries fight, neither of them gaining the upper hand. This does not mean the US encouraged Iraq to attack or supplied either side with weapons. Saddam's brand of Islam is a minority in his country, the Ayatollah's type of Islam in Iran is the majority in Iraq. That's what made what happened after 1991 so bad. We left, but gave strong hints to the Shiete's (sp, and maybe the wrong type) that we'd sure be happy if they overthrew Saddam. Then we turned our backs on them because of all the flack we got of the eighties fiascoes like Nicaragua. Anyway, other than Isreal, and planes for Saudi Arabia, we haven't been selling other countries in the mid east billions of munitions because of Saddam. I mean, let's say we were arming other countries, Saddam still had the biggest force in the region, right? Kevin T. - VRWC Gotta work ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
Tom Beck wrote: > > But this is a false dichotomy - doing nothing or launching > war. We _weren't_ doing nothing. You can argue that > the inspections were or were not working, > but they were _something_. Were they enough? > We'll never know now. > Yeah, and the was the Embargo! 12 years of siege warfare against Iraq to prevent Saddam from buying weapons, and now we know that the _only_ think that Saddam bought in this period was... weapons. What about another 30 years of siege warfare? The advantage will be that, with the death of all Iraqi children, by 2033 the Iraqi soldiers will be too old to understand how to operate their chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
At 08:16 PM 3/31/2003 -0700 Kevin Street wrote: >or a >world where all the nations work together and rogue states are brought back >into the international community - a world where we can help places like >North Korea, Somalia and Iraq bcome more civilized by opening our >civilization up to them, Unfortunately, the nations most singularlay opposed to this are those like France, that oppose regime change in Iraq. Those nations closest to doing this are the USA, UK, Australia, and Poland that are doing the most to establish Western Civilization for the first time in the Arab World. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
At 09:44 PM 3/31/2003 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >But this is a false dichotomy - doing nothing or launching war. We _weren't_ >doing nothing. You can argue that the inspections were or were not working, >but they were _something_. Were they enough? We'll never know now. Au Contraire. Let's examine a brief history of diplomacy, sanctions, and inspections against rogue states determined to acquire nuclear weapons: 1981 - Iraq comes very close to building a nuclear weapon before the Israelis destory a reactor at Osirisk. 1991 - UN Weapons inspectors enter Iraq following the Gulf War and are stunned to find that Iraq was, unbeknownst to them, two years away from assembling a nuclear bomb. Consider for a moment, then, how close the world came to diaster - and how history might be different if a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein waits until 1993 to invade Kuwait, and then pushes on to take Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, and Oman. 2002 - Despite nearly a decade of being paid specifically not to develop nuclear bombs, we learn that the DPRK nevertheless began an entirely secret nuclear program without us knowing, and moreover, managed to assemble two nuclear bombs from their original nuclear program right underneath our noses. 2003 - The IAEA, visiting Iran on a top from Iranian dissidents are stunned to discover a, quote, "very sophisticated" nuclear plant in Iran that they did not know about. Iran claims it is for civilian use, yet Iran has some of the world;s largest oil and natural gas reserves, making nuclear power particularly uneconomical for them,... unless they have other purposes. Final Score: Determined Rogue States - 5 Inspections, Sanctions, and Diplomacy - 0 >My feeling was, Saddam is a terrible person and almost certainly was trying >to acquire weapons of mass destruction. He needed to be stopped and gotten >rid of. But I was not convinced we needed to launch a war _now_. I'm presuming that you agree that the resumption of inspections was only made possible by the arrival of 250-300,000 Coalition Soldiers in the region.As such, by not launching the war now, if you were George Bush, would you be prepared to bear the following costs of waiting until September to let a dictator whom we know with certainty will try and succeed at hiding *something* from inspectors prove to France that he really needs to go? These costs include: -Leaving our troops in a viciously hot desert, where protection from chemcial attacks would be difficult. -Leaving our troops at fixed xamps in the desert where they will be vulnerable to terrorist and other attacks -Leaving 1 in every 1,000 Americans away from their families, loved ones, and jobs for an extended period of time. -Sub-par economic growth and rising unemployment due to economic uncertainty surrounding the war -The possibility that waiting will cause the American people to lose their nerve for supporting the difficult task of disarming Saddam Hussein -High oil prices also slowing economic growth and rising unemployment over many months. All put together, there really was no other option. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
JDG wrote: > > Those nations closest to doing this are the USA, UK, > Australia, and Poland that are doing the most to > establish Western Civilization for the first > time in the Arab World. > For Poland, this is not the first time O:-) Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
In a message dated 4/1/03 6:36:36 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Yeah, and the was the Embargo! 12 years of siege warfare > against Iraq to prevent Saddam from buying weapons, > and now we know that the _only_ think that Saddam bought > in this period was... weapons. > Again, it's a false dichotomy. War or ineffective embargo. Unless you are prepared to argue that NO embargo could EVER have BEEN effective. (Which is a defensible position, given the propensity of some countries (Mr Subliminal mumbles "France, Russia" here) to break the embargo for their own commercial benefit.) > > What about another 30 years of siege warfare? The advantage > will be that, with the death of all Iraqi children, by > 2033 the Iraqi soldiers will be too old to understand how > to operate their chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. > But what had Saddam been doing recently? Had he invaded anyone? Had he threatened to invade anyone? Had he provably armed any terrorists? Was it impossible for a really intrusive inspections regime to disarm him eff ectively? (Given the recalcitrance of the French, perhaps.) In my opinion, the best way to achieve our aims would have been to patiently build a case against him by letting the inspectors do their job (assisting them to do it) and constructing an international alliance against him. Maybe I'm wrong that any of this would be possible, but I don't think we really tried. I think the Bush administration wanted a war and didn't want to let anything interfere. I'm not against any war anywhere ever. I'm not sure, but I think I'm against this war at this particular moment. However, this is now a moot point. I hope we win, quickly, with minimum damage to Iraq. Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org "I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last." - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
