subject:"Re\: Br\!n\: Re\: more neocons"

- Original Message - 
From: Ray Ludenia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 7:41 AM
Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

 On 12/05/2005, at 8:15 AM, Dan Minette wrote:

  But, there were pro-Nazi terrorists for a couple of years.  We had a
  lot
  tighter control there than in Iraq, so I don't think they could hide a
  camp, but there were terrorists.

 Any cites on this Dan (or anyone else)? This is not something I've
 heard about before.

My source was brin-l about 2 years ago.  I included as terrorists people
who killed Germans who cooperated with the US by being mayors, etc., under
US occupation.  I've done a google on this, and found that the terrorism
was much less effective than in Iraq, that maybe 20-30 allied soldiers were
killed, and that several appointed mayors were killed.

I'd argue that the comparisons the Bush administration make between Germany
and Iraq are vastly overstated.  The strength and effectiveness of the
Werewolves, as they called themselves, was minimalbut it was still
existent.  The closest parallel, I think, was the killing of people who
cooperated with the US...but the numbers in Germany and Iraq were orders of
magnitude different.

Dan M.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

- Original Message - 
From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 10:30 PM
Subject: Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

 At 07:54 PM 5/11/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote:
  I'm quite confident that you can handle this one on your own.

 Oh, please.

 I can't think of what I've said that is a measurement of this.  I wasn't
 asking to argue about it or play games about it -- I really would like
to
 know
 if there is something.  If I've said it, great.  I just can't come up
with
 it
 right now.

 You misunderstand.   I'm not referring to anything you've said before.
If
 I were, I could probably cite the disdain you expressed for provable
 likelihood of success in an earlier post this week, or chastize you as
to
 why you think the increase in *hope* (definitely non-measurable) is so
 unworth mentioning in Iraq.   But anyhow, I actually wasn't referring to
 any of that.

 Instead, I am just expressing my confidence that if you have even a
modicum
 of honesty you can come up with something that is measurably better in
Iraq
 today than it was under Saddam Hussein.   After all, Saddam Hussein's
 regime was one of the 5 worst regimes on Earth.   Unless you believe that
 Iraq is *stil* one of the 5 worst regimes on Earth, then I am *sure* that
 you can come up with something - if you are willing to be honest about
it.

I think a reasonable measure of this would be the opinion of the people of
Iraq.  Ideally, the question would be are you better off than you were
under Hussein or are you better off than you were three years ago.  But,
a decent secondary question that indicates the opinion of the people of
Iraq is are things going in the right direction?

The interpretation of such a poll will be dependant on where it is taken,
of course, but, at the very least, the changes in these numbers over time
should reflect changes in attitude.  Would you and Nick consider this at
least some measure of the views of the people of Iraq?

Dan M.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

On 5/11/05, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 - Original Message -
 From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
 Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 4:22 PM
 Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

  On May 11, 2005, at 2:06 PM, Dan Minette wrote:

   From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED]

   On May 11, 2005, at 10:15 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:

   I just wonder what can be done to solve the plight of those millions
   of human beings

   Nothing.

Quite a bit. 

  [...]

   But, it has worked a number of times, as well as not having worked a
   number
   of times.

  Has it? Apart from Germany and Japan post WWII, when in the history of
  the US have we been successful in installing a democratic model of
  government in any nation? (I'm really asking; I might well have
  forgotten some things!)

 Well, there's the Phillipeans, Tawain, and South Korea, and Panama, to 
 name
 countries outside of Europe.

The Philippines, Taiwan , South Korea and Panama are not examples of the US 
promoting democracy.

For many long decades they were examples of the US propping up dictatorships

Germany and Japan were the examples of the US promoting democracy. This was 
in large measure due to the constitutions put in place.

  Western Europe and Japan are classic examples of this.

  Japan was beaten. Much of Western Europe was already skewing democratic
  pre WWII.

 Well, let's look at the larger countries. Italy was first a monarchy and
 then Facist before WWII, there was only a brief democracy in Germany 
 before
 the Facists came. Since the US didn't control Spain, it took decades for
 that country to become a democracy. Austria was part of Germany before
 WWII started. I think that democracy on mainland Europe can best be seen
 as a recent experiment with results that were mixed, at best.

 And we had the backing of the rest of the allied forces in
  both cases (post-Nazi Germany, post-imperial Japan) to help us.

 I think Japan was a solo show. Britian helped a little in Europe, but that
 was about it.

  Times were probably a bit simpler as well. There were no pro-Nazi or
  pro-Hirohito terrorist training camps; the context and the nature of
  the enemy have both changed considerably in the last six decades.

 But, there were pro-Nazi terrorists for a couple of years. We had a lot
 tighter control there than in Iraq, so I don't think they could hide a
 camp, but there were terrorists.

Actually a review of the occupation history shows almost no terrorist 
activity. There were no US military deaths after the war in Germany due to 
terrorists.

 Influence is a far cry from direct frontal assault.

 It is. But, one question I asked myself is whether our willingness to
 directly assult a dictator in Panama increased our influence in getting
 other dictators to retire elsewhere in Latin America.

We propped up, supported and paid a dictator in Panama. When he began not 
following orders Reagan ordered him removed. There may have been an indirect 
influence in promoting democracy as older dictators in Latin America saw 
there were limits to their power.

And it is not our
  responsibility to fix the world, particularly as there are still many
  parts of it that don't *want* our kind of fixing in the first place.

 Well, we know that the governments would like things to stay as they will.
 How do we know that people don't want to vote if they can't?

  Leaving aside that it's literally practically impossible to change the
  world,

 But, we can act in a way that has tremendous influence on the world.

 what right have we to force a democratic, nominally atheistic
  government on, say, Saudi Arabia, which is a theocracy (essentially)
  steeped in Islamic literalism? Would it be any different from, for
  instance, forcing the Amish to accept the Internet? (On an ethical
  level, I mean.)

 How do we know what the average person in Saudi Arabia wants if they don't
 get to voice their views. I think that there is very significant evidence
 that the Shiites and the Kurds favor representative government. Yes, we
 ran the election, but we didn't force 75% of the people in those areas to
 vote. The Sunnis appear to want to go back to the good old days when they
 were in charge. How that plays out will be critical to the future of Iraq.

 Giving the people a chance to choose their government, and to throw the
 rascals out a few years later if they don't like what they did doesn't 
 seem
 like forcing things on people. I'd guess that many countries in the
 Mid-East would not have the church/state separation of the US. That's OK.
 The only possible way we could be forcing things on a people is if we
 insisted on minority rights.

 I guess one of the questions that is under debate is whether 
 representative
 government was just first developed in the West (in the US to be specific)
 or if the desire for representative government is an artifact

Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

On 5/12/05, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 - Original Message -
 From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
 Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 10:30 PM
 Subject: Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

  At 07:54 PM 5/11/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote:
   I'm quite confident that you can handle this one on your own.

  Oh, please.

  I can't think of what I've said that is a measurement of this. I wasn't
  asking to argue about it or play games about it -- I really would like
 to
  know
  if there is something. If I've said it, great. I just can't come up
 with
  it
  right now.

  You misunderstand. I'm not referring to anything you've said before.
 If
  I were, I could probably cite the disdain you expressed for provable
  likelihood of success in an earlier post this week, or chastize you as
 to
  why you think the increase in *hope* (definitely non-measurable) is so
  unworth mentioning in Iraq. But anyhow, I actually wasn't referring to
  any of that.

  Instead, I am just expressing my confidence that if you have even a
 modicum
  of honesty you can come up with something that is measurably better in
 Iraq
  today than it was under Saddam Hussein. After all, Saddam Hussein's
  regime was one of the 5 worst regimes on Earth. Unless you believe that
  Iraq is *stil* one of the 5 worst regimes on Earth, then I am *sure* 
 that
  you can come up with something - if you are willing to be honest about
 it.

