RE: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
--- Kevin Tarr wrote: [I wrote] > > ...the scare tactics being employed by the current > administration to erode civil liberties (re: the > Patriot Act), change health policy, and weaken > environmental protections concern me. The > deliberately arrogant and aggressive stance toward > much of the world concerns me; the unsubtle > manipulation of public fears and facts angers me. [Kevin:] > Okay, we all know about the 'worries' over the > Patriot act, but what are these scare tacticts to > "change health policy, and weaken > environmental protections " ? Clarification: The post I was responding to noted 'the government and their allies,' which is what I should have repeated, instead of just saying 'the current administration.' Sorry about that. Health: I recently (Mon, Oct 7) posted a response to an article about a fundamentalist doctor who is to be on the panel in charge of the FDA's policy on women's health: > Hager assisted the Christian Medical > Association last > August in a "citizens' petition" calling upon the > FDA to reverse itself > on RU-486, saying it has endangered the lives and > health of women. [Birth control pills are also under fire from conservative groups, as 'dangerous.'] Birth control pills and legal abortion have killed far fewer women than pregnancy (I posted CDC and other data substantiating this in a previous post). Environment: I don't have time to look up the sources right now (I spent several hours on the vaccine research), but off the top: If more timber isn't cut, we will a)lose jobs/money b)risk burning more homes (someone else pointed out that primary growth forests - what little we have left of them - are _not_ full of homes, but _are_ full of huge hundreds-year-old trees). Aside: A former logger who is now employed by a fish-and-game bureau (in CA, I don't recall which agency) is currently trying hard to repair the damage done to headwaters by clear-cutting, to renew the salmon runs. The job argument is similar to the absurdity of condemning smoking but subsidizing tobacco farmers; obviously those people need retraining in sustainable/non-cancer-causing work. I'll try to get back to this next week. Debbi Lions And Tigers And Bears Maru __ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
Ritu Ko wrote about Saddam's other career as a romance novelist: >> I have always thought it was near-unpardonably short >> sighted of Saddam not to explore this avenue of addressing >> his financial problems. :) De : Steve Sloan II [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Objet : Re: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack > *He* doesn't have financial problems, nor do his cronies. > It's the people of Iraq that have financial problems, and > unfortunately, our embargo is only helping him make his > people poorer, and himself richer. And this inflates anti-americanism in Iraq. U.S. soldiers will have to be damn friendly if they want to be received as saviors. Think of it this way : Saddam has taken the Iraqi's freedom, America has taken his food and medicine. I'm not saying that I believe this, but that I believe that many Iraqis do. Jean-Louis Couturier ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
Deborah Harrell wrote: > > > Nope, I have no idea how you feel about living > > under the BJP government. > > My initial response had the 'no' highlit, but I > decided that was a bit too much. Sometimes I feel as if I carry a neon sign over my head, proclaiming my opinion of BJP et al. > Probably not nearly as worried as you > must be, Well, I am not so worried anymore. At least not since the end of March. The decade before that, I was *pretty* worried. But ever since the Gujarat pogrom happened [and I don't care what Modi and Advani say - it was *exactly* that], I have started relaxing. Y'see, people seem to have woken and realised a lot of what was happening. Now, the hindutva ideas and policies are being challenged by a lot of people, through a lot of forums, on a lot of different subjects. Another positive aspect of this is the fact that *now* when I voice my concerns, I am not derided as an 'over-emotional, irrational, Cassandra/pseudo-secular'. It's a refreshing change, I tell you. :) And a reassuring one. > but - as has been noted on-list previously - > the scare tactics being employed by the current > administration to erode civil liberties (re: the > Patriot Act), change health policy, and weaken > environmental protections concern me. The > deliberately arrogant and aggressive stance toward > much of the world concerns me; the unsubtle > manipulation of public fears and facts angers me. Yes, I can understand that. > but adults need to be > persuaded as to _why_ something is wrong; "because God > said so" is not a sufficient answer. Indeed. And besides, my major problem with that argument is that God didn't say this to *me*. She might have said something to somebody, centuries ago...but, really, how reliable is human memory? And how reliable are human interpretations? It makes more sense to rely on your own judgment, imho. Ritu GCU Unexpected Holiday ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
Ritu Ko wrote about Saddam's other career as a romance novelist: > I have always thought it was near-unpardonably short > sighted of Saddam not to explore this avenue of addressing > his financial problems. :) *He* doesn't have financial problems, nor do his cronies. It's the people of Iraq that have financial problems, and unfortunately, our embargo is only helping him make his people poorer, and himself richer. __ Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama => [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brin-L list pages ... http://www.sloan3d.com/brinl Chmeee's 3D Objects http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee 3D and Drawing Galleries .. http://www.sloansteady.com Software Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links Science fiction scans . http://www.sloan3d.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
- Original Message - From: "Julia Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 6:00 PM Subject: Re: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack > Deborah Harrell wrote: > > > Probably not nearly as worried as you > > must be, but - as has been noted on-list previously - > > the scare tactics being employed by the current > > administration to erode civil liberties (re: the > > Patriot Act), > > On that note: > > http://www.summitfreepress.com/S27story.htm > > About the "pre-emptive" arrests of some folks who'd assembled to > organize a protest; some media folks, not participating but covering the > event, were arrested, as well. > > WARNING: A few bad words, where people are quoted as having used them. > > What has me most concerned is the report of the law-enforcement person > saying "f*** the law". > Its not like that comment was made in some serious context. The cop was smoking in a no smoking zone, and popped off that little gem of wit, when challenged over it by a detained person. It really doesnt have anything to do with the overall event, and doesnt illuminate the attitudes of law enforcement during the debacle. Its the kind of thing that would happen even if the government weren't trying to crush the populace under its hideously deformed thumb. xponent Righteous Indignation Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
Deborah Harrell wrote: > Probably not nearly as worried as you > must be, but - as has been noted on-list previously - > the scare tactics being employed by the current > administration to erode civil liberties (re: the > Patriot Act), On that note: http://www.summitfreepress.com/S27story.htm About the "pre-emptive" arrests of some folks who'd assembled to organize a protest; some media folks, not participating but covering the event, were arrested, as well. WARNING: A few bad words, where people are quoted as having used them. What has me most concerned is the report of the law-enforcement person saying "f*** the law". Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
Probably not nearly as worried as you must be, but - as has been noted on-list previously - the scare tactics being employed by the current administration to erode civil liberties (re: the Patriot Act), change health policy, and weaken environmental protections concern me. The deliberately arrogant and aggressive stance toward much of the world concerns me; the unsubtle manipulation of public fears and facts angers me. Debbi Okay, we all know about the 'worries' over the Patriot act, but what are these scare tacticts to "change health policy, and weaken environmental protections " ? Kevin T. Happiness = 9 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