* Kevin Tarr [Tue, 01/04/2003 at 06:20 -0500] ... > From what I've read, the US was only interested in having both countries > fight, neither of them gaining the upper hand. This does not mean the US > encouraged Iraq to attack or supplied either side with weapons. ... I've read that WP article that doesn't say the same thing. U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52241-2002Dec29.html or Rumsfeld key player in Iraq http://www.msnbc.com/news/795649.asp The Saddam in Rumsfeld's Closet http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld By the way in the 70's Chirac did the same with nuclear technology. Not one country selling arms is a white goose in the current widthspread of arm in the world. Hence my deep distrust of most political actors. -- Jean-Marc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
At 19:22 31-03-03 -0800, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > act has been committed. Hopefully, no one will ever be stupid enough > to attempt to destroy New York or anywhere else with weapons of mass > destruction - but unfortunately, that's a risk we all have to live with. No. It's a risk _I_ have to live with. And Bob, plus any other New Yorkers on the list. It is, rather noticeably, _not_ a risk you have to live with. That's really one of the central distinctions, isn't it. If your proposed containment policy goes wrong, we do the dying. That changes the calculus a little bit, doesn't it? And you think the rest of the world will not feel (in some way or other) the consequences of US retaliation for the destruction of New York? The non-NY'ers of the world may not do the dying, but they *will* feel the consequences. I mean, no city was destroyed in the Sept. 11 attack, but the rest of the world is still feeling the consequences of *that*. Jeroen "Make love, not war" van Baardwijk _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
--- "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And you think the rest of the world will not feel > (in some way or other) > the consequences of US retaliation for the > destruction of New York? > Jeroen "Make love, not war" van Baardwijk I think that everything anyone ever wants to say about your politics is encapsulated, Jeroen, in the fact that you think the world will feel the consequences of US retaliation for the destruction of New York - but don't mention the destruction of New York itself as something to be avoided. Really, that's all any of us need to know about you right there. Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://platinum.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
At 20:01 2003-03-31 -0600, rob wrote: Soviet Russia used to do things like this, and you never saw this level of protest over it. China is still in Tibet and the protest is minimal in comparison. A lot is made by the rest of the world of Americas inconsistencies in foreign policy. But the rest of the world has been pretty inconsistent in the pursuit of peace. Its gonna be pretty hard to create peace when you turn your back on injustice. (And we are just as guilty in that regard.) xponent Reversible Maru rob I think the double standard comes from how we perceive those powers who take these kinds of actions. Americans and a large part of the world see the US of A as an ideal. However, no one agrees as to what is the best way to live up to that ideal. In other words, whenever America invades, there is protest which is a way of expressing disappointment. Jean-Louis "My 2 cents" Couturier ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
At 04:26 PM 3/31/03 -0700, Kevin Street wrote: Sorry if this is a late response. I'm I'm the middle of busy season right now, but this post just jumped out and demanded attention... Ronn!Blankenship wrote: > Is there anyone who considers themselves opposed to the current military > action in Iraq who does not also consider themselves opposed to President Bush? As a Canadian, I really don't care one way or the other about President Bush. He's just a name on the news, really. But this "Bush Doctrine" of pre-emptive warfare goes against everything I believe, and it really frightens me that a gigantic nation like the United States would even seriously contemplate such a thing, much less actually go to war on it. So yes, there are people who oppose the war in Iraq who have nothing to do with American politics. Most people around the world are that way, I suspect. Let me ask the question a little differently, then (not just for Kevin, but for anyone who wishes to respond): Is there anyone who is strongly opposed to this war in Iraq (e.g., who has been speaking out against it, protesting it, etc.) who supports Bush and thinks he is a "good" (or at least no worse than average, even if not a "great") President? I am asking because I and others have noted that, at least in the United States, many of those who speak out against the war in Iraq, when asked their opinion of President Bush, say things like "He is stupid", "He is evil", "He is a dictator who wants to impose his rule on the whole world", "He only started the war to benefit himself and his friends with close ties to the oil industry", etc. While correlation does not imply causation, I was just interested in whether the apparent correlation between "anti-war" and "anti-Bush" is real or a statistical artifact due to the obviously limited number of people I have talked to directly, and how widespread it might be. -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Mon, 31/03/2003 at 21:44 -0500] > It is true that the indefensible position > of the French (no war ever no matter what) made things more difficult. It was not the position of France. It was 'no war as long as progresses were made' -- Jean-Marc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
--- Jean-Marc Chaton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Mon, 31/03/2003 at 21:44 -0500] > > It is true that the indefensible position > > of the French (no war ever no matter what) made > things more difficult. > > It was not the position of France. It was 'no war as > long as progresses > were made' > > -- > Jean-Marc Which explains why France rejected Britain's compromise proposal _before Iraq did_. Note that - France was more eager to reject the use of force against Iraq than Iraq itself. France's position seems very much to have been no war under any circumstances. Since France itself admitted that Iraq was in breach of 1441 - which it voted for, and which called for serious consequences if Iraq breached the resolution - what would you have us believe? Whether this was motivated by malice against the United States, bribes by Saddam, or a catastrophic misunderstanding of international politics remains to be seen. I rather imagine that Ba'ath party archives will be illuminating, however. Note, for example, two simple actions by France: 1. They publicly threatened the Eastern European candidate countries with blackballing from EU membership for supporting the US and 2. It is now revealed that they did the same to Turkey, which was one of the major reasons we did not get Turkish support, something which will undoubtedly cost the lives of dozens of Americans and thousands of Iraqis. What the French government, in its quest to attack the United States in this affair, didn't realize is that American politics are not like French politics. What the people think in the United States has a real influence on foreign policy. And the people, right now, are pissed at France. That's not going to go away. An entire generation of politically active Americans who came of age during this crisis are going to think of France as an enemy of the United States. That is damage that may never be healed. Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://platinum.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