 I think a reasonable measure of this would be the opinion of the people of
 Iraq. Ideally, the question would be are you better off than you were
 under Hussein or are you better off than you were three years ago. But,
 a decent secondary question that indicates the opinion of the people of
 Iraq is are things going in the right direction?

 The interpretation of such a poll will be dependant on where it is taken,
 of course, but, at the very least, the changes in these numbers over time
 should reflect changes in attitude. Would you and Nick consider this at
 least some measure of the views of the people of Iraq?

 Dan M.

 Several of these polls have been taken. 

-- 
Gary Denton
Easter Lemming Blogs
http://elemming.blogspot.com
http://elemming2.blogspot.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

- Original Message - 
From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 10:00 AM
Subject: Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

 The interpretation of such a poll will be dependant on where it is
taken,
 of course, but, at the very least, the changes in these numbers over
time
 should reflect changes in attitude. Would you and Nick consider this at
 least some measure of the views of the people of Iraq?

 Several of these polls have been taken.

Right, and I have a very recent one in my hip pocket, so to speak.  I just
wanted to see if folks would assign it a value before seeing the results.
:-)

Dan M.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

- Original Message - 
From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 9:57 AM
Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

 Well, there's the Phillipeans, Tawain, and South Korea, and Panama, to
 name countries outside of Europe.

The Philippines, Taiwan , South Korea and Panama are not examples of the
US
promoting democracy. For many long decades they were examples of the US
propping
up dictatorships

For many long decades the US was willing to live with anti-communist
dictatorships.  Yet, if you look at the Phillipeines, Taiwan, and South
Korea, they are, after Japan, the best examples of strong representative
government.  If you want to argue that the US cut these dictatorships too
much slack, and that we didn't push enough for democracy in these
countries, I'd agree.  But, I don't think it is just coincidence that these
countries are the best examples of representative government, after Japan,
in the far east.

Germany and Japan were the examples of the US promoting democracy. This
was
in large measure due to the constitutions put in place.

It was also, in large measure, a reflection of the ability of the US to
force a governmental form on those countries.  In the other countries, the
US was not in the same position to do so.

  Times were probably a bit simpler as well. There were no pro-Nazi or
  pro-Hirohito terrorist training camps; the context and the nature of
  the enemy have both changed considerably in the last six decades.

 But, there were pro-Nazi terrorists for a couple of years. We had a lot
 tighter control there than in Iraq, so I don't think they could hide a
 camp, but there were terrorists.

Actually a review of the occupation history shows almost no terrorist
activity. There were no US military deaths after the war in Germany due to
terrorists.

It was minimal...but there were a bit more than a score of combat deaths in
the months following VE day.

 It is. But, one question I asked myself is whether our willingness to
 directly assult a dictator in Panama increased our influence in getting
 other dictators to retire elsewhere in Latin America.

We propped up, supported and paid a dictator in Panama. When he began not
following orders Reagan ordered him removed.

Actually, Bush was in power...I mentioned it because the timing is actually
important.

There may have been an indirect influence in promoting democracy as older
dictators in Latin America saw there were limits to their power.

The reason I think the timing is important is what transpired between
Reagan happily dealing with Noreaga, and Bush removing him.  The Cold War
was won between those actions.  For over 40 years, we were willing to
support right wing dictatorships because we feared the alternative might be
a Communist takeover.  One exception to this was when we decided to drop
support of Bastidas around '59.  I think it is fair to say that was
considered an object lesson by many.

Now, I agree with the arguement that we were willing to look the other way
far too often when our allies acted in an inhumane manner.  Chile comes to
mind here.  But, until the end of the Cold War, I think it is fair to say
that an arguement could be raised that we needed to allign with right wing
dictatorships as the least bad option.  In the '70s and early '80s, the
swift victory of the US in the Cold War was not seen as inevitable.

But, once the US won, this excuse for supporting right wing dictatorships
vanished.  The US no longer had a reason to fear that the removal of a
right wing dictatorship would result in another Russian ally.  Thus, it was
the perfect time to assess whether the Cold War was an flimsey excuse for
supporting right wing dictators, or whether the US would change policy now
that this risk had been removed.

Latin America was the perfect test case because the influence of the US was
so strong.  Unlike the Middle East, we and Western Europe have little
dependance on Latin America.  Panama, with the US interest in the canal
staying open, and US soldiers in the canal zone, was good test case.

I think the message that was sent was, now that the Cold War is over, we
have no reason to have to accept right wing dictatorships.  We now consider
them against our interests.  For the most part, I think the message was
received.

 I guess one of the questions that is under debate is whether
 representative government was just first developed in the West
(in the US to be specific) or if the desire for representative government
is an
artifact of Western Civilization, with many other people preferring
dictatorships,
 monarchies, oligarchies, etc. I, as you could guess, would argue for the
former.

There is an interesting Turtledove short, one of his best, where the
Greeks
were conquered by Persia and generations later a historian is trying to
discover who their rulers were and what was all these records of them
counting to make decisions. I thought this was one

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

2005-05-12 Thread Doug Pensinger

Dan wrote:
For many long decades the US was willing to live with anti-communist
dictatorships.  Yet, if you look at the Phillipeines, Taiwan, and South
Korea, they are, after Japan, the best examples of strong representative
government.  If you want to argue that the US cut these dictatorships too
much slack, and that we didn't push enough for democracy in these
countries, I'd agree.  But, I don't think it is just coincidence that 
these countries are the best examples of representative government, 
after Japan, in the far east.
I think its arguable that many of the mentioned countries, the the 
Philippians frex as well as many others (such as Iran) were able to move 
away from their dictatorial governments _despite_ the U.S., not because of 
its influence.  Whether or not our support for Marcos or the Shah was 
necessary is another question, but to give the U.S. credit for the change 
in regimes is problematic, IMO.

re Japan and Germany:
It was also, in large measure, a reflection of the ability of the US to
force a governmental form on those countries.  In the other countries, 
the US was not in the same position to do so.
One has to take into consideration the impact of WWII on those countries.  
What portion of the population was killed?  How much of the infrastructure 
was destroyed?  These populations were submissive because of the (self 
inflicted) devastation they had suffered.

Secondly, and I think this is very important, The populations of both 
Germany and Japan were very homogeneous at the time.  The fact that Iraq 
has three distinct cultural divisions renders it a far more difficult 
problem than either Germany or Japan.

re terrorists.
It was minimal...but there were a bit more than a score of combat deaths 
in the months following VE day.
It did not have enough significance to render a comparison here.
I agree more or less with the rest of your post - that our priorities 
changed post cold war, but I'd argue that it wasn't necessary to prop up 
those dictators in the first place.

--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

On 5/12/05, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 - Original Message -
 From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
 Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 9:57 AM
 Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
 snip
  But, there were pro-Nazi terrorists for a couple of years. We had a lot
  tighter control there than in Iraq, so I don't think they could hide a
  camp, but there were terrorists.

 Actually a review of the occupation history shows almost no terrorist
 activity. There were no US military deaths after the war in Germany due 
 to
 terrorists.

 It was minimal...but there were a bit more than a score of combat deaths 
 in
 the months following VE day.

I had read an article or two indicating none directly attributed to 
terrorists in Germany but even taking your 20 that is a far cry from Iraq.

 It is. But, one question I asked myself is whether our willingness to
  directly assult a dictator in Panama increased our influence in getting
  other dictators to retire elsewhere in Latin America.

 We propped up, supported and paid a dictator in Panama. When he began not
 following orders Reagan ordered him removed.

 Actually, Bush was in power...I mentioned it because the timing is 
 actually
 important.