--- Ritu Ko wrote: > Deborah Harrell wrote: > > > Nope, I have no idea how you feel about living > under the BJP government. My initial response had the 'no' highlit, but I decided that was a bit too much. > > Well, my emotions and reactions vary. The first > reaction, of course, was > disbelief that people were idiotic enough to vote > them in. That lingered > for quite a while, and cosily snuggled up to all the > fears and > apprehensions that the fact aroused. > Going by their past actions, the ideology and the > propaganda of the > party and its sister organisations and their policy > pronouncements in > different states, I feared that they would rip > asunder the secular > fabric of Indian society and polity. I was worried > that they would > slowly try to re-write history and attempt to give > it a 'hindutva' > slant; that they would slowly start a 'culture and > morals' police and > attempt to enforce some of the more draconian ideas > under the guise of > 'reinforcing Indian culture'...basically that their > government's > policies would reflect the typically north-Indian > Brahmanical views on > how India 'should' be. And I knew that they would be > ridiculously > hawkish where Pakistan is concerned. > Hopefully, I'll not have to live under their > government in future, but > this term has been ...um, interesting, I'd say. > In exactly the same way as the word is used in that > old Chinese curse. :) > > > _I_ live under 'Bush, Cheney, > > Rumsfeld and Ashcroft, LLP.' :) > > And how do you feel about that? :) I'm not sure I should answer that! Probably not nearly as worried as you must be, but - as has been noted on-list previously - the scare tactics being employed by the current administration to erode civil liberties (re: the Patriot Act), change health policy, and weaken environmental protections concern me. The deliberately arrogant and aggressive stance toward much of the world concerns me; the unsubtle manipulation of public fears and facts angers me. There are those in the "LLP" who would probably support a 'moral police,' if they could get away with it. Not that I disagree with having good morals (or even using fear and guilt to protect children from stupid and dangerous acts!), but adults need to be persuaded as to _why_ something is wrong; "because God said so" is not a sufficient answer. Debbi They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin __ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
Deborah Harrell wrote: > Nope, I have no idea how you feel about living under > the BJP government. Well, my emotions and reactions vary. The first reaction, of course, was disbelief that people were idiotic enough to vote them in. That lingered for quite a while, and cosily snuggled up to all the fears and apprehensions that the fact aroused. Going by their past actions, the ideology and the propaganda of the party and its sister organisations and their policy pronouncements in different states, I feared that they would rip asunder the secular fabric of Indian society and polity. I was worried that they would slowly try to re-write history and attempt to give it a 'hindutva' slant; that they would slowly start a 'culture and morals' police and attempt to enforce some of the more draconian ideas under the guise of 'reinforcing Indian culture'...basically that their government's policies would reflect the typically north-Indian Brahmanical views on how India 'should' be. And I knew that they would be ridiculously hawkish where Pakistan is concerned. I was right. Unfortunately. However, there were certain benefits to the situation - I had really not considered them before. For one, I never seem to run out of topics to rant/exospulate on. :) Then, when they went too far in Gujarat and people actually started *thinking* about the implications of the 'Hindutva' ideology [as propogated by BJP, VHP, RSS], I enjoyed reflecting on how silly they were to be this shocked. After all, Babri masjid was destroyed almost a decade before Gujarat happened and the direction towards which these people were headed has been clear since then. Now, when the judiciary, EC, other parties, media and a vast majority of the electorate have suddenly decided to be critical and vigilant, I am frankly enjoying their discomfort and the way they keep on trying to back-pedal and advance at the same time. Hopefully, I'll not have to live under their government in future, but this term has been ...um, interesting, I'd say. In exactly the same way as the word is used in that old Chinese curse. :) > _I_ live under 'Bush, Cheney, > Rumsfeld and Ashcroft, LLP.' :) And how do you feel about that? :) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
--- Russell Chapman wrote: > Erik Reuter wrote: > >By the way, in an earlier message you mentioned > some countries that > >were in Afghanistan to build or re-build. I have a > very hard time > >finding news stories on who is in Afghanistan and > exactly what they are > >doing. Can you recommend any articles or sources? > > > Well, no. I actually looked before I sent that post, > and was surprised > at how little I could find. All the sites that > previously had such good > coverage on efforts in Afghanistan seem to now be > obsessed with Iraq. > I found snippets everywhere - Chinese zoo keepers > rebuilding the Kabul > zoo, German engineers rebuilding a water supply, > Australian mine > clearers, etc etc etc but no article about the > international effort as such. > > Headline drive media seems to be driving out the in > depth article... > > An interesting graph on who's paying: > http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0827/p01s03-wosc.html Here is one site about the international security force that is contributing to the policing of Kabul: http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/isaf.cfm According to the German newsprogram I saw last night, German soldiers are currently patrolling Kabul. There were a lot of articles from Jan->July, but little since then... Debbi __ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
Erik Reuter wrote: >On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 12:43:01PM +1000, Russell Chapman wrote: > >>A Dutch company may just buy the place and run it as a corporation like >>they have a few small African nations. >> > >Not sure if that was a joke. Buy it from whom? > Mostly joking - in the past they have just invested so much money into a country that they "own" the country by virtue of the whole country being dependent on them staying. > >By the way, in an earlier message you mentioned some countries that >were in Afghanistan to build or re-build. I have a very hard time >finding news stories on who is in Afghanistan and exactly what they are >doing. Can you recommend any articles or sources? > Well, no. I actually looked before I sent that post, and was surprised at how little I could find. All the sites that previously had such good coverage on efforts in Afghanistan seem to now be obsessed with Iraq. I found snippets everywhere - Chinese zoo keepers rebuilding the Kabul zoo, German engineers rebuilding a water supply, Australian mine clearers, etc etc etc but no article about the international effort as such. Headline drive media seems to be driving out the in depth article... An interesting graph on who's paying: http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0827/p01s03-wosc.html Cheers Russell C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 12:43:01PM +1000, Russell Chapman wrote: > A Dutch company may just buy the place and run it as a corporation like > they have a few small African nations. Not sure if that was a joke. Buy it from whom? By the way, in an earlier message you mentioned some countries that were in Afghanistan to build or re-build. I have a very hard time finding news stories on who is in Afghanistan and exactly what they are doing. Can you recommend any articles or sources? -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
Russell Chapman wrote: > > A Dutch company may just buy the place and run it as a corporation > like they have a few small African nations. Do you really think Bush will sell it to them? 8^) Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
Erik Reuter wrote: > >In Iraq? > Ahh - too much snippage (for a change)... I thought we had been discussing Afghanistan as evidence of what the US could or couldn't achieve post-invasion. To get with the thread (instead of trailing a day or so behind it...) - I think Iraq will be different because of the potential rewards. Countries from around the globe will be falling over themselves to get involved in rehabilitating Iraq, and given that a very general assumption is that more open politics leads to a more open economy, they will be looking for alternatives to dictators (not counting purveyors of gold plated bathroom fixtures, torture implements, statue carvers and other beneficiaries of dictatorships of course). A Dutch company may just buy the place and run it as a corporation like they have a few small African nations. Cheers Russell C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 12:20:05PM +1000, Russell Chapman wrote: > Erik Reuter wrote: > > >I'm hoping other UN countries would pleasantly surprise us on > >this. There are a number of countries that should be able to do a > >good job of it. Whether they will or not is another matter. > > Aren't there a lot of countries there now? In Iraq? -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
Erik Reuter wrote: >I'm hoping other UN countries would pleasantly surprise us on >this. There are a number of countries that should be able to do a good >job of it. Whether they will or not is another matter. > Aren't there a lot of countries there now? There's at least the US, Britain, Germany and Australia that I know of. Our medical teams and mine-clearing teams are probably more urgently needed than anything we might be able to contribute directly to political reform, but I still rate them as a worthy contribution (along with our soldiers and airplanes of course). Cheers Russell C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 10:03:02AM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: > IF we can build Iraq into a democracy, it'll do a lot of good for a > lot of people in that part of the world in the long run. I'm just > not entirely sure of Bush-43's ability to get a democracy built. I'm > hoping he'll pleasantly surprise me on this one. I'm hoping other UN countries would pleasantly surprise us on this. There are a number of countries that should be able to do a good job of it. Whether they will or not is another matter. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