At 12:59 01-04-03 -0800, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > And you think the rest of the world will not feel (in some way or > other) > the consequences of US retaliation for the destruction of > New York? I think that everything anyone ever wants to say about your politics is encapsulated, Jeroen, in the fact that you think the world will feel the consequences of US retaliation for the destruction of New York - but don't mention the destruction of New York itself as something to be avoided. Really, that's all any of us need to know about you right there. Oh, so *that* is the problem! I didn't explicitly state that the destruction of New York itself was something to be avoided! Oh dear, how anti-American of me! Lemme guess, failing to make that explicit statement automatically means that I think the destruction of NY is a good thing, right? And in accordance with the Bush regime's black-and-white "if you're not with us, you're against us" attitude, I am now also officially considered pro-Hussein and a supporter of terrorism, right? Hm. I also didn't explicitly state that it would be regrettable if NY-based Brinellers would die in an attack on New York. Are you now also convinced that I believe it would be a positive development if those Brinellers would die in an attack? Puh-lease! Stick to attacking *arguments* instead of *posters*, Gautam. If I want Giorgistic responses like yours above, I'll go shoot holes in JDG's arguments. If you can't stay rational, I can (and will) no longer take you seriously. Jeroen "Make love, not war" van Baardwijk _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
Jean-Marc Chaton wrote: > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Mon, 31/03/2003 at 21:44 -0500] > > It is true that the indefensible position > > of the French (no war ever no matter what) made things more difficult. > > It was not the position of France. It was 'no war as long as progresses > were made' Two problems with that: 1) Without firm criteria for "progress", *anything* can be stretched to be defined as progress, and Iraq could maintain its passive-aggressive blocking of the inspections forever. 2) When the US/Britain tried to create a verfiable set of tests for compliance, France rejected them outright, immediately, even before Iraq did, because they had a specified consequence for failure. France then said they would veto any UN measure that had war as a consequence or set a deadline. So, as you say, France's position is 'no war as long as progresses were made'. But France refused to even set an ultimatum or deadline or condone any talk of war, so we can translate this to "no deadlines, no consequences, no war as long as progress is made". Combine that with there being no firm definition of " progress", and a refusal to define a set of clear tests of compliance, and France's stance then effectively becomes "no war no matter what". ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
Gautam Mukunda wrote: > What the French government, in its quest to attack the > United States in this affair, didn't realize is that > American politics are not like French politics. What > the people think in the United States has a real > influence on foreign policy. And the people, right > now, are pissed at France. That's not going to go > away. An entire generation of politically active > Americans who came of age during this crisis are going > to think of France as an enemy of the United States. > That is damage that may never be healed. Well, some of them will realize it wasn't the fault of the entire French nation, that maybe just some of the leadership was, at some point, in need of a proctocraniectomy or something. Julia wondering if maybe the French leadership is trying to cover part of someone's anatomy and that's affecting their decisions in the matter, but that might lead someone to believe that I'd actually read some Safire columns lately ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
Kevin Tarr wrote: At 11:37 AM 4/1/2003 +0200, you wrote: Robert Seeberger wrote: Where the peace movement should focus a large share of its attention is upon the weapons manufacturers in their own nations and in creating weapons embargoes on countries like NK. How about a push for a moratorium on the export of artillery and tanks and the like? Ammunition? Land mines? This stuff isn't manufactured onsite, these are export items. A lot could be done to insure a future peace by pushing the UN and working within our own countries. The US is not so much the worlds Sheriff as it is the worlds Janitor Funny you should mention it. In a documentary a couple of days ago something was mentioned about how the US might have been instrumental in keeping Saddam in power. It was speculated that perhaps the US needed a big middle east boogy man in order to sell billions worth of weapons to Iraq's scared neighbours. Although utterly unprovable it did make for a pretty believable case. Seeing this, it just occured to me that if Bush set out to rectify this policy it could make him a real hero. Then again he would have to admit that a number of his predecessors did something very greedy and utterly stupid like selling large amounts of weapons into an on purpose destabelized region. Sonja GCU: Nah... or did they? There are two different things to look at. Did the US at some point keep him in power? Maybe. Did they do it to sell other countries weapons? No. Anyway, other than Isreal, and planes for Saudi Arabia, we haven't been selling other countries in the mid east billions of munitions because of Saddam. I mean, let's say we were arming other countries, Saddam still had the biggest force in the region, right? Well actually I wasn't referring to Iran. I should have mentioned that. It was more in the region of Saudi Arabia and such that I was thinking. Sonja :O) GCU Conspiracy theorist ;o) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
Well actually I wasn't referring to Iran. I should have mentioned that. It was more in the region of Saudi Arabia and such that I was thinking. Sonja I was proven wrong anyway. But I still don't think the tone of the story you read, or heard, was quite right. Then again, we did a few foolish things in the 80s* in regards to other nation and keeping the wrong people in power. Kevin T. *and the 90s, 70s, 60s, 50s... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
Let me ask the question a little differently, then (not just for Kevin, but for anyone who wishes to respond): Is there anyone who is strongly opposed to this war in Iraq (e.g., who has been speaking out against it, protesting it, etc.) who supports Bush and thinks he is a "good" (or at least no worse than average, even if not a "great") President? I am asking because I and others have noted that, at least in the United States, many of those who speak out against the war in Iraq, when asked their opinion of President Bush, say things like "He is stupid", "He is evil", "He is a dictator who wants to impose his rule on the whole world", "He only started the war to benefit himself and his friends with close ties to the oil industry", etc. While correlation does not imply causation, I was just interested in whether the apparent correlation between "anti-war" and "anti-Bush" is real or a statistical artifact due to the obviously limited number of people I have talked to directly, and how widespread it might be. Ronn I was just thinking of a friend this morning. I know he's 100% anti-bush and he's 100% pro war. He said things after 9/11 that would have made Pat Buchanan blush. Kevin T. and not the only one ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
--- Kevin Tarr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I was just thinking of a friend this morning. I know > he's 100% anti-bush > and he's 100% pro war. He said things after 9/11 > that would have made Pat > Buchanan blush. > > Kevin T. Heather MacDonald at the Manhattan Institute is at least a conservative and I think pro-Bush (a real one, not Pat Buchanan-type) and opposed to the war. Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: And you think the rest of the world will not feel (in some way or other) the consequences of US retaliation for the destruction of New York? Jeroen "Make love, not war" van Baardwijk I think that everything anyone ever wants to say about your politics is encapsulated, Jeroen, in the fact that you think the world will feel the consequences of US retaliation for the destruction of New York - but don't mention the destruction of New York itself as something to be avoided. Really, that's all any of us need to know about you right there. And I think you should stick to attacking arguments and not the poster. Sonja ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