 There may have been an indirect influence in promoting democracy as older
 dictators in Latin America saw there were limits to their power.

 The reason I think the timing is important is what transpired between
 Reagan happily dealing with Noreaga, and Bush removing him. The Cold War
 was won between those actions. For over 40 years, we were willing to
 support right wing dictatorships because we feared the alternative might 
 be
 a Communist takeover. One exception to this was when we decided to drop
 support of Bastidas around '59. I think it is fair to say that was
 considered an object lesson by many.

 Now, I agree with the arguement that we were willing to look the other way
 far too often when our allies acted in an inhumane manner. Chile comes to
 mind here. But, until the end of the Cold War, I think it is fair to say
 that an arguement could be raised that we needed to allign with right wing
 dictatorships as the least bad option. In the '70s and early '80s, the
 swift victory of the US in the Cold War was not seen as inevitable.

 But, once the US won, this excuse for supporting right wing dictatorships
 vanished. The US no longer had a reason to fear that the removal of a
 right wing dictatorship would result in another Russian ally. Thus, it was
 the perfect time to assess whether the Cold War was an flimsey excuse for
 supporting right wing dictators, or whether the US would change policy now
 that this risk had been removed.

 Latin America was the perfect test case because the influence of the US 
 was
 so strong. Unlike the Middle East, we and Western Europe have little
 dependance on Latin America. Panama, with the US interest in the canal
 staying open, and US soldiers in the canal zone, was good test case.

 I think the message that was sent was, now that the Cold War is over, we
 have no reason to have to accept right wing dictatorships. We now consider
 them against our interests. For the most part, I think the message was
 received.

I don't know, I could be convinced but I didn't see Bush I as the mover 
against right-wing dictatorships you evidently do.
Not to say he wasn't an improvement over Reagan and Bush 2.

 I guess one of the questions that is under debate is whether
  representative government was just first developed in the West
 (in the US to be specific) or if the desire for representative 
 government
 is an
 artifact of Western Civilization, with many other people preferring
 dictatorships,
  monarchies, oligarchies, etc. I, as you could guess, would argue for 
 the
 former.

 There is an interesting Turtledove short, one of his best, where the
 Greeks
 were conquered by Persia and generations later a historian is trying to
 discover who their rulers were and what was all these records of them
 counting to make decisions. I thought this was one of the best alternate
 histories.

 What I've read indicates that the Greek democracies bore little
 resemblance to our own. The patriarchs of the families got to vote, not
 the free males.

The point of the story was the idea of making decisions by counting and not 
fiat was totally foreign.

Now I am not sure if this is correct that Greece was the origin of the idea 
of democracy for all places. I seem to remember Iceland having the first 
parliamentary system the Althing in the 900s and I don't think the Greeks 
influenced that..

-- 
Gary Denton
Easter Lemming Blogs
http://elemming.blogspot.com
http://elemming2.blogspot.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

On May 12, 2005, at 9:01 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
We propped up, supported and paid a dictator in Panama. When he began 
not
following orders Reagan ordered him removed.
Actually, Bush was in power...I mentioned it because the timing is 
actually
important.
I thought the reference was to Roosevelt and Panama:
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h932.html
Not to anything the US did in recent years. When referring to an area 
in which we have more than one historical effect, it doesn't hurt to 
specify which historical effect you're thinking of rather than listing 
off a long roll of names. It's a little like not distinguishing between 
western Europe and mainland Europe...

The more recent lesson from Panama, BTW, seems to have been lost 
anyway. :\

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

On 5/12/05, Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

On May 12, 2005, at 9:01 AM, Dan Minette wrote:

We propped up, supported and paid a dictator in Panama. When he began
not
following orders Reagan ordered him removed.

Actually, Bush was in power...I mentioned it because the timing is
actually
important.

I thought the reference was to Roosevelt and Panama:

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h932.html

Not to anything the US did in recent years. When referring to an area
in which we have more than one historical effect, it doesn't hurt to
specify which historical effect you're thinking of rather than listing
off a long roll of names. It's a little like not distinguishing between
western Europe and mainland Europe...

The more recent lesson from Panama, BTW, seems to have been lost
anyway. :\

The GOP seems to have a problem with remembering lessons learned -

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment
insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of
that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group,
of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are [a] few
other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man
from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.
- President Dwight D. Eisenhower,
11/8/54http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/presidential-papers/first-term/documents/1147.cfm

--
Gary Denton
Easter Lemming Blogs
http://elemming.blogspot.com
http://elemming2.blogspot.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

On May 12, 2005, at 9:01 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
What I've read  indicates that the Greek democracies bore little
resemblance to our own.  The patriarchs of the families got to vote, 
not
the free males.
Missed that one. I don't believe that's wholly correct. There were 
cases argued, for instance, involving hetara (male prostitutes) voting 
-- they weren't allowed to hold public office and apparently this 
reflected in their voting rights as well. Slaves and women, of course, 
were not permitted enfranchisement.

But the Greek model *did* reflect an attempt at reasonably fair 
suffrage, and the Roman one even more so. The concept of democracy was 
not invented in the US, was not an artifact of the American Revolution 
or 1776. It was built upon, based on earlier models, one can argue 
improved substantially, but the idea was not new when Jefferson et. al. 
proposed it.

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

- Original Message - 
From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 11:31 AM
Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

 I think its arguable that many of the mentioned countries, the the
 Philippians frex as well as many others (such as Iran) were able to move
 away from their dictatorial governments _despite_ the U.S., not because
of
 its influence.

If this were true, then one should look at countries with less US influence
and find a greater percentage of working democracies for longer periods of
time than those with greater US influence.

Dan M.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

- Original Message - 
From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 11:41 AM
Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

 On May 12, 2005, at 9:01 AM, Dan Minette wrote:

  We propped up, supported and paid a dictator in Panama. When he began
  not
  following orders Reagan ordered him removed.

  Actually, Bush was in power...I mentioned it because the timing is
  actually
  important.

 I thought the reference was to Roosevelt and Panama:

 http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h932.html

 Not to anything the US did in recent years. When referring to an area
 in which we have more than one historical effect, it doesn't hurt to
 specify which historical effect you're thinking of rather than listing
 off a long roll of names.

Sorry, I thought that it was clear that it wasn't Rossevelt because he
didn't do that.  Every example was post WWII.

It's a little like not distinguishing between  western Europe and mainland
Europe...

Well, I was thinking of the US sphere of influence in Europe.  It was
Western Europe.  I said mainland later because the UK and Ireland were not
invaded by the Germans during WWII, and were not candidates for US nation
building after the war.

I'd also be more than happy to exclude the sphere of influence of the US
that was not in Western Europe, but in Europe, such as Greece and (sorta)
Turkey.  With I used both terms, I was thinking of Europe, west of the Iron
Curtain, excluding GB and Ireland. The Nordic countries were included in
both cases. But, I can see how my terms might have been unclear.

Dan M.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

On Thu, 12 May 2005 09:42:47 -0500, Dan Minette wrote

 The interpretation of such a poll will be dependant on where it is 
 taken, of course, but, at the very least, the changes in these 
 numbers over time should reflect changes in attitude.  Would you and 
 Nick consider this at least some measure of the views of the people 
 of Iraq?

It could be meaningful, but it hasn't been done and isn't likely to be done.  
But we have are numerous incidents in which the very people we are supposed to 
be helping are attacking us, which tends to suggest that at least some of them 
are not feeling helped by our continuing presence.  The inhabitants of Sadr 
City, for example.

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

On Thu, 12 May 2005 10:07:09 -0500, Dan Minette wrote

 Right, and I have a very recent one in my hip pocket, so to speak. 
  I just wanted to see if folks would assign it a value before seeing 
 the results. :-)

I spoke too soon, apparently.  Not the first time.