--- Ritu Ko wrote: > > See, as an Indian, I do not relish living under the > BJP government. > However, any attempt by any other country to bring > about a change in > *my* country's regime [unless they have been > specifically invited to do > so] would evoke only one reaction, > > "Back off! It's none of your business." > > I reckon I am not the only person on the planet to > feel this way. :) Nope, I have no idea how you feel about living under the BJP government. _I_ live under 'Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft, LLP.' :) GSV Arrogance __ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
--- Erik Reuter wrote: > Julia Thompson wrote: > > > Actually, if you're a woman, there are *much* > suckier rulers to > > live under. (Or die under.) Saudi Arabia, for a > biggie. Iraqi > > women enjoy greater freedoms than women in almost > all other Mideast countries. > > So is your point that we shouldn't spend resources > on Iraq; rather we should attack Saudi Arabia? > > That does not seem a good plan. For one thing, the > grounds for attacking > SA are less. They haven't violated a treaty is a > biggie; they haven't > invaded another country is another. > > Actually, a good strategy to start some change in SA > is probably to help > build Iraq into a democracy with a thriving economy. > Iraq has a lot of > oil that isn't being efficiently used. If it were, > it would take away a > lot of market power and money from Saudi Arabia. As > Deborah pointed out > some time ago, changes in Iraq could destabilize > countries like Saudi Arabia. I wonder what will happen in the Arab world with the current experiment in Morocco? While a conservative Islamic party increased its number of seats in Parliament, more women were also elected (I don't remember if they reached the king's goal of 10%, or ~ 30) - I posted links previously. How long will it take for cousins and aunts and sisters-in-law-twice-removed to hear about this, and start to think of handling the reins themselves? Debbi 75+ posts to go... __ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Baby's surname Re: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
"J. van Baardwijk" wrote: > > At 09:58 07-10-2002 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: > > >The way it was explained to me how surnames go in India (and you can > >correct me if I'm wrong) is that your surname is your father's given > >name. > > > >In the US, your surname is your father's surname. > > Until recently, in The Netherlands a child would always get its father's > surname. Nowadays, however, parents can choose whether Junior gets the > mother's or the father's surname. If the parents have no preference, Junior > gets his father's surname. That's a reasonable way of doing it. I have married friends who changed their last names. I won't use their real names, just letter variables to illustrate. :) His was M A; hers was N B; they changed their names to M A-X and N B-X, and their child is P X. We got all kinds of funny looks from the nurses when we were looking for Baby X just after she was born; they had her listed as Baby B. (I guess they were trying to match the baby with the mother's name. I know that the baby is covered under the mother's health insurance for the first 30 days after it's born, which is kind of a hassle when everyone in the family is covered under the *father's* health insurance, and they go bug the *mother* when there's a problem with the insurance, which is what happened with us after Sammy was born. They'd tell Dan they needed to talk to me, then I'd talk to them, and since it was about the insurance that Dan was in charge of handling, I'd have to refer them back to them, which was extremely annoying as I was tired and rather fried from having recently given birth) In DC, there was a law passed that if a woman was married, the baby *had* to be given the father's last name. This law was challenged recently by a married couple who wanted their baby to have the mother's last name. I can't remember where I read about it, but I thought it was rather annoying of them to be dictating that sort of thing, even if they were doing so under the best of intentions. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
At 09:58 07-10-2002 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: >The way it was explained to me how surnames go in India (and you can >correct me if I'm wrong) is that your surname is your father's given >name. > >In the US, your surname is your father's surname. Until recently, in The Netherlands a child would always get its father's surname. Nowadays, however, parents can choose whether Junior gets the mother's or the father's surname. If the parents have no preference, Junior gets his father's surname. Jeroen "Dutch Perspective" van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
Ritu Ko wrote: > I also find it amazing that 9/11 doesn't seem to > have made the American strategists aware of the > emotions that are aroused when one's country is > attacked or threatened. :) It did, but unfortunately that only seemed to have lasted for about two weeks. Frankly I'm amazed that things have been allowed to get as bad as they have. It certainly suggests that our strategic and political leaders have a much, much different agenda than anyone I know. -- Matt ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
Julia Thompson wrote: > Actually, I think it would be the caste of Gautam's *grandfather*. :) > > The way it was explained to me how surnames go in India (and you can > correct me if I'm wrong) is that your surname is your father's given > name. The naming convention are different in different parts of India. The convention you have described does hold true for parts of South India. But since Gautam had mentioned that his family originally came from Kashmir, I'm assuming that they follow the naming convention common in North India. Which is that your surname is your father's surname. Only Gautam can tell us for sure. :) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
Whoops, in my reply, I'd snipped a bunch of stuff that Erik had said, and to be fair, I think I ought to respond to all that he said in his post. Here it is: Erik Reuter wrote: > That does not seem a good plan. For one thing, the grounds for attacking > SA are less. They haven't violated a treaty is a biggie; they haven't > invaded another country is another. > > Actually, a good strategy to start some change in SA is probably to help > build Iraq into a democracy with a thriving economy. Iraq has a lot of > oil that isn't being efficiently used. If it were, it would take away a > lot of market power and money from Saudi Arabia. As Deborah pointed out > some time ago, changes in Iraq could destabilize countries like Saudi > Arabia. I agree with you on the treaty/invasion part. IF we can build Iraq into a democracy, it'll do a lot of good for a lot of people in that part of the world in the long run. I'm just not entirely sure of Bush-43's ability to get a democracy built. I'm hoping he'll pleasantly surprise me on this one. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
Ritu Ko wrote: > > Dan M. wrote: > > > Well, that just shows how much more astute you are than I am. > > I guessed he > > was Irish. :-) > > > > With a name like Gautam Mukunda? > > Nope. But I am not really that astute. Most Indians can take a look at > that name and tell you about the caste of Gautam's father [and hence, > Gautam's]. That is one art I have never really picked up - no interest, > y'see. :) Actually, I think it would be the caste of Gautam's *grandfather*. :) The way it was explained to me how surnames go in India (and you can correct me if I'm wrong) is that your surname is your father's given name. In the US, your surname is your father's surname. So, if Gautam's father came to the US from India, his surname would be his father's name. Since Gautam was born in the US, his surname would be his father's surname, or his grandfather's name. Julia Diversity In Naming Conventions Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
Erik Reuter wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 08:55:30PM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: > > > Actually, if you're a woman, there are *much* suckier rulers to > > live under. (Or die under.) Saudi Arabia, for a biggie. Iraqi > > women enjoy greater freedoms than women in almost all other Mideast > > countries. > > So is your point that we shouldn't spend resources on Iraq; rather we > should attack Saudi Arabia? No, that "suckiness" is all relative, depending on who you are. If "suckiness of life" is the criteria by which we pick countries to attack, then Iraq maybe shouldn't be at the top of the list, but that's *not* the criteria by which we pick countries to attack. The article I was remembering, and that David found and posted, said it a lot better. This paragraph in particular: > Still, we shouldn't demonize all of Iraq - just its demon > of a ruler - and it's worth pondering this contrast between > an enemy that empowers women and allies that repress them. > This gap should shame us as well as these allies, reminding > us to use our political capital to nudge Arab countries to > respect the human rights not just of Kurds or Shiites, but > also of women. I don't know how far we'll get with "using political capital" to help the women of Saudi Arabia, but anything we *can* do in that regard that might improve their lives would be helpful. We won't have to worry about *that* aspect of society-building afterwards if we invade Iraq. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
Alberto Monteiro wrote: > >> The reason I'm not sure is that the first time > >> I read his name I knew that he is of an Indian descent. > > > > Well, that just shows how much more astute you are > > than I am. I guessed he was Irish. :-) > > > I thought that Mukunda was african. And that Ritu was > polinesian :-) I looked at your name and thought 'Spanish descent'. :) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