J. van Baardwijk wrote: At 12:59 01-04-03 -0800, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > And you think the rest of the world will not feel (in some way or > other) > the consequences of US retaliation for the destruction of > New York? I think that everything anyone ever wants to say about your politics is encapsulated, Jeroen, in the fact that you think the world will feel the consequences of US retaliation for the destruction of New York - but don't mention the destruction of New York itself as something to be avoided. Really, that's all any of us need to know about you right there. Oh, so *that* is the problem! I didn't explicitly state that the destruction of New York itself was something to be avoided! Oh dear, how anti-American of me! Lemme guess, failing to make that explicit statement automatically means that I think the destruction of NY is a good thing, right? And in accordance with the Bush regime's black-and-white "if you're not with us, you're against us" attitude, I am now also officially considered pro-Hussein and a supporter of terrorism, right? Hm. I also didn't explicitly state that it would be regrettable if NY-based Brinellers would die in an attack on New York. Are you now also convinced that I believe it would be a positive development if those Brinellers would die in an attack? Puh-lease! Stick to attacking *arguments* instead of *posters*, Gautam. If I want Giorgistic responses like yours above, I'll go shoot holes in JDG's arguments. If you can't stay rational, I can (and will) no longer take you seriously. And I think you shouldn't overreact in this childish manner. Simply pointing out the fact that Gautam was not attacking the argument would have done nicely. After all we are civillised people. So I dare you both to prove it. Sonja ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
--- Sonja van Baardwijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And I think you should stick to attacking arguments > and not the poster. > > Sonja And I think your husband could, perhaps, strive harder to avoid giving the impression that he wouldn't particularly regret such attacks as long as they were conducted against the US. Because he sure as hell is giving that impression. You've ever heard of a Freudian slip? It rather looks like he made one. Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Sonja van Baardwijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: And I think you should stick to attacking arguments and not the poster. Sonja And I think your husband could, perhaps, strive harder to avoid giving the impression that he wouldn't particularly regret such attacks as long as they were conducted against the US. That is not what I was referring to and totally besided the point. Because he sure as hell is giving that impression. You've ever heard of a Freudian slip? It rather looks like he made one. Gautam No matter what you percieved as fact it still is no reason whatsoever to not be polite. If you wanne make it personal and fight it out dirty, take it off-list. On-list we are nice to each other and give on another the benefit of the doubt. Well, if that is impossible we at least try to be civillised. You were none of those, hence my comment. Sonja :o) GCU NIICK! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 07:31:45PM +0200, Sonja van Baardwijk wrote: > No matter what you percieved as fact it still is no reason whatsoever > to not be polite. If you wanne make it personal and fight it out > dirty, take it off-list. On-list we are nice to each other and give on > another the benefit of the doubt. Well, if that is impossible we at > least try to be civillised. You were none of those, hence my comment. Your comment, Sonja, was an underhanded attempt to chastise Gautam, definitely critical of him, not his argument, since you didn't even discuss his argument. Gautam's was a polite statement of his opinion. Your passive aggressive tone and exagerations will not work on me, and I don't think many people here will fall for them either. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
At 07:15 01-04-03 -0500, John Giorgis wrote: As such, by not launching the war now, if you were George Bush, would you be prepared to bear the following costs of waiting until September to let a dictator whom we know with certainty will try and succeed at hiding *something* from inspectors prove to France that he really needs to go? These costs include: I am absolutely baffled that people can consider the reasons below to be valid reasons for starting the war. -Leaving our troops in a viciously hot desert, where protection from chemcial attacks would be difficult. It will be hot in the region this summer anyway, regardless of whether the troops are sitting down in the desert of Saudi Arabia or fighting their way towards Baghdad. Even the Bush regime cannot influence the weather. And no matter on which side of the border your troops are, as long as there is someone with hatred of the US and access to chemical weapons, those troops can come under attack. -Leaving our troops at fixed xamps in the desert where they will be vulnerable to terrorist and other attacks No matter on which side of the border your troops are, as long as there is someone with hatred of the US and access to weapons, those troops can come under attack. -Leaving 1 in every 1,000 Americans away from their families, loved ones, and jobs for an extended period of time. Away from their jobs? The US doesn't have the draft, so for all those soldiers being a soldier *is* their job. Therefore they are not kept away from their job, they have gone where there job took them. Further, they will be away from home for an extended period of time anyway. Those troops are not going to leave Iraq as soon as a pro-US regime has been established in Iraq. Which brings me to your earlier argument that the US had to start the war because of the costs of keeping those soldiers waiting in the desert till after the summer. That argument is also bogus, as you will have those costs anyway, with or without war. Unless of course some countries have promised to fully reimburse the US for keeping all those troops and weapons on hold till September. Jeroen "Make love, not war" van Baardwijk _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
At 07:55 02-04-03 -0800, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Sonja van Baardwijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And I think you should stick to attacking arguments > and not the poster. And I think your husband could, perhaps, strive harder to avoid giving the impression that he wouldn't particularly regret such attacks as long as they were conducted against the US. That's outright ridiculous. Why would I believe that the destruction of NYC wouldn't be particulary regrettable? Because he sure as hell is giving that impression. You've ever heard of a Freudian slip? It rather looks like he made one. And I think you're overreacting. The fact that I didn't *explicitly* support one viewpoint doesn't mean that I support the opposite. If you meet someone, and that person doesn't explicitly say "Gautam, I think you're a real nice guy", do you then also believe that, since he didn't explicitly say that, he must be hating you? Jeroen "Talking to deaf ears" van Baardwijk _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