Here's the most hopeful figure of all -- 73 percent of Iraqis looking forward 
to our departure.

The majority say that our invasion and occupation did more harm than good.

Polls looking for optimism show that it has been decreasing.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040628-045523-2426r.htm

And some words on using and misuing polls:

http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=6114

And more general information about Iraqis' attitudes toward the United States:

http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=11353

Large majorities of Iraqis - 69 percent of Shiites and 82 percent of Sunnis - 
want U.S. soldiers to get out of Iraq quickly, according to an Abu Dhabi TV/
Zogby International poll earlier this year. Over half of Sunnis considered 
insurgent attacks to be a legitimate resistance to U.S. presence. This follows 
polling last year that showed that 71 percent of Iraqis considered U.S.-led 
forces 'occupiers' rather than 'liberators.'

Nick

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

- Original Message - 
From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 12:26 PM
Subject: Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

 On Thu, 12 May 2005 09:42:47 -0500, Dan Minette wrote

  The interpretation of such a poll will be dependant on where it is
  taken, of course, but, at the very least, the changes in these
  numbers over time should reflect changes in attitude.  Would you and
  Nick consider this at least some measure of the views of the people
  of Iraq?

 It could be meaningful, but it hasn't been done and isn't likely to be
done.

It has been done, and I have results from several polls, spread out over
the last year. :-)  You said it could be meaningful; why wouldn't it be.
In particular, why would you suggest that attacks by some people indicate
that most people are worse off?

 But we have are numerous incidents in which the very people we are
supposed to
 be helping are attacking us, which tends to suggest that at least some of
them
 are not feeling helped by our continuing presence.

This sets the bar very high, doesn't it.  Everyone must approve of the
change in goverment?

The inhabitants of Sadr  City, for example.

The evidence that I've seen is that the overwhelming majority of the local
grown attacks are from Sunnis.  Right now, there are negotiations with
Sunni political leaders about going through Sunni tribal leaders to work
out an amnesty program for many of the insurgents.

You mention Sadr City, but Sadr himself  has decided to work politically
instead of militarily.  Everything that I see indicates that the attacks in
Iraq (which mainly kill Iraqis) are by Sunni.

Dan M.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

On May 12, 2005, at 10:07 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Actually, Bush was in power...I mentioned it because the timing is
actually
important.
I thought the reference was to Roosevelt and Panama:
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h932.html
Not to anything the US did in recent years. When referring to an area
in which we have more than one historical effect, it doesn't hurt to
specify which historical effect you're thinking of rather than listing
off a long roll of names.
Sorry, I thought that it was clear that it wasn't Rossevelt because he
didn't do that.  Every example was post WWII.
OK, that helps. I was also conflating Panama with the Spanish-American 
war. Too damned much _Citizen Kane_ for my own good!

It's a little like not distinguishing between  western Europe and 
mainland
Europe...
Well, I was thinking of the US sphere of influence in Europe.  It was
Western Europe.
No argument there.
I said mainland later because the UK and Ireland were not
invaded by the Germans during WWII, and were not candidates for US 
nation
building after the war.
Aha. What we had been discussing before, I thought, was the skewing 
toward democracy in all of Europe, and my impression was that we were 
talking about that emergent trait prior to WWII. (That is, from the 
early 1920s, perhaps, up until 1939.)

I'd also be more than happy to exclude the sphere of influence of the 
US
that was not in Western Europe, but in Europe, such as Greece and 
(sorta)
Turkey.  With I used both terms, I was thinking of Europe, west of the 
Iron
Curtain, excluding GB and Ireland. The Nordic countries were included 
in
both cases. But, I can see how my terms might have been unclear.
:D
--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

 BAGHDAD - The Iraqi people are suffering from a desperate lack of jobs, 
housing, health care and electricity, according to a survey by Iraqi 
authorities and the United Nations released on Thursday. 

 Planning Minister Barham Saleh, during a ceremony in Baghdad, blamed the 
dire living conditions in most of the country on decades of war but also on 
the shortcomings of the international community.

 The survey, in a nutshell, depicts a rather tragic situation of the 
quality of life in Iraq, Saleh said in English at the event, attended by UN 
Secretary General Kofi Annan's deputy representative in Iraq, Staffan de 
Mistura.

 The 370-page report entitled Iraq Living Conditions Survey 2004 was 
conducted over the past year on a representative sample of 22,000 families 
in all of Iraq's 18 provinces.

 Eighty-five percent of Iraqi households lacked stable electricity when the 
survey was carried out. Only 54 percent had access to clean water and 37 
percent to sewage.

 If you compare this to the situation in the 1980s, you will see a major 
deterioration of the situation, said the newly-appointed minister, pointing 
out that 75 percent of households had clean water two decades ago.
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=13481
-- 
Gary Denton
Easter Lemming Blogs
http://elemming.blogspot.com
http://elemming2.blogspot.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

On May 12, 2005, at 11:26 AM, Gary Denton wrote:
 BAGHDAD - The Iraqi people are suffering from a desperate lack of 
jobs,
housing, health care and electricity, according to a survey by Iraqi
authorities and the United Nations released on Thursday.
Wow. So Iraq really IS like the US now! Woot! Mission, indeed, 
accomplished!

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

On 5/12/05, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 - Original Message -
 From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
 Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 11:41 AM
 Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

  On May 12, 2005, at 9:01 AM, Dan Minette wrote:

   We propped up, supported and paid a dictator in Panama. When he began
   not
   following orders Reagan ordered him removed.

   Actually, Bush was in power...I mentioned it because the timing is
   actually
   important.

  I thought the reference was to Roosevelt and Panama:

  http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h932.html

  Not to anything the US did in recent years. When referring to an area
  in which we have more than one historical effect, it doesn't hurt to
  specify which historical effect you're thinking of rather than listing
  off a long roll of names.

 Sorry, I thought that it was clear that it wasn't Rossevelt because he
 didn't do that. Every example was post WWII.

 It's a little like not distinguishing between western Europe and mainland
 Europe...

 Well, I was thinking of the US sphere of influence in Europe. It was
 Western Europe. I said mainland later because the UK and Ireland were not
 invaded by the Germans during WWII, and were not candidates for US nation
 building after the war.

 I'd also be more than happy to exclude the sphere of influence of the US
 that was not in Western Europe, but in Europe, such as Greece and (sorta)
 Turkey. With I used both terms, I was thinking of Europe, west of the Iron
 Curtain, excluding GB and Ireland. The Nordic countries were included in
 both cases. But, I can see how my terms might have been unclear.

I am not sure how your hypothesis is able to be proved false.

What countries were not US dominated?
What do you count as expanding democracy?
What time lines do you have to show that it was Bush promoting democracy 
that caused a rise in the number of democracies?
How do you exclude other factors?

-- 
Gary Denton
Easter Lemming Blogs
http://elemming.blogspot.com
http://elemming2.blogspot.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

- Original Message - 
From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

I am not sure how your hypothesis is able to be proved false.

By showing that countries which were less influenced/dominated by the US
had a greater chance of becoming democracies.

What countries were not US dominated?

The US had basically ignored Africa, for example...it had minimal influence
there.  It has had little to no leverage in the Middle East since OPEC.  It
has had tremendous influence in Latin America.  It provided defence for
Tawain and South Korea.  It had a fair amount of influence on the
Phillipeans.  It has had only modest influence in SE Asia.

What do you count as expanding democracy?

Governments going from dictatorships to elected goverments.  Evidence of
mature elected governments such as peaceful transitions between different
parties.

What time lines do you have to show that it was Bush promoting democracy
that caused a rise in the number of democracies?