Dan Minette wrote: > >> The reason I'm not sure is that the first time >> I read his name I knew that he is of an Indian descent. > > Well, that just shows how much more astute you are > than I am. I guessed he was Irish. :-) > I thought that Mukunda was african. And that Ritu was polinesian :-) Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
Erik Reuter wrote: > > So is your point that we shouldn't spend resources > on Iraq; rather we should attack Saudi Arabia? > Yes - instead of dropping threatening leaflets that will make iraqis laugh, you should be dropping porn leaflets over Saudi Arabia. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
Dan M. wrote: > Well, that just shows how much more astute you are than I am. > I guessed he > was Irish. :-) With a name like Gautam Mukunda? Nope. But I am not really that astute. Most Indians can take a look at that name and tell you about the caste of Gautam's father [and hence, Gautam's]. That is one art I have never really picked up - no interest, y'see. :) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
Dan M. asked: > This kinda reminds me of an implied question about > preconceptions about > India that exists. The main one I have is that India is > overwhelmingly > bureaucratic. It may be changing, but I definitely got that > impression > from the '70s through the mid-'90s at least. The two > instances that stick > out the strongest is an Indian colleague who said he would > never go home > because he could get a job, but he wouldn't be allowed to accomplish > anything, back in the '70s. The other was a old boss, and present > customer, of mine who went to India and found out that > everyone he met was > either a manager or a director. He finally guessed the > person in charge > was the one with a business card which read "managing director." > > In your opinion, is this unfair, or fairly accurate? A fairly accurate description and an infuritatingly irritating state of affairs. Fortunately, things have changed a lot over the course of the last 5 years or so. They are slightly less irritating now. :) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
- Original Message - From: "Ritu Ko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 11:40 PM Subject: RE: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack > Dan M. wrote: > > > > If that outside help is coming from Uncle Sam, I'd say that > > my concerns > > > are reasonably valid. > > > > > You know, I'd just love to see Ritu and Gautam get into a > > debate on this. > > > I have to say I agree. > But like you siad, he is busy. :) > > > (I think I told you, Ritu, that Gautam is a second generation > > American who > > still has lotsa family back in India.) > > I think you told me, Dan. The reason I'm not sure is that the first time > I read his name I knew that he is of an Indian descent. > Well, that just shows how much more astute you are than I am. I guessed he was Irish. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
- Original Message - From: "Ritu Ko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 11:29 PM Subject: RE: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack He also found > Socialism more attractive than Capitalism [have I mentioned that he as > an idiot?]...so, any improvements that might have resulted just didn' go > too far, simply because Nehru was not too interested. > This kinda reminds me of an implied question about preconceptions about India that exists. The main one I have is that India is overwhelmingly bureaucratic. It may be changing, but I definitely got that impression from the '70s through the mid-'90s at least. The two instances that stick out the strongest is an Indian colleague who said he would never go home because he could get a job, but he wouldn't be allowed to accomplish anything, back in the '70s. The other was a old boss, and present customer, of mine who went to India and found out that everyone he met was either a manager or a director. He finally guessed the person in charge was the one with a business card which read "managing director." In your opinion, is this unfair, or fairly accurate? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
Dan M. wrote: > > If that outside help is coming from Uncle Sam, I'd say that > my concerns > > are reasonably valid. > > > You know, I'd just love to see Ritu and Gautam get into a > debate on this. I have to say I agree. But like you siad, he is busy. :) > (I think I told you, Ritu, that Gautam is a second generation > American who > still has lotsa family back in India.) I think you told me, Dan. The reason I'm not sure is that the first time I read his name I knew that he is of an Indian descent. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
Dan M wrote: > Its my understanding that India pretty well > chose the > USSR as its patron and the US got Pakistan by default. Do you know > differently? I forgot to add one thing. As far as I know, the US chose Pakistan when India refused to join its camp. It wasn't enough that we weren't joining the other camp either. After that, whenever we needed to counter the US weight behind Pakistan [especially in the Security Council deliberations on Kashmir], we depended on the USSR to help us. They did. Probably not because they loved us, but more likely because our not joining their camp didn't mean as much to them as thwarting a country that *had* joined the American side. Hard to say really. But we needed that help and we got it. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
Dan Minette wrote: > Well, I won't argue against your examples, but I am thinking > of a much more > decisive win than that. All of Germany and Japan were under > the control of > the winners of WWII. Pakistan wasn't after those two wars. No, Pakistan was not completely under Indian control but they were in a precarious enough position anyway. In 1948, the Indian army had cut them off from the sea and was kilometers away from Lahore when Nehru ordered them back. In 1971, Pakistan had lost control over half of its territory, we had 90,000 POWs...our position was reasonably strong in both these instances. > I'm not really faulting India on this, they had constraints, Yup. We sure did. In 1948, our biggest constraint was that idiot of a Prime Minister, Nehru. I am still unable to fathom the logic by which he unilaterally surrendered all the conquered original Pakistani territory to Pakistan, without even demanding a reciprocity from Pakistan. Bah! Now, not that it would have made any difference, but I think the demand for our original territory should have at least be presented as a condition for the release of the POWs. Nope. For some reason, Indira chose to trust Bhutto, the tragi-comic Shimla agreement and did just what her father did. Yay. > I agree, BTW, that India would have been a better ally than > Pakistan for > the US. Whatever the disagreements may have been from our > standpoint, it > was a democracy. Its my understanding that India pretty well > chose the > USSR as its patron and the US got Pakistan by default. Do you know > differently? Yes. :) India was one of the founding members of the now-defunct NAM. We really didn't wish to embroiled in the mess...we had messes of our own to clear up. That didn't sit too well with the US government at that time. USSR was *evil*, y'see and anybody who wanted to sit out the fight has suspicious ulterior motives. But then, Kenndy came to power. Things improved. Especially after the US aid in 1962. But then, Nehru had his own shortcomings [it might not be wise to get me started on this particular topic - that is a fair warning :)] - he rebuffed the US President quite boorishly when the two met. I think that had a lot to do with Kennedy's charisma and Nehru's impending old age. He also found Socialism more attractive than Capitalism [have I mentioned that he as an idiot?]...so, any improvements that might have resulted just didn' go too far, simply because Nehru was not too interested. Then things got really bad in the 70s. The East Pakistani refugee problem started. India couldn't really cope with it economically. Action was needed and India was ready to take the action. Indira Gandhi undertook a world tour to garner international support. She was bluntly informed by Nixon that any Indian action on the isue would invariably meet with the US disapproval and that the US *would* support the Pakistani government, to the extent of military aid. Then she went to USSR, signd a mutual co-operation and protection pact with the USSR, just specific to this one issue, only if the Americans got involved. So when the 7th fleet was launched, the Russians dispatched theirs. But Indians never really aligned themselves with the USSR. We signed issue-specific treaties and pacts with different countries, depending on our needs and concerns. USSR was one of these countries, USA was another. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