JDG wrote: -Leaving 1 in every 1,000 Americans away from their families, loved ones, and jobs for an extended period of time. Jeroen replied: Away from their jobs? The US doesn't have the draft, so for all those soldiers being a soldier *is* their job. Therefore they are not kept away from their job, they have gone where there job took them. Not necessarily true. Many soldiers involved are reserves. These reservists *are* away from their regular jobs right now. And for many of the regular duty forces that are currently in Iraq, the posts where they came from are now being handled by reservists. I don't have the stats handy as to how many reservists have been called up, but it's been widely reported that 1 in 1000 Americans is the neighborhood of Iraq and involved in the current military operations there. When you take into account that some of these are reservists and some of these are people who have their regular posts replaced by reservists, John's statement stands as correct. Reggie Bautista _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
At 10:32 PM 4/2/03 +0200, J. van Baardwijk wrote: At 07:15 01-04-03 -0500, John Giorgis wrote: As such, by not launching the war now, if you were George Bush, would you be prepared to bear the following costs of waiting until September to let a dictator whom we know with certainty will try and succeed at hiding *something* from inspectors prove to France that he really needs to go? These costs include: I am absolutely baffled that people can consider the reasons below to be valid reasons for starting the war. [snip] -Leaving 1 in every 1,000 Americans away from their families, loved ones, and jobs for an extended period of time. Away from their jobs? The US doesn't have the draft, so for all those soldiers being a soldier *is* their job. Therefore they are not kept away from their job, they have gone where there job took them. Many of the soldiers who are now in Iraq or preparing to go are not full-time members of the armed forces but rather are members of the National Guard or Reserve who have full-time civilian jobs and who drill with their military units on weekends. Those people have had to leave their families and put their regular lives on hold. Further, they will be away from home for an extended period of time anyway. Those troops are not going to leave Iraq as soon as a pro-US regime has been established in Iraq. Some will rotate back to the States and be replaced by other "part-time" soldiers who will have to leave their jobs and families for as much as a year or more. Try to imagine what it would be like for you and your family if you were told today that this weekend you had to leave your family and regular job and spend the next year or so in a desert thousands of miles away from home, and you'll have a better idea of what many of these soldiers and their families are experiencing. Or, since you work for the Dutch department of defense, if they have reserves who are subject to callup, perhaps you know some of those reserve members who have been called up in the past and you could ask them. Which brings me to your earlier argument that the US had to start the war because of the costs of keeping those soldiers waiting in the desert till after the summer. That argument is also bogus, as you will have those costs anyway, with or without war. Most of them would not be in the desert thousands of miles from their homes if there was no possibility of a war. There are extra costs in keeping them in a remote location. If we kept them in that remote location for six months or more, then had to fight, the costs of the months of waiting would simply be added to the already high costs of fighting a war. -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
> -Original Message- > From: Ronn!Blankenship [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 01:43 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . . > >> Many of the soldiers who are now in Iraq or preparing to go are not > full-time members of the armed forces but rather are members of the > National Guard or Reserve who have full-time civilian jobs > and who drill > with their military units on weekends. Those people have had > to leave > their families and put their regular lives on hold. While that's tough on them and their families, it /is/ what they signed up to do. -j- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
At 15:43 02-04-03 -0600, Ronn Blankenship wrote: Or, since you work for the Dutch department of defense, if they have reserves who are subject to callup, perhaps you know some of those reserve members who have been called up in the past and you could ask them. So far it has never been necessary to call up members of the National Reserve (NATRES), at least not for military operations abroad. Only regular troops have been deployed outside our borders. The only real-life action members of NATRES have seen in the last several years was when we had some major floodings and the military (including NATRES) were sent in to reinforce the dikes with sandbags and assist emergency services. Jeroen "For Queen And Country" van Baardwijk _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
Ronn! wrote: > Many of the soldiers who are now in Iraq or preparing to go are not > full-time members of the armed forces but rather are members of the > National Guard or Reserve who have full-time civilian jobs > and who drill > with their military units on weekends. Those people have had > to leave > their families and put their regular lives on hold. Jeffrey Miller replied: While that's tough on them and their families, it /is/ what they signed up to do. Which does not falsify JDG's original statement about many US citizens being away from their homes and jobs... Ronn! posted what he did to correct Jeroen's statement that the US soldiers in Iraq were not away from their jobs but were merely where their jobs took them. JDG was making a point about the economic affects of the war. The fact that both the regular soldiers and the reservists signed up for this is beside the point. Reggie Bautista _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
> -Original Message- > From: Reggie Bautista [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 02:21 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Question for those who are anti-war . . . > > > Ronn! wrote: > > > Many of the soldiers who are now in Iraq or preparing to > go are not > > > full-time members of the armed forces but rather are > members of the > > > National Guard or Reserve who have full-time civilian > jobs and who > > > drill with their military units on weekends. Those > people have had > > > to leave > > > their families and put their regular lives on hold. > > Jeffrey Miller replied: > >While that's tough on them and their families, it /is/ what > >they signed up to do. > > Which does not falsify JDG's original statement about many US > citizens being > away from their homes and jobs... False or not, its a lame reason to start a war before you're ready. -j- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "J. van Baardwijk" > I am absolutely baffled that people can consider the reasons below > to be > valid reasons for starting the war. Sorry, but I must correct the above woeful mischaracterization of my post. I did not list in the previous posts reasons for, quote, "starting the war." Rather, I asked a certain poster if it would be wise and prudent for the US to bear the following *costs* of delaying the start of the war until September - a war that is to be started for a completely different set of valid reasons, which I have much discussed. Lastly, the total cost of the war is: Total Cost = Wait Costs + War Costs If we consider that War Costs is fixed, any increase in Wait Costs increases Total Costs. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
At 02:00 PM 4/2/2003 -0800 Miller, Jeffrey wrote: >> Many of the soldiers who are now in Iraq or preparing to go are not >> full-time members of the armed forces but rather are members of the >> National Guard or Reserve who have full-time civilian jobs >> and who drill >> with their military units on weekends. Those people have had >> to leave >> their families and put their regular lives on hold. > >While that's tough on them and their families, it /is/ what they signed up to do. That does not mean that making them sit indefinitely in the Kuwaiti desert is without great cost - either to them and their families, or to the US economy as a whole. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