It would be a matter of deciding the amount of leverage the US had at the
time in a country vs. the state of a democracy.  I don't think it was just
Bush.  I think that, after the Cold War, Bush I made the support of
democracies a bi-partisan issue, after Carter made it an issue.  In a sense
it was Carter stating we cannot support dictatorships, Reagan saying we
can if it is needed to fight Communism, and Bush I saying now that we've
beaten communism, we need not hold our noses and support brutal
anti-Communists any more.  Clinton supported that idea, and now Bush II
does.

How do you exclude other factors?

I'd assume they were fairly random. If we could reasonably control for
them, that would be betterbut baring that assuming that they are random
is standard technique.  It is possible, of course, to get a false positive
or false negativethat relates to the fact that international relations
is not a science.  But, I'd bet with a several sigma signal instead of
against it.

Dan M.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

More seriously...
On May 12, 2005, at 11:26 AM, Gary Denton wrote:
 If you compare this to the situation in the 1980s, you will see a 
major
deterioration of the situation, said the newly-appointed minister, 
pointing
out that 75 percent of households had clean water two decades ago.
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=13481
This isn't particularly useful, unfortunately. The logical conclusion 
is that Iraqis, naturally, were miserable after 1.5 decades of Hussein, 
sanctions and so on; and only a few years of change won't have 
addressed the slow decline their country was led into by Saddam. As an 
indictment of Hussein the survey might be effective; but it could also 
be used as a chastisement against the US and UN and the years of 
sanctions, no-fly, etc.

A more useful survey (more relevant to this discussion, that is) would 
be to compare living conditions in 2000 to those found in 2005. But 
that might not be possible.

The problem I see is that you'd actually have had to take the first 
part of the survey in 2000. Anyone you asked today about how life was 
in 2000 will be doubly biased -- memory, which is not a particularly 
reliable tool, will contain its own slants; and whatever opinion is 
voiced today is going to be colored at least in part by current events 
as well as the last half decade of history.

If you were to ask me how I liked Iraq now, and I was living there and 
a US soldier had accidentally shot my brother, I would probably have a 
very negative outlook, even if (in 1999) Hussein's goons had once 
threatened to shoot me if I didn't stop printing subversive pamphlets 
(or whatever).

Sure, those days were hard, I'd probably think ... but at least my 
brother was still alive. You knew what the rules were and you knew what 
lines not to cross. Now, with those hair-trigger troops everywhere, 
even getting some bread and goat's cheese is a life-risking venture.

But if you were to ask me, in 1999, how I liked Iraq, I might spit and 
say, The sooner that son of a jackal Hussein is out of power, the 
better.

Population surveys aren't necessarily objective. (Opinion surveys are 
NEVER objective.) That's a problem. The other problem is (I think) that 
when you ask a given person his opinion, he's likely to tell you what 
he thinks at that moment, not what his overall sense of a thing is. In 
that respect you might only be getting something like a daily 
temperature reading, not any useful measure of a climatic trend. So you 
need a longitudinal study as well.

This suggests to me that such polls can't necessarily be used to reach 
firm conclusions, especially if they're taken after the fact and given 
to people conscious of many competing political agendas, conscious that 
how they answer might well have a lasting impact on the quality of 
their lives in the foreseeable future.

The one objective thing I can think of that might be used to argue life 
in Iraq has improved is the elections and their (still developing) 
results. As measures go that's not necessarily a bad one, but I think 
I've done a fairly thorough job of expressing that, in my view, the 
ends do not justify the means, as well as why I have that view.

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

On Thu, 12 May 2005 12:57:28 -0500, Dan Minette wrote

 why would you suggest that attacks by some people 
 indicate that most people are worse off?

I didn't suggest that.  I suggested that those people, as well as the hundreds 
of thousands who demonstrated against our occupation on April 9th, are saying 
that they would be better off it we left.

 The evidence that I've seen is that the overwhelming majority of the 
 local grown attacks are from Sunnis.  Right now, there are 
 negotiations with Sunni political leaders about going through Sunni 
 tribal leaders to work out an amnesty program for many of the insurgents.

Sadr City is a Shiite area, not Sunni.  That was my point -- these are the 
people who presumably wanted us to free them from Saddam.  If the Shiites, of 
all people, are fighting against us, who the heck wants us there?  They're the 
ones who ambush our troops, they're the ones who put 300,000 people on the 
streets on April 9th.

 You mention Sadr City, but Sadr himself  has decided to work politically
 instead of militarily.  Everything that I see indicates that the 
 attacks in Iraq (which mainly kill Iraqis) are by Sunni.

First, so what if Sadr is working politically?  That is no indication of 
whether or not he thinks the country is better off -- he hasn't backed off 
even slightly from his position that he wants the U.S. out, and people are 
following him, lots of people.  As far as I know, nobody has linked Sadr 
directly to the violence in Sadr City.  He's a cleric, not a soldier.

Second, our troops have been ambushed in Sadr City -- it has become one of the 
most dangerous places in the country for our troops.  I don't think anyone 
questions that the attacks are being done by Shiites, people who surely were 
happy to see Saddam go, since it had been the center of anti-Saddam sentiment. 
 Look up what happened on 04/04/04, a rather infamous day, but far from the 
only incident there.

What do you think it means when the people who most wanted Saddam out of 
power, the people we supposedly were rescuing from oppression, are killing our 
troops and demonstrating in massive numbers for us to leave?

Nick

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

On Thu, 12 May 2005 13:26:19 -0500, Gary Denton wrote

  If you compare this to the situation in the 1980s, you will see a 
 major deterioration of the situation, said the newly-appointed 
 minister, pointing out that 75 percent of households had clean water 
 two decades ago. 

And to my surprise, as I looked at some of these issues, one of the best 
national health care systems in the world.

Not that I'm advocating a the trains ran on time mentality.  But I've seen 
that one up close, in Chile, after Pinochet.  

Some of the unhappiness in Iraq is the inevitable result of people trying to 
figure out how to take responsibility for things that have long been dictated 
to them.  How much would be impossible to quantify, I suspect.

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

2005-05-12 Thread Doug Pensinger

Dan wrote:
I think its arguable that many of the mentioned countries, the the
Philippians frex as well as many others (such as Iran) were able to move
away from their dictatorial governments _despite_ the U.S., not because
of its influence.
If this were true, then one should look at countries with less US 
influence and find a greater percentage of working democracies for 
longer periods of time than those with greater US influence.
Allow me to rephrase a little because I don't really think our influence 
is a simple matter.  I believe our influence via military/industrial 
channels was negative but that our cultural influence was positive and one 
the people of many countries wish to emulate.  Military/industrial people 
want control and large profits at the expense of the native people.  A 
people that elects a government that wants to distribute the wealth of 
their country fairly among the people is much less profitable than a 
dictator that takes his cut and allows the multinationals to do as they 
will.

But these people were also exposed to our culture and the opportunity that 
it used to provide to its members.  I think this is why you see the 
dichotomy when the people of the world are asked their opinion of 
(US)America (overwhelmingly negative) vs their opinion of (US)Americans 
(somewhat positive).

Oh, and I said used to provide because I believe that Brin is correct in 
pointing out that Bush is attempting to squash the diamond back into a 
pyramid.  Because of this and the growing prominence of religious 
fanaticism in our country, our society is no longer as attractive to the 
world as it once was.

All IMO, of course.
--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

- Original Message - 
From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 4:22 PM
Subject: Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

 On Thu, 12 May 2005 12:57:28 -0500, Dan Minette wrote

  why would you suggest that attacks by some people
  indicate that most people are worse off?

 I didn't suggest that.  I suggested that those people, as well as the
hundreds
 of thousands who demonstrated against our occupation on April 9th, are
saying
 that they would be better off it we left.