- Original Message - From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 10:46 PM Subject: Re: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack > > - Original Message - > From: "Ritu Ko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 10:24 PM > Subject: RE: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack > > > > > > If that outside help is coming from Uncle Sam, I'd say that my concerns > > are reasonably valid. > > > You know, I'd just love to see Ritu and Gautam get into a debate on this. > (I think I told you, Ritu, that Gautam is a second generation American who > still has lotsa family back in India.) He has the exact opposite viewpoint > on this. But, alas, Gautam is so busy now that he makes me look like I > lost all my customers. :-) > I miss Gautam. I dont always agree with him but he is a damn good writer and I enjoy reading people who are informative and are able to express themselves clearly in the way he does. xponent Write Us Soon Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 08:55:30PM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: > Actually, if you're a woman, there are *much* suckier rulers to > live under. (Or die under.) Saudi Arabia, for a biggie. Iraqi > women enjoy greater freedoms than women in almost all other Mideast > countries. So is your point that we shouldn't spend resources on Iraq; rather we should attack Saudi Arabia? That does not seem a good plan. For one thing, the grounds for attacking SA are less. They haven't violated a treaty is a biggie; they haven't invaded another country is another. Actually, a good strategy to start some change in SA is probably to help build Iraq into a democracy with a thriving economy. Iraq has a lot of oil that isn't being efficiently used. If it were, it would take away a lot of market power and money from Saudi Arabia. As Deborah pointed out some time ago, changes in Iraq could destabilize countries like Saudi Arabia. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
- Original Message - From: "Ritu Ko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 10:33 PM Subject: RE: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack > I mean, look at what happened in 1947/8 and '71 - India won both the > wars decisively and convincinglywas stupidly magnanimous in victory. > So '48 gave birth to the Kashmir problem and in '71 Bhutto declared a > 1000 year jihad against India. Right after he came back from Shimla, > before descending from the plane even. :) Well, I won't argue against your examples, but I am thinking of a much more decisive win than that. All of Germany and Japan were under the control of the winners of WWII. Pakistan wasn't after those two wars. Indeed, I'd argue that there were more similarities to Germany after WWI and Iraq after the Gulf War than to WWII. I'm not really faulting India on this, they had constraints, like those on Israel after they won their wars, and like those on the US during the Cold War. However, they did not have the same type of total control after the war that, say, the US did in Japan after WWII. I agree, BTW, that India would have been a better ally than Pakistan for the US. Whatever the disagreements may have been from our standpoint, it was a democracy. Its my understanding that India pretty well chose the USSR as its patron and the US got Pakistan by default. Do you know differently? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
- Original Message - From: "Ritu Ko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 10:24 PM Subject: RE: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack > > If that outside help is coming from Uncle Sam, I'd say that my concerns > are reasonably valid. > You know, I'd just love to see Ritu and Gautam get into a debate on this. (I think I told you, Ritu, that Gautam is a second generation American who still has lotsa family back in India.) He has the exact opposite viewpoint on this. But, alas, Gautam is so busy now that he makes me look like I lost all my customers. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
Robert Seerberger wrote: > > Yes..and there is also another benefit to being an Iraqi > womanone > > would get to read the hilariously improbable romances > written by Saddam. > > It's hard to find copies of his book outside Iraq, y'know. > I would be willing to bet that they would become bestsellers > here in the US > simply for their novelty value. > > You Gotta Read This Maru Indeed. I have always thought it was near-unpardonably short sighted of Saddam not to explore this avenue of addressing his financial problems. :) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
Dan Minette wrote: > I'm not arguing that the war reparations were not a bad > idea...but that > they were essentially dropped and were thus meaningless. In a > sense, the > difference between WWI and WWII was that the winners ran the > losing country > for the benefit of the losers for a number of years (with the obvious > exception of East Germany). So, the lesson from WWI and WWII > would seem to > be "win decisively and convincingly and be very magnanimous > and generous in > victory." Yes, as long as 'the magnanimity and generosity in victory' stays out of the realm of sheer stupidity. I mean, look at what happened in 1947/8 and '71 - India won both the wars decisively and convincinglywas stupidly magnanimous in victory. So '48 gave birth to the Kashmir problem and in '71 Bhutto declared a 1000 year jihad against India. Right after he came back from Shimla, before descending from the plane even. :) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
- Original Message - From: "Ritu Ko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 10:23 PM Subject: RE: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack > Julia Thompson wrote: > > > Actually, if you're a woman, there are *much* suckier rulers to live > > under. (Or die under.) Saudi Arabia, for a biggie. Iraqi > > women enjoy > > greater freedoms than women in almost all other Mideast countries. So > > if I were a woman in Iraq and knew that, sure it would suck, but many > > other options would suck a lot worse. > > Yes..and there is also another benefit to being an Iraqi womanone > would get to read the hilariously improbable romances written by Saddam. > It's hard to find copies of his book outside Iraq, y'know. > > > > Ritu I would be willing to bet that they would become bestsellers here in the US simply for their novelty value. xponent You Gotta Read This Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
Erik Reuter wrote: > > At least that option has to be excercised. Dismissing it out of the > > hand seems a bit extreme to me. > > It has been exercised. Repeatedly. It does not work. It is > ludicrous to > call it "dismissing it out of hand". Well, I guess whether one chooses to call it ludicrous or not depends on how eagerly one wants war. > > How do you define doing their part? > > You deleted it. I suggested more aid in building something out of > Afghanistan. Another example would be acting serious about > enforcing the > treaty made with Iraq rather than saying "nice doggie" to Saddam as he > repeatedly makes a mockery of the treaty and the UN. I deleted the parts to do with your suggestion to re-build Afghanistan. You have completely ignored my questions regarding what exactly 'their part instead of just watching US protect the world from terrorism' comprises of when a country's risk-assessment of a threat differs from America's. Y'see, just from my perspective, the world really hasn't become safer place since 9/11 and the following events...none of the great 'threats' that have been handled [let's even forget the efficacy of these attempts] were 'threats' in my life. I live in a country that has been suffering from cross-border terrorism for decades. There is ample proof as to who is behind this. I haven't seen any interest on the part of the US officials, pre or post 9/11, to address these concerns...even though they are very well aware of them. Even though half of the clinching evidence stems from the efforts of the US Intelligence agencies. So, pardon me if I do not buy this image of America being the sole champion of freedom and democracy, battling it out alone, while the rest of the ungrateful world watches quietly from the side-lines. And no, I don't want to buy a bridge either. > > > > Our military resources are sufficient for the task at hand. > > Sufficient to remove all WoMD from Iraq while minimizing civilian > casualties? Yeah, right. Now I wonder what makes you assume that the only task at hand is neutralising Saddam. That might be a priority with the US govt. today, but it is certainly not what I was referring to. Let's backtrack a moment - you said that other countries ought to do their part in fighting terror..and then you said , 'Granted no other country has the military resources to do it' Now, I repeat, our military resources *are* sufficient for the task at hand...the task being keeping our portion of the world comparitively safer and freer from the terrorists. [Okay, now, this is only to the extent of following the precedent set by the US after 9/11 - what I think of the efficacy and logic of these methods is a different issue altogether]. Please do not assume that my country's threat perceptions and security concerns are the same as those of the US of A's. :) > > You accept Iraq's offer not because you trust Saddam or > have faith in > > him, but because there is a 'due process of law'. > > Which has been followed and defied repeatedly. You seem to think that > if you keep talking politely to a thief, eventually he will change his > ways. Meanwhile, he is robbing you blind. Well, if that course of action [talking politely to a thief...] is good enough to be recommended to India by the US govt. with regard to Pakistan, why isn't it good enough for the US when the issue of Saddam is considered? > > Or should be, anyway. You can not > > summarily decide that someone is a threat, demand that > he/they surrender > > sovereignity, refuse all counter-offers, declare an intention to > > attack...and still hope to be considered reasonable. > > Yes, you can. It is called enforcing a broken treaty. If your children > are sent to their room for punishment for misbehaving, and they sneak > out the window, and you find out, do you just send them back to their > room to sneak out again, and then when they sneak out the > window and you > see them outside, you just send them back again and they > sneak out again > and then If it was UN doing the punishing, I wouldn't mind. But when the US suddenly decides to abrogate the role of the parent in the world body for itself and starts deciding [without any consistency of ideals and principles, I might add] which 'child' country to punish, for what, and to which extent...well, frankly, that makes me uncomfortable. And uneasy. > > Why is my questioning of your assumption illogical? Or emotional? > > That is not illogical. What is illogical is that if you are oppressed > by an insane fascist dictator and have no means of fighting him, that > you would refuse help because of pride. Well, yes, that *is* illogical. But I have always found that factors like pride, nationalism, ethnocentrism, xenophobia, habits of thought, emotional dependancy etc., etc. often influence people to act illogically. Just because something is logical doesn't mean that it is necessarily true. Especially where human behaviour and reacti