At 03:18 PM 4/2/2003 -0600 Reggie Bautista wrote: >I don't have the stats handy as to how many reservists have been called up, >but it's been widely reported that 1 in 1000 Americans is the neighborhood >of Iraq and involved in the current military operations there. How widely? I developed that statistic myself, and AFAIK, I'm the only person that I've seen use it. :) JDG - Not that it was by any means so brilliant that 1 in 1000 Americans couldn't also have come up with it on their own Maru.. ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
At 02:25 PM 4/2/2003 -0800 Miller, Jeffrey wrote: >False or not, its a lame reason to start a war before you're ready. Uhhh we were ready, as was widely reported in all major news outlets. The only questions was whether for *political* not *military* reasons, the war should be postponed until the Fall.Given this question, analyzing the costs vs. the benefits of this decisions is wise and prudent. The costs were high, and the benefits - Iraqi capitulation or else French reasonableness were both extremely unlikely. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
John D. Giorgis wrote: I developed that statistic myself, and AFAIK, I'm the only person that I've seen use it. :) It can't be too wrong, based on the size of the deployed force and the US population... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
> From: Kevin Street [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > The thing that bothers me so much here is that this time it's > *America* > who's the aggressor. The one major power that has (almost) > never acted in an > imperialistic manner, the country that has helped other > nations far more > than it has harmed them. A country that has, up until now, been an > inspiration and model for the world. > > Yes, we expect more of the United States than other countries. And the > United States should expect more of itself. Yes, I think I've said before that this is exactly my biggest problem with the whole thing. America just doesn't things like this. Or at least that what I've always thought. Not in this century, er, last century. Unfortunately, that's where we find ourselves. - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
- Original Message - From: "Horn, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 11:34 PM Subject: RE: Question for those who are anti-war . . . > Yes, I think I've said before that this is exactly my biggest problem with > the whole thing. America just doesn't things like this. Like what? Overthrow dictatorships that have invaded another country and have the potential to destabilize the world? What about the Balkans? That had no basis in UN resolutions at all. Yes, France and Germany supported our actions, but I'd argue that's becasue we were solving their problem for them. I've understood and made arguements against going in now. What's best overall is a difficult call, IMHO. But, I cannot see overthrowing Hussein as immoral. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
* Bryon Daly [Tue, 01/04/2003 at 18:14 -0500] > Jean-Marc Chaton wrote: > > > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Mon, 31/03/2003 at 21:44 -0500] > > > It is true that the indefensible position of the French (no war > > > ever no matter what) made things more difficult. > > > > It was not the position of France. It was 'no war as long as > > progresses were made' > > Two problems with that: 1) Without firm criteria for "progress", > *anything* can be stretched to be defined as progress, and Iraq could > maintain its passive-aggressive blocking of the inspections forever. > > 2) When the US/Britain tried to create a verfiable set of tests for > compliance, France rejected them outright, immediately, even before > Iraq did, because they had a specified consequence for failure. > France then said they would veto any UN measure that had war as a > consequence or set a deadline. > > So, as you say, France's position is 'no war as long as progresses > were made'. But France refused to even set an ultimatum or deadline > or condone any talk of war, so we can translate this to "no deadlines, > no consequences, no war as long as progress is made". Combine that > with there being no firm definition of " progress", and a refusal to > define a set of clear tests of compliance, and France's stance then > effectively becomes "no war no matter what". I understand your position but I've not seen the events that way. I think France, as the broad majority of the council, was agreeing with the necessity of a verifiable set of compliance tests, with the presence of a deadline (which length was under discussion) and the presence of the threat of military action. This was a considerable step forward. The thing France didn't want was the automaticity of the start of a war as a mere consequence of a grammatical conjunction. France wanted the security council, i.e. humans beeings to convene formally and declare the start of military action. This position was put forward by Chile _after_ the UK proposal see : http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2384624 But the United States rejected it outright, immediately, even before Iraq did. I still think it was a valid point of view, even if one disagrees, I mean not indefensible. Are you sure you don't confuse yourself with Germany position (no war no matter what) ? -- Jean-Marc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
* Gautam Mukunda [Tue, 01/04/2003 at 13:49 -0800] > > Note, for example, two simple actions by France: > 1. They publicly threatened the Eastern European > candidate countries with blackballing from EU > membership for supporting the US and > 2. It is now revealed that they did the same to > Turkey, which was one of the major reasons we did not > get Turkish support, something which will undoubtedly > cost the lives of dozens of Americans and thousands of > Iraqis. I'm interested in links to support your point 2. To my knowledge France hasn't got a particular link or lever with Turkey. Germany has, though, due to historial, sociological (large part of its population is Turkish) , and economical. But I can't stop thinking Turkey, at least those whose got the last word in Turkey, i.e. high rank military, has and always had their own agenda in the region. > > What the French government, in its quest to attack the > United States in this affair, didn't realize is that > American politics are not like French politics. What > the people think in the United States has a real > influence on foreign policy. And the people, right > now, are pissed at France. That's not going to go > away. An entire generation of politically active > Americans who came of age during this crisis are going > to think of France as an enemy of the United States. > That is damage that may never be healed. Do they consider Germany as an enemy ? -- Jean-Marc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
JDG wrote: > > Lastly, the total cost of the war is: > Total Cost = Wait Costs + War Costs > > If we consider that War Costs is fixed, (...) > But it is *not* fixed. The USA coalition could wait another 30 years, when the Iraqi population would be all over 50 [all iq children would die after 42 years of siege warfare], and the cost of the war would decrease substantially Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
At 11:34 PM 4/2/2003 -0600 Horn, John wrote: >> From: Kevin Street [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> The thing that bothers me so much here is that this time it's >> *America* >> who's the aggressor. The one major power that has (almost) >> never acted in an >> imperialistic manner, the country that has helped other >> nations far more >> than it has harmed them. A country that has, up until now, been an >> inspiration and model for the world. >> >> Yes, we expect more of the United States than other countries. And the >> United States should expect more of itself. > >Yes, I think I've said before that this is exactly my biggest problem with >the whole thing. America just doesn't things like this. Or at least that >what I've always thought. Not in this century, er, last century. >Unfortunately, that's where we find ourselves. Doesn't "imperialism" require the formation of a colony? JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