But, the question was whether the people in Iraq was better off.  Why make
this arguement if it wasn't relevant?  I googled for that demonstration,
and saw multiple quotes that put anti-US demonstrators in the tens of
thousands, not the hundreds of thousands.  That immediately suggested who
was behind it, and what was the political motivation...it was people on the
outside of the present government trying to put that government in a bind.
That government knows it is not prepared to provide security, so it doesn't
want the US to leave immediately.  It has said so.  Yet, the US soldiers
are resented.

What is interesting is that the organizers could only get one middle size
demonstration going.  I think that the word went out from influencial
figures (such as Ayatollah Ali Sistani) that these type of demonstrations
were not useful.  Everything that I see indicates that Sistani could get
millions on the street by sending out the word.

 Sadr City is a Shiite area, not Sunni.  That was my point -- these are
the
 people who presumably wanted us to free them from Saddam.  If the
Shiites, of
 all people, are fighting against us, who the heck wants us there?

The elected government for one.  Ayatollah Sistani for another. They both
wants us out, but not right now.  Heck, _we_ want us out, but not right
now.

They're the  ones who ambush our troops, they're the ones who put 300,000
people on the
 streets on April 9th.

I tend to doubt the 300,000 number for an anti-American demonstration.  I
looked it up at multiple places and didn't get that number. A good example
of what I read is at:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40509-2005Apr9.html

you see that Sadr, the one who's millita fought the US for a month around a
year earlier, organized that demonstration.  Personally, I think the change
from fighting at the shrine of Ali for a month to a one day demonstration
is a hopeful one.

  You mention Sadr City, but Sadr himself  has decided to work
politically
  instead of militarily.  Everything that I see indicates that the
  attacks in Iraq (which mainly kill Iraqis) are by Sunni.

 First, so what if Sadr is working politically?  That is no indication of
 whether or not he thinks the country is better off -- he hasn't backed
off
 even slightly from his position that he wants the U.S. out, and people
are
 following him, lots of people.  As far as I know, nobody has linked Sadr
 directly to the violence in Sadr City.  He's a cleric, not a soldier.

You don't remember the big fight in Najaf of about a year ago?  It was with
_his_ militiamen.  They have stood down, and he has chanced tactics from
military to political.  He now organizes demonstrations, instead of gun
battles.

 Second, our troops have been ambushed in Sadr City -- it has become one
of the
 most dangerous places in the country for our troops.  I don't think
anyone
 questions that the attacks are being done by Shiites, people who surely
were
 happy to see Saddam go, since it had been the center of anti-Saddam
sentiment.
  Look up what happened on 04/04/04, a rather infamous day, but far from
the
 only incident there.

Which was during the time that Sadr was fighting US troops.  Since his
militamen have stood down, what fraction of attacks have been by Shiites
and what fraction by Sunnis?

 What do you think it means when the people who most wanted Saddam out of
 power, the people we supposedly were rescuing from oppression, are
killing our
 troops and demonstrating in massive numbers for us to leave?

I think that there are a few things involved.  First, occupation troops are
never popular, even if they are simply providing security.  Second, we
really screwed up both security and infrastructure.  I think the average
Iraqi cannot believe Americans are that inept.  Third, the politics in Iraq
is complicated.

I wouldn't doubt that Sadr would call for US troops out _now_.  Its a smart
political move.  The government knows it cannot maintain any semblance of
stability without US help, so it cannot comply.  He can turn resentment of
the US into support for him in the future.

The person I've been watching _extremely_ carefully for the past two years
is Ayatollah Sistani.  He is clearly a far more influential figure than
Sadralthough no part of Baghdad is named after his dad. :-)  During the
fighting near the shrine of Ali, he happened to have a medical condition
that required

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

- Original Message - 
From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

 Dan wrote:

  I think its arguable that many of the mentioned countries, the the
  Philippians frex as well as many others (such as Iran) were able to
move
  away from their dictatorial governments _despite_ the U.S., not
because
  of its influence.

  If this were true, then one should look at countries with less US
  influence and find a greater percentage of working democracies for
  longer periods of time than those with greater US influence.

 Allow me to rephrase a little because I don't really think our influence
 is a simple matter.  I believe our influence via military/industrial
 channels was negative but that our cultural influence was positive and
one
 the people of many countries wish to emulate.

OK, but I was specificly referring to the leverage our government had with
other governments. We clearly have a strong cultural influence in Arab
countrieseven one of the Palestinians celebrating 9-11 was wearing a US
sports tee shirt.  Yet, that is an area where we have little leverage.  We
had a lot more leverage in Tawain and the Phillipeans.

Military/industrial people  want control and large profits at the expense
of the native people.

The military wanted to keep Communism at bay.  I think I can see that as
their bias.

 A  people that elects a government that wants to distribute the wealth of
 their country fairly among the people is much less profitable than a
 dictator that takes his cut and allows the multinationals to do as they
 will.

OK, using that hypothesis,  we should see multinationals all over the
dictatorships in Africa and virtually none in places like India, which has
been democatic for 50 years, right?  It doesn't seem to work that way.

Now, I'd be happy to agree that businesses are after profit, which is
inherently an amoral stand.  If a horrid dictatorship is sitting on easy to
obtain oil, there will be a company that will more than happy to make a
profit off it.  If that dictatorship poses a threat to the US, there would
still be US companies selling to it (e.g. Haliburton selling A-bomb
triggers to Iraq in the 90s).

But my point wasn't about the influence of the US culture or businesses, it
was about the US government.  Insofar as the military desire to see no more
Communist governments came into play, I can understand why anti-Communist
dictatorships would be embraced.  When Communism fell, that needed did
also, and the right-wing dictatorships lost their bargining chip with the
US. This meant that the US's leverage with those countries increased, and,
by my hypothesis, the percentage of dictatorships in countries in Latin
America should have fallen significantly after the end of the Cold war.  By
your hypothesis, there should have been a much smaller effect.  The
military would still want control, and multinationals would still want
profit.  Only if one agrees that the military wanted to defend the US at
virtually all costs can one argue for a strong military influence resulting
in the preservation of right-wing dictatorships. I would agree to this bias
by the military during the Cold war, but not afterwards.

Dan M.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

2005-05-12 Thread JDG

At 09:09 PM 5/11/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote:
 Instead, I am just expressing my confidence that if you have even a modicum
 of honesty you can come up with something that is measurably better 
 in Iraq today than it was under Saddam Hussein.   After all, Saddam 
 Hussein's
 regime was one of the 5 worst regimes on Earth.   Unless you believe 
 that Iraq is *stil* one of the 5 worst regimes on Earth, then I am 
 *sure* that you can come up with something - if you are willing to 
 be honest about it.

I don't think it has to do with honesty in the everyday sense of the word.  
I'm at a loss to come up with a *measurable* way of showing that things are 
better in Iraq today than before we invaded.  

Come on Nick!I can't *believe* that I have to help you out with this.
Either you are being dishonest about your ability to come up with one
measurable thing, or you are woefully unable to see other points of view.

Well, let me help you out:

-number of political prisoners
-number of people subjected to torture  (yes, even *with* Abu Ghraib)
-number of people able to practice their religion freely
-number of people able to petition their government for redresss of grievances
-number of people who cast free ballots in the last election
-number of victims of systematic ethnic cleansing

And I am sure you can come up with more.

Again, Nick, after all, Saddam Hussein's regime was one of the 5 worst
regimes on Earth.   Unless you believe 
that Iraq is *stil* one of the 5 worst regimes on Earth, then I am  *sure*
that you can come up with something - if you are willing to be honest about
it.