RE: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
Julia Thompson wrote: > Actually, if you're a woman, there are *much* suckier rulers to live > under. (Or die under.) Saudi Arabia, for a biggie. Iraqi > women enjoy > greater freedoms than women in almost all other Mideast countries. So > if I were a woman in Iraq and knew that, sure it would suck, but many > other options would suck a lot worse. Yes..and there is also another benefit to being an Iraqi womanone would get to read the hilariously improbable romances written by Saddam. It's hard to find copies of his book outside Iraq, y'know. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
Erik Reuter wrote: > And how is it that you know what the Iraqis want? I don't know, but I'd > bet that being ruled by Saddam really sucks. Do you have evidence to the > contrary? Actually, if you're a woman, there are *much* suckier rulers to live under. (Or die under.) Saudi Arabia, for a biggie. Iraqi women enjoy greater freedoms than women in almost all other Mideast countries. So if I were a woman in Iraq and knew that, sure it would suck, but many other options would suck a lot worse. Julia trying to remember which columnist it was that wrote the column that brought this to her attention, so she could post a non-sucky link ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 10:24:18PM -, Alberto Monteiro wrote: > > Erik Reuter wrote: > > > >Are you saying that dropping leaflets saying that if they fire on US > >planes, they will be fired upon, is arrongant? > > > No How about arrogant? -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
Erik Reuter wrote: > >Are you saying that dropping leaflets saying that if they fire on US >planes, they will be fired upon, is arrongant? > No Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 01:31:02AM +0530, Ritu Ko wrote: > I am not claiming that the former should be protected. But just that > there are proper channels to take these actions. And that when these > channels are ignored, things worsen. They don't get better. At least > not for the non-Americans. As for Iraq disobeying the UN, well, now > it is willing to allow inspectors. No, it is not. Iraq has "allowed" inspectors numerous times before, and it never really allowed them. It is a game of deception they play. > At least that option has to be excercised. Dismissing it out of the > hand seems a bit extreme to me. It has been exercised. Repeatedly. It does not work. It is ludicrous to call it "dismissing it out of hand". > How do you define doing their part? You deleted it. I suggested more aid in building something out of Afghanistan. Another example would be acting serious about enforcing the treaty made with Iraq rather than saying "nice doggie" to Saddam as he repeatedly makes a mockery of the treaty and the UN. > > Our military resources are sufficient for the task at hand. Sufficient to remove all WoMD from Iraq while minimizing civilian casualties? Yeah, right. > You accept Iraq's offer not because you trust Saddam or have faith in > him, but because there is a 'due process of law'. Which has been followed and defied repeatedly. You seem to think that if you keep talking politely to a thief, eventually he will change his ways. Meanwhile, he is robbing you blind. > Or should be, anyway. You can not > summarily decide that someone is a threat, demand that he/they surrender > sovereignity, refuse all counter-offers, declare an intention to > attack...and still hope to be considered reasonable. Yes, you can. It is called enforcing a broken treaty. If your children are sent to their room for punishment for misbehaving, and they sneak out the window, and you find out, do you just send them back to their room to sneak out again, and then when they sneak out the window and you see them outside, you just send them back again and they sneak out again and then > Why is my questioning of your assumption illogical? Or emotional? That is not illogical. What is illogical is that if you are oppressed by an insane fascist dictator and have no means of fighting him, that you would refuse help because of pride. Your argument is therefore that the Iraqi people would foolishly continue to live in poverty, famine, and disease, being killed and oppressed by an insane despot, rather than accept outside help. They clearly can't get rid of Saddam themselves, he is too strong and conniving to be overthrown by those he is oppressing. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
- Original Message - From: "Ritu Ko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 3:06 PM Subject: RE: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack > > Dan Minette wrote: > > > Indeed, for Americans, Europe's and its failure to respond to > > Hitler has > > been a paradigm example of what not to do for over 50 years of foreign > > policy. I cannot imagine you picking a worse example to use. > > It doesn't > > falsify your arguement, but it is not a good case study to > > make your point. > > Yes, I realised that. As soon as I hit 'send'. :) I thought you were/are insightful and to realize that fairly quickly. > However my point actually was the effect of the harsh terms of that > treaty on the German psyche. Had they been less humiliated, had they > been left with some more resources, some face-saving options, Hitler > might not have found such a fertile ground for his ideas. I brought that up with a conservative friend of mine (who's folks are from India) and he pointed out that the Germans after WWI got better terms than many losers of war. Indeed, after WWII, the US and its allies had much more control over Japan and West Germany than did the Allies over Germany after WWI. IIRC, the humiliation of Japan was overwhelming, they had a view that the losers of a conflict were shown to be an inferior sort of human. Yet, the US and Japan and Germany have decent relationships today. I'm not arguing that the war reparations were not a bad idea...but that they were essentially dropped and were thus meaningless. In a sense, the difference between WWI and WWII was that the winners ran the losing country for the benefit of the losers for a number of years (with the obvious exception of East Germany). So, the lesson from WWI and WWII would seem to be "win decisively and convincingly and be very magnanimous and generous in victory." Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
Dan Minette wrote: > Indeed, for Americans, Europe's and its failure to respond to > Hitler has > been a paradigm example of what not to do for over 50 years of foreign > policy. I cannot imagine you picking a worse example to use. > It doesn't > falsify your arguement, but it is not a good case study to > make your point. Yes, I realised that. As soon as I hit 'send'. :) However my point actually was the effect of the harsh terms of that treaty on the German psyche. Had they been less humiliated, had they been left with some more resources, some face-saving options, Hitler might not have found such a fertile ground for his ideas. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
The Fool wrote: > Both have used chemical weapon on their 'native' populations. > I will get > to it. Sometime. Oh, this I've not heard about and am interested. Could you refer some sites or sources please? Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