Erik Reuter wrote: On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 07:31:45PM +0200, Sonja van Baardwijk wrote: No matter what you percieved as fact it still is no reason whatsoever to not be polite. If you wanne make it personal and fight it out dirty, take it off-list. On-list we are nice to each other and give on another the benefit of the doubt. Well, if that is impossible we at least try to be civillised. You were none of those, hence my comment. Your comment, Sonja, was an underhanded attempt to chastise Gautam, definitely critical of him, not his argument, since you didn't even discuss his argument. Whatever. If it makes you feel better. Sonja GCU: No gain. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
> From: Dan Minette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > America just doesn't things like this. > > Like what? Overthrow dictatorships that have invaded another > country and > have the potential to destabilize the world? What about the > Balkans? That > had no basis in UN resolutions at all. Yes, France and > Germany supported > our actions, but I'd argue that's becasue we were solving > their problem for them. > > I've understood and made arguements against going in now. What's best > overall is a difficult call, IMHO. But, I cannot see > overthrowing Hussein as immoral. Sorry, I didn't explain myself very well because I didn't want to repeat what I had already posted a month or so ago. I'm not saying this war is moral or immoral. My point was that in the major conflicts of the last 75 years or so (since WWI) the US hasn't started the wars. The "bad guys" did. But the US got involved and finished it (well, in most cases). That's what makes me uncomfortable about invading Iraq: the US definitely started this. Sure, it was in response to Hussein's actions. I'm not denying that. But we fired the first shots. In my (admittedly) naive world view prior to 2 weeks ago, the United States didn't do that. (I know the arguments that this is a continuation of what was started in 1991 but I'm not sure I buy that.) However, Hussein has to go. I've got no problem with that. He's a bad guy. And the world will be a better place without him. (Which, hopefully, it already is. I think he's dead. Or seriously injured.) And the Iraqi people will be better off without him. It just makes me uncomfortable to have to do it this way. - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
"John D. Giorgis" wrote: > > At 11:34 PM 4/2/2003 -0600 Horn, John wrote: > >> From: Kevin Street [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> The thing that bothers me so much here is that this time it's > >> *America* > >> who's the aggressor. The one major power that has (almost) > >> never acted in an > >> imperialistic manner, the country that has helped other > >> nations far more > >> than it has harmed them. A country that has, up until now, been an > >> inspiration and model for the world. > >> > >> Yes, we expect more of the United States than other countries. And the > >> United States should expect more of itself. > > > >Yes, I think I've said before that this is exactly my biggest problem with > >the whole thing. America just doesn't things like this. Or at least that > >what I've always thought. Not in this century, er, last century. > >Unfortunately, that's where we find ourselves. > > Doesn't "imperialism" require the formation of a colony? In effect, isn't that what a lot of US-based (or at least US-founded) companies do by exporting production, etc.? We're not *politically* colonizing, but could this arguably be termed "economic colonizing"? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
--- Jean-Marc Chaton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm interested in links to support your point 2. To > my knowledge France > hasn't got a particular link or lever with Turkey. > Germany has, though, > due to historial, sociological (large part of its > population is Turkish) > , and economical. But I can't stop thinking Turkey, > at least those > whose got the last word in Turkey, i.e. high rank > military, has and > always had their own agenda in the region. France has the same lever it has with Eastern Europe - the ability to deny them EU membership. I, personally, think that if the Turks think that France is going to let a non-white, non-Christian country into the EU ever, they're deluding themselves, but they seem to have persuaded themselves that it's possible, and are willing to do almost anything to get it. Since the vote was going to be close anyways the threats (reported by Michael Ledeen among others) would certainly have been enough to sway things. Of course, Chirac's threats against Eastern Europe all by themselves were the act of an enemy country, not a friendly one. > > > > > > What the French government, in its quest to attack > the > > United States in this affair, didn't realize is > that > > American politics are not like French politics. > What > > the people think in the United States has a real > > influence on foreign policy. And the people, > right > > now, are pissed at France. That's not going to go > > away. An entire generation of politically active > > Americans who came of age during this crisis are > going > > to think of France as an enemy of the United > States. > > That is damage that may never be healed. > > Do they consider Germany as an enemy ? > Jean-Marc No, but I think that's correct. Germany is doing this in part because Schroeder dislikes the US (and Fischer is an ex-terrorist, for goodness sake - I don't see why people don't make a bigger deal of that) but far more so because the German people seem to have become devoutly pacifist. Cleo apparently has a sense of humor. They oppose any and all wars - they don't seem motivated by a particular desire to attack the US. France clearly is - no one could argue that France, which is currently intervening in Africa to protect its cocoa crop (for example) is at all a pacifist country. Germany is opposed to war. France is opposed to the United States. There's a clear distinction there. France rejected a compromise resolution _before Iraq did_. It clearly voted in bad faith on 1441. It voted against a UN Resolution _condemning Iraqi human rights abuses_. It consistently undermined and weakened the sanctions regime. It voted to declare Iraq free of WMD in 1998. Now, unless you want to posit a deep and abiding French affection for Saddam Hussein (possible, but I'm genuinely trying to be generous) the most logical explanation for this is a coherent French plan to weaken the United States as much as possible. That si what your enemies do to you, not your friends. Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