JDG
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

On Thu, 12 May 2005 21:55:07 -0400, JDG wrote

 Well, let me help you out:

Thank you.  I was asking *because* I was having a hard time with it.  More 
below.

 -number of political prisoners

Definitely.

 -number of people subjected to torture  (yes, even *with* Abu Ghraib)

Indeed.

 -number of people able to practice their religion freely

Hmmm.  I guess.  I don't know what Saddam's track record was on that, nor how 
free people are in a practical sense, given all that's going on... but they're 
certainly free in principle.

 -number of people able to petition their government for redresss of 
grievances

I don't know anything about that in the past or current situation.

 -number of people who cast free ballots in the last election

Well... we'll see how that works out for them.  It is a step in the right 
direction, however.

 -number of victims of systematic ethnic cleansing

Hmm.  But more people are dying.

 And I am sure you can come up with more.

Now that you've helped me -- I really was looking for help, not an argument.  
Believe me, I want to see every bit of good that we're doing over there -- our 
family paid a high price, after all.  I've been having a hard time seeing the 
good in it all... which isn't unusual when something hits home so hard... and 
I wish you'd believe that I wasn't just trying to argue, but really wanted 
your help in seeing.  

 Again, Nick, after all, Saddam Hussein's regime was one of the 5 
 worst regimes on Earth.

Whose ranking?

   Unless you believe that Iraq is *stil* one 
 of the 5 worst regimes on Earth, then I am  *sure* that you can come 
 up with something - if you are willing to be honest about it.

It really had nothing to do with honesty in the usual sense.  It has to do 
with the world looking like a lousy rotten place when a wonderful 21-year old 
gets blown to bits, whatever the reasons.  I don't want to see the world that 
way, I want to find joy and whatever comfort I can take in the mission he was 
on... it's just hard.  I wish I could explain better, but I don't think 
anybody can really grasp it unless some real tragedy like this has hit them.

Surely, however, there have been times in your life when you struggled to see 
the bright side of things?  That's why I said, enlighten me.  It wasn't 
sarcastic, it was a bit of a pun... the whole thing seems heavy and oppressive 
these days and I don't sleep all that well the more I read about the situation 
over there.

Clear enough?

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

- Original Message - 
From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 9:34 PM
Subject: Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

 Hmmm.  I guess.  I don't know what Saddam's track record was on that, nor
how
 free people are in a practical sense, given all that's going on... but
they're
 certainly free in principle.

Here's one example. Karbala and is buried there. For Shiites, his tomb is
the holiest site outside of Mecca and Medina, Among other things, Hussein
prohibited the pilgrimages to Karbala, on the anniversary of Husayn's (the
Prophet's grandson) death. They are now able to go.

Dan M.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

2005-05-12 Thread JDG

 Dan M. wrote:
 Right, and I have a very recent one in my hip pocket, so to speak. 
  I just wanted to see if folks would assign it a value before seeing 
 the results. :-)

I suspect as much when I read your original message and I have to
wonder, isn't withholding such evidence - indeed withholding that you have
a priori knowledge of this evidence - in those circumstances the equivalent
of baiting?Then again, you recently offered to compare economic growth
during the Great Depression to that of World War II.. so I'm not sure
what you are thinking here.

I think a reasonable measure of this would be the opinion of the people of
Iraq.  Ideally, the question would be are you better off than you were
under Hussein or are you better off than you were three years ago.  But,
a decent secondary question that indicates the opinion of the people of
Iraq is are things going in the right direction?

I don't think that the questions are at all comparable (and I actually
suspect that the withheld results you have might even be in my favor -
though I don't know for sure.)   The right direction question is
inherently divorced from time.For example, the results to that question
would be quite different in the week immediately after the election or
immediately after the swearing in of the new government vs. say in the past
week. I do not believe, however, that this question inspires the
populace to make a comparison with life under Saddam Hussein.

JDG
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

- Original Message - 
From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 9:12 PM
Subject: Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

 Dan M. wrote:
  Right, and I have a very recent one in my hip pocket, so to speak.
   I just wanted to see if folks would assign it a value before seeing
  the results. :-)

 I suspect as much when I read your original message and I have to
 wonder, isn't withholding such evidence - indeed withholding that you
have
 a priori knowledge of this evidence - in those circumstances the
equivalent
 of baiting?

No, I've just tried to get people to commit to their understanding of the
validity of a type of data independent of it supporting or countering their
viewpoint.

 Then again, you recently offered to compare economic growth
 during the Great Depression to that of World War II.. so I'm not sure
 what you are thinking here.

I'm thinking data are.  We should fit theory to data, not pidgen hole data
into what we already know is true.
 I think a reasonable measure of this would be the opinion of the people
of
 Iraq.  Ideally, the question would be are you better off than you were
 under Hussein or are you better off than you were three years ago.
But,
 a decent secondary question that indicates the opinion of the people of
 Iraq is are things going in the right direction?

 I don't think that the questions are at all comparable (and I actually
 suspect that the withheld results you have might even be in my favor -
 though I don't know for sure.)   The right direction question is
 inherently divorced from time.For example, the results to that
question
 would be quite different in the week immediately after the election or
 immediately after the swearing in of the new government vs. say in the
past
 week. I do not believe, however, that this question inspires the
 populace to make a comparison with life under Saddam Hussein.

The time frame is a bit ambiguous, but I think that it is reasonable to
assume that people consider the biggest changes of the last couple of years
when they answer this.   If most people thought the country was going in
the wrong direction, then it would be hard to say that people consider
things a lot better.

The quote from
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=storyu=/afp/20050506/wl_mideast_afp/iraqpollpolitics_050506175337

is

And 67 percent of Iraqis now think the country is going in the right
direction, the most optimistic response in the last year, the poll showed.
Some 22 percent said Iraq was going in the wrong direction.

Sentiment hit an all-time low in early October 2004, as US forces started
pounding Fallujah from the air ahead of a November ground assault on the
town, 40 kilometres (25 miles) west of Baghdad, the poll showed.Some 45
percent of Iraqis said the country was going in the wrong direction at the
time, edging past the 42 percent who felt more positive.

This poll was taken in mid-April.

A poll taken a year ago asked about whether Iraq was better off than before
the war.  And, 56% said Iraq was better off before the war, while 70% were
optimistic about the future.

The source isn't as good for this poll, it is:

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2004319.asp

which looks a bit biased.

Dan M.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

On May 12, 2005, at 7:12 PM, JDG wrote:
I have to
wonder, isn't withholding such evidence - indeed withholding that you 
have
a priori knowledge of this evidence - in those circumstances the 
equivalent
of baiting?
Considering the source, this question's pretty damn funny.
--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

2005-05-12 Thread Doug Pensinger

Dan wrote:
OK, but I was specificly referring to the leverage our government had 
with other governments. We clearly have a strong cultural influence in 
Arab
countrieseven one of the Palestinians celebrating 9-11 was wearing a 
US sports tee shirt.  Yet, that is an area where we have little 
leverage.  We had a lot more leverage in Tawain and the Phillipeans.
Our meme might take longer to catch on in the Middle East, but I think 
given time and nurture it would have caught on eventually.

The military wanted to keep Communism at bay.  I think I can see that as
their bias.
But why did they want to keep communism at bay?
OK, using that hypothesis,  we should see multinationals all over the
dictatorships in Africa and virtually none in places like India, which 
has been democatic for 50 years, right?  It doesn't seem to work that 
way.
Africa is a complicated quagmire with a history of established European 
overlords.  Look at the history of central and South America to understand 
what I mean.

Now, I'd be happy to agree that businesses are after profit, which is
inherently an amoral stand.  If a horrid dictatorship is sitting on easy 
to obtain oil, there will be a company that will more than happy to make 
a
profit off it.  If that dictatorship poses a threat to the US, there 
would still be US companies selling to it (e.g. Haliburton selling A-bomb
triggers to Iraq in the 90s).