Erik Reuter wrote: > > Fairly calm? > > Then we might as well agree to disagree on this point. :) > > I consider neither the Afghanistan chapter of the TWAT nor > this new Iraq > > campaign to be a 'calm' reaction. For that is all it is, y'know, an > > emotional reaction to 9/11. > > No, I don't know. Afghanistan was carefully planned, definitely not a > snap emotional reaction, and it achieved not only the goal of reducing > the resources of future terrorists, but also liberating a horribly > oppressed people, all the while minimizing the number of civilian > casualties. Carefully planned, yes. Certainly not a snap emotional reaction. But, imo, it was carefully planned operation based on an emotional reaction. Those other factors - terrorists, oppressed people etc. existed earlier and people knew about them too. > > As for the response from other nations, well, they all have > their own > > valid, legitimate reasons, y'know. They still tend to worry about > > concepts like 'national sovereigniy', > > You mean like when Saddam invaded Kuwait? Well, you can hardly claim that the response of the other countries was disappointing back then. > > unstated-but-clearly-evident American claim of a Manifest Destiny to > > rule the world' silly stuff like that. > > Yes, it is silly. Surely you can see the difference between a fascist > dictator and a democractically elected government? Why should > the former > be protected? Especially when the former has repeatedly disobeyed > instructions of the United Nations? I am not claiming that the former should be protected. But just that there are proper channels to take these actions. And that when these channels are ignored, things worsen. They don't get better. At least not for the non-Americans. As for Iraq disobeying the UN, well, now it is willing to allow inspectors. At least that option has to be excercised. Dismissing it out of the hand seems a bit extreme to me. > > Another factor in this regard could be best summed up by > the phrase 'As > > you sow, so shall ye reap.' > > > > Would you really grin if you spoke that phrase to me face to face in > this context? Well, I probably would. Y'see, I find it extremely amusing that the Indian government actually *believed* the policy pronouncements of Rumsfeld and co. when they initally set out to garner international support for the Afghanistan campaign. And I found their petulance at the later events amusing. So, for me, this issue is inextricably linked with the sheer naivete of the BJP govt. So, I probably would grin. Not because I have any snide thought about America or its govtbut because I have a lot of thoughts about BJP et al. > > If other countries had found the American response less > > 'disappointing' in recent past, they would take America's > > idealistic-sounding claims more seriously. > > Maybe the other countries need to do their part rather than watching > idly while the US shoulders the burden of enforcing UN agreements and > protecting the world from terrorism? How do you define doing their part? By protecting its territory? By collecting information that implicates a neighbouring country in a significant number of terrorist acts? By handing over that same information to the Atlas-like US in the hopethat someaction would be taken? Maybe not a military action, but at least a cessation of the US military and economic aid to the implicated country? And if after all that there is no help other than verbal assurances while US aid continues pouring into the terrorist-sponsoring countries what is one to do? Certainly not emulate what the US did to Afghanistan...for that is suddenly 'irresponsible' and 'inconvenient'. > Granted no other country has the > military resources to do it, Our military resources are sufficient for the task at hand. But the issue doesn't seem so clear cut in the minds of the US govt when the target is an ally or at least a helper of the US. And while I am still harping on the subject, the point you raised earlier, about the difference between a democratically elected government and a dictator...well, that is a question I have always wanted to ask the US policy makers when I view their policies and statements on South Asia. > You suggested "accepting" Iraq's "offer". If you don't see > what credibility > has to do with that, you must be hopelessly naive or > willfully ignoring > the facts of the situation. No. I don't think either of the definition applies. You accept Iraq's offer not because you trust Saddam or have faith in him, but because there is a 'due process of law'. Or should be, anyway. You can not summarily decide that someone is a threat, demand that he/they surrender sovereignity, refuse all counter-offers, declare an intention to attack...and still hope to be considered reasonable. > > No, this has nothing to do with the credibility of Iraq. > All this has to > > do with is the US threat perceptions and the US might to act on
Re: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
At 13:33 06-10-2002 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: >Surely you can see the difference between a fascist dictator and a >and a democractically elected government? Why should the former be >protected? Especially when the former has repeatedly disobeyed >instructions of the United Nations? Well, other countries have disobeyed instructions from the UN, and at least one of them enjoys protection by the United States, so "disobeying UN instructions" is hardly a valid reason for an invasion. >Maybe the other countries need to do their part rather than watching >idly while the US shoulders the burden of enforcing UN agreements The UN Security Council has not yet decided to use military force against Iraq, so the US is not "shouldering the burden". Further, the US has already announced it will attack Iraq even if the UNSC votes against it, so if that happens the US has no right to complain about "shouldering the burden". And finally, I think the US would only have a right to complain about "shouldering the burden" if it had been consistent in demanding military action against countries that "disobey UN instructions". > > No. I have never talked to an Iraqi, ever. So I have no evidence to > > the contrary. I even agree with you that being ruled by Saddam *must* > > suck. However, I question your assumption that they'd be glad of any > > American action to 'topple the regime'. > >That, of course, is an emotional response, not a logical one. In fact, >it is quite illogical. Why is it illogical? The previous time the US attacked Iraq, it left the country in ruins. I doubt the population has forgotten about that yet. They have every reason to expect that the infrastructure they rebuilt after the war will once again be destroyed if and when the US attacks again. You should also not forget that the Iraqi population has been told for decades how evil the US is. Even if they hate Saddam Hussein, those anti-American sentiments will not miraculously disappear when a new, pro-US regime is installed. Jeroen "And now, back to studying" van Baardwijk __ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
- Original Message - From: "Ritu Ko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 11:11 AM Subject: RE: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack > > Remember, Iraq lost a war > > and agreed > > to a treaty. > > Yes, I remember. I also remember the Treaty of Versailles and the > everlasting peace *that* brought to Europe. I'm surprised that you used that treaty as an example. If I were arguing your point, I'd make my opponent bring up that example. With that treaty, Germany was told that it would be prohibited from militerizing the Rhine. Hitler did it, but was on a hair trigger to withdraw if the French and or English responded with force. They didn't, so the Treaty was considered worthless. The treaty with Iraq was such that the alliance would not overthrow the government as long as Iraq agreed to terms. Iraq hasn't agreed. Using your analogy, one would see the arguement that the best thing to do with Iraq is to do what England and France failed to do with Germany; use military force to enforce the provisions of the treaty. Indeed, for Americans, Europe's and its failure to respond to Hitler has been a paradigm example of what not to do for over 50 years of foreign policy. I cannot imagine you picking a worse example to use. It doesn't falsify your arguement, but it is not a good case study to make your point. Dan M. Dan M. > > Iraq has been firing on US planes, and rather > > than bombing > > their cities, the US drops leaflets warning that they will return fire > > on military targets that fire upon them. > > > > What would you suggest? > > Well, I'd suggest that the US govt. calms down a bit. Accepts the Oct. 1 > offer of Iraq. Let the UN SC decide what it wants to do. Take it from > there, really. > And while the US holds it patience, I'd also suggest that it stops > saying thing like 'You could be next!'. > I have a feeling that every single Iraqi already know that. :) > > Ritu > > ___ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
> From: Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > You think Saddam and BJP are comparable??? Have you any conception of > how Saddam has "ruled" Iraq? Both have used chemical weapon on their 'native' populations. I will get to it. Sometime. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 10:38:41PM +0530, Ritu Ko wrote: > Erik Reuter wrote: > > > It seems fairly calm to me. I'd like to see a little more charisma and > > charm from Bush in working with other nations, but I have to say that > > the response from other nations is quite disappointing. > > Fairly calm? > Then we might as well agree to disagree on this point. :) > I consider neither the Afghanistan chapter of the TWAT nor this new Iraq > campaign to be a 'calm' reaction. For that is all it is, y'know, an > emotional reaction to 9/11. No, I don't know. Afghanistan was carefully planned, definitely not a snap emotional reaction, and it achieved not only the goal of reducing the resources of future terrorists, but also liberating a horribly oppressed people, all the while minimizing the number of civilian casualties. > As for the response from other nations, well, they all have their own > valid, legitimate reasons, y'know. They still tend to worry about > concepts like 'national sovereigniy', You mean like when Saddam invaded Kuwait? > unstated-but-clearly-evident American claim of a Manifest Destiny to > rule the world' silly stuff like that. Yes, it is silly. Surely you can see the difference between a fascist dictator and a democractically elected government? Why should the former be protected? Especially when the former has repeatedly disobeyed instructions of the United Nations? > Another factor in this regard could be best summed up by the phrase 'As > you sow, so shall ye reap.' > Would you really grin if you spoke that phrase to me face to face in this context? > If other countries had found the American response less > 'disappointing' in recent past, they would take America's > idealistic-sounding claims more seriously. Maybe the other countries need to do their part rather than watching idly