--- Jean-Marc Chaton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think France, as the broad majority of the > council, was agreeing with > the necessity of a verifiable set of compliance > tests, with the presence > of a deadline (which length was under discussion) > and the presence of > the threat of military action. This was a > considerable step forward. > The thing France didn't want was the automaticity of > the start of a war > as a mere consequence of a grammatical conjunction. > France wanted the > security council, i.e. humans beeings to convene > formally and declare > the start of military action. If that were true, it would have proposed some of those tests. Instead it rejected the tests proposed by the British unconditionally. If France's position really was in favor of putting pressure on Iraq, why did it: 1. Oppose all attempts by the US to do so? and 2. Not send its own troops to the Middle East to increase the pressure? At least one major reason that Saddam didn't cooperate was France's decision to split the council and weaken all attempts to put pressure on him. If France's intentions were what you say, it's actions would have been essentially the exact opposite of what they were. > But the United States rejected it outright, > immediately, even before > Iraq did. Because we, correctly, believed that France was negotiating in bad faith. France lied to us about 1441. It opposed every attempt to put pressure on Iraq. There was no reason - none at all - to believe anything other than that this was yet another attempt to defer pressure into the future, so that when the US finally did lose patience and invade, the American and Iraqi casualties would be still higher. > > I still think it was a valid point of view, even if > one disagrees, I mean > not indefensible. Are you sure you don't confuse > yourself with Germany > position (no war no matter what) ? > > Jean-Marc Actually, Germany's point of view was far more defensible. Germany essentially was saying - no war under any circumstances, we don't care, we're pacifists. France was basically saying - no war to topple a genocidal dictator with weapons of mass destruction who sponsors terrorists against the United States, but wars to protect, say, French economic interests in Africa, those are okay. One of the two positions is foolish, the other malign. Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
- Original Message - From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 10:25 AM Subject: Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . . > --- Jean-Marc Chaton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm interested in links to support your point 2. To > > my knowledge France > > hasn't got a particular link or lever with Turkey. > > Germany has, though, > > due to historial, sociological (large part of its > > population is Turkish) > > , and economical. But I can't stop thinking Turkey, > > at least those > > whose got the last word in Turkey, i.e. high rank > > military, has and > > always had their own agenda in the region. > > France has the same lever it has with Eastern Europe - > the ability to deny them EU membership. I, > personally, think that if the Turks think that France > is going to let a non-white, non-Christian country > into the EU ever, they're deluding themselves, but > they seem to have persuaded themselves that it's > possible, and are willing to do almost anything to get > it. If Turkey joined the EU, then it would have overwheming repercussions, right? Wouldn't Turkish citizens have the same right to travel, work, and live anywhere in Europe, passing through customs with a wave like I've seen other EU members do now? IMHO, that would be a real step forward for Europe, transforming it into a multicultural association. Given that, I'd guess that it would be a very difficult step to get past the public. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If Turkey joined the EU, then it would have > overwheming repercussions, > right? Wouldn't Turkish citizens have the same > right to travel, work, and > live anywhere in Europe, passing through customs > with a wave like I've seen > other EU members do now? IMHO, that would be a real > step forward for > Europe, transforming it into a multicultural > association. Given that, I'd > guess that it would be a very difficult step to get > past the public. > > Dan M. Well, _every_ step on the EU is difficult to get past the public. Pretty consistently whenever the EU is put up for a public vote, it loses. It's only when the governments overrule public opinion that it ever goes anywhere. But yes, that's definitely true, and one of the many reasons that it's just never going to happen. Now, a different question is if Turkey should be part of the EU. Were I the Poles (for example) I would ask myself why I would want my economy run from Brussels. Look at what a good job they're doing for France and Germany, after all :-) So this could well be a blessing in disguise for the countries involved. Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
Gautam Mukunda wrote: > > No, but I think that's correct. Germany is doing this > in part because Schroeder dislikes the US (and Fischer > is an ex-terrorist, for goodness sake - I don't see > why people don't make a bigger deal of that) > Because an ex-terrorist is not a terrorist. Lots of the Ministers of the current gov.br are ex-terrorists too. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 02:41:51PM -0300, Alberto Monteiro wrote: > Because an ex-terrorist is not a terrorist. Lots of the Ministers of > the current gov.br are ex-terrorists too. Brazilian Ministers go around scaring former's and previously's and used to be's? -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://erikreuter.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
JDG wrote: I developed that statistic myself, and AFAIK, I'm the only person that I've seen use it. :) Russell Chapman replied: It can't be too wrong, based on the size of the deployed force and the US population... Hmmm, now that you mention it, it may have only been here that I've seen that number. Let me do a quick bit of research... According to the 2000 census, http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html the population of the U.S. is 281,421,906. I've seen different numbers for the number of U.S. troops involved. I couldn't find anything definitive in a quick Google search, but the numbers I remember hearing are between 240,000 and 250,000. JDG's original estimate is 1 in 1000, which is 0.1% of the U.S. population. If we assume 245,000 troops with the census number above, we get 0.09%. That's fairly close to JDG's number. If you go a couple of extra decimal places, it's 0.0871%. That's equivalent to about 1 in every 1148. Allowing for the fact that JDG's stat was an estimate, I'd say it was a pretty good one. Reggie Bautista _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
Erik Reuter wrote: > >> Because an ex-terrorist is not a terrorist. Lots of the >> Ministers of the current gov.br are ex-terrorists too. > > Brazilian Ministers go around scaring former's and > previously's and used to be's? > I don't understand what you are talking about. And probably you wouldn't know if they did :-P Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 02:51:00PM -0300, Alberto Monteiro wrote: > Erik Reuter wrote: > > >> Because an ex-terrorist is not a terrorist. Lots of the Ministers > >> of the current gov.br are ex-terrorists too. > > > > Brazilian Ministers go around scaring former's and previously's and > > used to be's? > > I don't understand what you are talking about. You previously interpreted "A B" where A=terrorist and B=killer to mean someone who kills terrorists. So, if A=ex- and B=terrorist, the Alberto interpretation should be "someone who terrorizes ex'es". -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
Erik Reuter wrote: > >> I don't understand what you are talking about. > > You previously interpreted "A B" where A=terrorist > and B=killer to mean someone who kills terrorists. > So, if A=ex- and B=terrorist, the Alberto > interpretation should be "someone who terrorizes ex'es". > Touche'. Time to wear my dumb hat again - twice this week :-( Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
JDG wrote: > > Lastly, the total cost of the war is: > Total Cost = Wait Costs + War Costs > > If we consider that War Costs is fixed, (...) Alberto replied: But it is *not* fixed. The USA coalition could wait another 30 years, when the Iraqi population would be all over 50 [all iq children would die after 42 years of siege warfare], and the cost of the war would decrease substantially To the contrary, the cost would *increase* substantially. 42 years of siege warfare wouldn't be inexpensive any way you look at it... Reggie Bautista _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