while the US shoulders the burden of enforcing UN agreements and protecting the world from terrorism? Granted no other country has the military resources to do it, but for example, they could be doing a lot more to help transform Afghanistan from an oppressed 3rd world country into a democracy with a thriving economy. Or at least contributing money and resources to help build a better country there. > > What has Iraq's credibility got to do with anything? You suggested "accepting" Iraq's "offer". If you don't see what credibility has to do with that, you must be hopelessly naive or willfully ignoring the facts of the situation. > No, this has nothing to do with the credibility of Iraq. All this has to > do with is the US threat perceptions and the US might to act on the > same. We were discussion weapons inspectors. The likelihood that these inspectors would be accorded the opportunity to conclusively determine whether Iraq has any WoMD. That has a lot to do with how Iraq has behaved towards inspectors in the past, and a lot to do with Iraq's credibility. It has very little to do with US "threats", so your comment makes no sense. > No. I have never talked to an Iraqi, ever. So I have no evidence to > the contrary. I even agree with you that being ruled by Saddam *must* > suck. However, I question your assumption that they'd be glad of any > American action to 'topple the regime'. That, of course, is an emotional response, not a logical one. In fact, it is quite illogical. Who was accusing who of emotional responses? > See, as an Indian, I do not relish living under the BJP government. > However, any attempt by any other country to bring about a change in > *my* country's regime [unless they have been specifically invited to > do so] would evoke only one reaction, You think Saddam and BJP are comparable??? Have you any conception of how Saddam has "ruled" Iraq? -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
Erik Reuter wrote: > It seems fairly calm to me. I'd like to see a little more charisma and > charm from Bush in working with other nations, but I have to say that > the response from other nations is quite disappointing. Fairly calm? Then we might as well agree to disagree on this point. :) I consider neither the Afghanistan chapter of the TWAT nor this new Iraq campaign to be a 'calm' reaction. For that is all it is, y'know, an emotional reaction to 9/11. As for the response from other nations, well, they all have their own valid, legitimate reasons, y'know. They still tend to worry about concepts like 'national sovereigniy', 'dangerous precedent in International Relations' 'giving further support to the unstated-but-clearly-evident American claim of a Manifest Destiny to rule the world' silly stuff like that. Another factor in this regard could be best summed up by the phrase 'As you sow, so shall ye reap.' If other countries had found the American response less 'disappointing' in recent past, they would take America's idealistic-sounding claims more seriously. > > Accepts the Oct. 1 offer of Iraq. > > Iraq has no grounds and no credibility to make any offer. Iraq was > supposed to disclose all their WoMD, and they did not. When evidence > was found to the contrary, they put barriers in the way of the > inspectors. They did this repeatedly. Now you think they should be > trusted? Wow, would you like to buy a bridge? What has Iraq's credibility got to do with anything? You think that Pakistan has any credibility? I suggest you take a look at some of the reports tabled by American information agencies in the American Congress. And then examine the nature and extent of American help to Pakistan, especially in view of the events of the last year. The statements made by American govt. officials and policy makers as opposed to the real practice of this 'war against terror, everywhere on the face of the planet'. No, this has nothing to do with the credibility of Iraq. All this has to do with is the US threat perceptions and the US might to act on the same. > And how is it that you know what the Iraqis want? I don't > know, but I'd > bet that being ruled by Saddam really sucks. Do you have > evidence to the > contrary? No. I have never talked to an Iraqi, ever. So I have no evidence to the contrary. I even agree with you that being ruled by Saddam *must* suck. However, I question your assumption that they'd be glad of any American action to 'topple the regime'. See, as an Indian, I do not relish living under the BJP government. However, any attempt by any other country to bring about a change in *my* country's regime [unless they have been specifically invited to do so] would evoke only one reaction, "Back off! It's none of your business." I reckon I am not the only person on the planet to feel this way. :) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 09:41:51PM +0530, Ritu Ko wrote: > Well, I'd suggest that the US govt. calms down a bit. It seems fairly calm to me. I'd like to see a little more charisma and charm from Bush in working with other nations, but I have to say that the response from other nations is quite disappointing. > Accepts the Oct. 1 offer of Iraq. Iraq has no grounds and no credibility to make any offer. Iraq was supposed to disclose all their WoMD, and they did not. When evidence was found to the contrary, they put barriers in the way of the inspectors. They did this repeatedly. Now you think they should be trusted? Wow, would you like to buy a bridge? And how is it that you know what the Iraqis want? I don't know, but I'd bet that being ruled by Saddam really sucks. Do you have evidence to the contrary? -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
Erik Reuter wrote: > > Well, if I were an Iraqi and came across leaflets saying > > that..'arrogance' would be one of the nicer words to cross my mind. > > Really? Would you care to explain? Certainly. :) Consider the present conditions, the USA's drive to remove Saddam. Irrespective of whether the Iraqi people want him removed or not. Irrespective of whether the UN or the rest of the world agrees or not. The rejection by the US of the Oct.1 Iraqi offer to allow unlimited access under previous UN resolutions. Bush's Sept 12 speech where he 'invites' the UN to join US in toppling over Saddam's government. The Oct. 2 resolution introduced in the Congress where 'regime change' is the reason given to authorise the President to declare war on Iraq. Well, consider all that, and consider being an Iraqi soldier picking up leaflets that state what these do. I don't know about you, but I still think that 'arrogance' would be a mild word to use. People cannot be pushed beyond a certain point, y'know. Psychological warfare or no psychological warfare. > Remember, Iraq lost a war > and agreed > to a treaty. Yes, I remember. I also remember the Treaty of Versailles and the everlasting peace *that* brought to Europe. > Iraq has been firing on US planes, and rather > than bombing > their cities, the US drops leaflets warning that they will return fire > on military targets that fire upon them. > > What would you suggest? Well, I'd suggest that the US govt. calms down a bit. Accepts the Oct. 1 offer of Iraq. Let the UN SC decide what it wants to do. Take it from there, really. And while the US holds it patience, I'd also suggest that it stops saying thing like 'You could be next!'. I have a feeling that every single Iraqi already know that. :) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 08:27:58PM +0530, Ritu Ko wrote: > > Erik Reuter wrote: > > > > Are USA strategists aware that the more arrogance the > > > USA exhibits, the stronger will be the Iraqi people's > > > support for Saddam? > > > > Are you saying that dropping leaflets saying that if they fire on US > > planes, they will be fired upon, is arrongant? > > Well, if I were an Iraqi and came across leaflets saying > that..'arrogance' would be one of the nicer words to cross my mind. Really? Would you care to explain? Remember, Iraq lost a war and agreed to a treaty. Iraq has been firing on US planes, and rather than bombing their cities, the US drops leaflets warning that they will return fire on military targets that fire upon them. What would you suggest? -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
Erik Reuter wrote: > > Are USA strategists aware that the more arrogance the > > USA exhibits, the stronger will be the Iraqi people's > > support for Saddam? > > Are you saying that dropping leaflets saying that if they fire on US > planes, they will be fired upon, is arrongant? Well, if I were an Iraqi and came across leaflets saying that..'arrogance' would be one of the nicer words to cross my mind. I also find it amazing that 9/11 doesn't seem to have made the American strategists aware of the emotions that are aroused when one's country is attacked or threatened. :) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 02:52:15AM -, Alberto Monteiro wrote: > > > >The U.S. military has dropped leaflets (...) > > > Are USA strategists aware that the more arrogance the > USA exhibits, the stronger will be the Iraqi people's > support for Saddam? Are you saying that dropping leaflets saying that if they fire on US planes, they will be fired upon, is arrongant? -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: U.S. drops leaflets warning Iraq of counterattack
> >The U.S. military has dropped leaflets (...) > Are USA strategists aware that the more arrogance the USA exhibits, the stronger will be the Iraqi people's support for Saddam? Eventually, Saddam may even be able to call for free elections, and then win with 90% of the votes. Heck, even here in Brazil the candidates for the presidential election fight over which one is the most anti-american! Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