But my point wasn't about the influence of the US culture or businesses, 
it was about the US government.  Insofar as the military desire to see 
no more Communist governments came into play, I can understand why 
anti-Communist
dictatorships would be embraced.  When Communism fell, that needed did
also, and the right-wing dictatorships lost their bargining chip with the
US. This meant that the US's leverage with those countries increased, 
and, by my hypothesis, the percentage of dictatorships in countries in 
Latin
America should have fallen significantly after the end of the Cold war.  
By your hypothesis, there should have been a much smaller effect.  The
military would still want control, and multinationals would still want
profit.  Only if one agrees that the military wanted to defend the US at
virtually all costs can one argue for a strong military influence 
resulting in the preservation of right-wing dictatorships. I would agree 
to this bias by the military during the Cold war, but not afterwards.
You'll recall that I agreed with most of your hypotheses in my first 
post.  I think one of the things you're missing, though, is that U.S. 
intervention to prevent the spread of communism was a failed policy well 
before the fall of the Soviet Union.  Starting with our miserable failure 
in Viet Nam continuing through the overthrow of the Shah and the expulsion 
of Marcos, and culminating in the Iran Contra fiasco, the U.S. Public's 
support for friendly despots was on the wane well before the end of the 
cold war.

And I have to return to the reason we wanted to stop the spread of 
communism.  IMO it was more about protecting our commercial interests than 
our ideological ones.  That's not to say we didn't have ideological 
interests, but that maybe it would have been more effective in the long 
run for these states to find out for themselves that communism doesn't 
work.

I believe in the strength of our meme - or what it was before the present 
administration anyway, and I think that the excessive use of force by our 
military obscures that message.  That's not to say that a strong military 
isn't important or that we should never intercede, just that I believe 
that we should let our good ideas do as much of the work for us as we can 
get away with even if it takes considerably longer.

--
Doug
Good things come to those who wait maru
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

On Thu, 12 May 2005 22:01:20 -0500, Dan Minette wrote

 Here's one example. Karbala and is buried there. For Shiites, his 
 tomb is the holiest site outside of Mecca and Medina, Among other 
 things, Hussein prohibited the pilgrimages to Karbala, on the 
 anniversary of Husayn's (the Prophet's grandson) death. They are now 
 able to go.

Yes... and no, to the extent that stuff blowing up here and there is a good 
reason to stay home.  And there are curfews, difficulty getting gas (which is 
much more expensive, but still quite a bargain compared to here, IIRC).

Now please finish that second sentence... ;-)

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

On 5/13/05, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Thu, 12 May 2005 22:01:20 -0500, Dan Minette wrote
 
  Here's one example. Karbala and is buried there. For Shiites, his
  tomb is the holiest site outside of Mecca and Medina, Among other
  things, Hussein prohibited the pilgrimages to Karbala, on the
  anniversary of Husayn's (the Prophet's grandson) death. They are now
  able to go.
 
 Yes... and no, to the extent that stuff blowing up here and there is a good
 reason to stay home.  And there are curfews, difficulty getting gas (which is
 much more expensive, but still quite a bargain compared to here, IIRC).

Saddam was a secularist and oppressed the religious fanatics.  He
later politically embraced some elements of Islam but still it was a
political decision and fantastical Shites especially were oppressed.

I am not sure if I see ceremonies of religious ecstasy with blood
running in the streets from self-mutilation necessarily a step in the
right direction.  I am not sure it is a step in the wrong direction
but it is a step in a different direction about as bad.

It remains likely that Iran will get the most benefit from this war: A
friendly Shiite state opposed to the Saudi monarchy and with personal
knowledge of the worth of American promises.

- 
Gary Denton
Easter Lemming Blogs
http://elemming.blogspot.com
http://elemming2.blogspot.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

At 07:36 PM Tuesday 5/10/2005, Dan Minette wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
 On Tue, 10 May 2005 14:26:32 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote
  You can be in favor of
  intervention to stop genocide in Rwanda/Darfur _or_
  you can say that intervention on moral principles is
  contingent on international consensus.

 And myriad possibilities in between, as well as assistance to NGOs,
economic
 intervention by businesses and much more.  Reducing such issues to
either-or
 choices doesn't feed hungry people.
Nick, everything I know from Africa indicates that getting the food to
Africa to feed hungry people is relatively easy.  It's getting the food
past the guys with guns who see benefit in people starving to death that's
the problem. I've seen interviews with the heads of relief efforts in
Africa talking about their frustration with this.  Neli's best friend is a
niece of one of the leaders of the people in Danfur...the ones being
attacked.   Would you consider her references authorative, or would you
still insist that the guys with the guns are not the main problem?
 Do we have so little imagination that  these are the only choices?
Imagination is fine,  but by itself it does not create energy, it does not
feed people.  All things are not possible for humans.
We end up distracting ourselves from the real  issues of poor and
oppressed people with ideological arguments, trying to  settle whether or
not a conservative or liberal strategy is right.  The
 problem is the argument is wrong. How about if we use this list to
brainstorm new approaches, since the old  choices are both failing?
I see an approach that has worked before, but I know a number of countries
are against it because it's opposed to their ecconomic self interests.  It
is clear to me that the next step for us is to provide any support the
African peacekeepers need to do their work. We should ask other countries
for their support, but we should not withold the help if others are opposed
to it.  If the peacekeepers are attacked or theatened. , we need to defend
them.  That seems fairly straightfoward to me.  Waiting for other creative
solutions, as we did for years.
As far as a long term solution goes, Neli and I have had a running
conversation on that.  She plans on being part of the solution, and we're
doing what we can to be supportive. But, we know that we need to address
immediate needs like Danfer and Rwanda with immediate action, not more
discussions.
 I don't have any problem ignoring the UN if it is paralyzed by
ideological
 arguments.  But that doesn't automatically mean we go it alone.
It depends on the power France has within NATO.  If they can prevail, NATO
won't help.  A coalition of the willing is the most that could be
expected then.
Dan M.

And if the US acting alone or as part of some coalition (which in practical 
terms means that the US would only be providing 90% of the troops, 
resources, and money) goes in with enough force to get the food past the 
guys with guns, would there likely be significantly fewer innocent victims 
of that fighting than there are now?  IOW, is there any course of action 
which will likely save the lives of those suffering now?  If so, what is it 
(short of something like everyone in the area suddenly being converted to a 
pacificist religion)?

-- Ronn!  :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

At 11:19 PM Tuesday 5/10/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On May 10, 2005, at 7:33 PM, Dave Land wrote:
On the topic of the US being stretched out in Iraq, my 8-year-old son
was brought to tears last night by the list of items being requested by
soldiers through www.operationshoebox.com -- his school is gathering
toiletries, snacks, games, and other items to send to our soldiers in
Iraq. What moved him was the sad simplicity of the items being
requested: plastic spoons, tooth brushes, sun screen... His heart was
broken to think about the soldiers having to beg for such basic stuff.
Yes. It's disgusting. Everything about Iraq was wrong. From the beginning 
the hollow, pathetic justifications for an attack were wrong. The way the 
Bush admin went about the attack was wrong. The way democracy is being 
brought about is wrong -- it's just another bigger power forcing another 
type of government on the people, after all. The way the target was 
changed from bin Laden to Hussein was wrong. The way admin faces keep 
trying to spin the ongoing war is wrong. The way soldiers are treated is 
wrong. The way the grunts are taking the fall for scandals such as Abu 
Ghraib is wrong. The way Jessica Lynch's story got hyped, stretched and in 
many places outright manufactured is wrong. The fact that the perpetrators 
-- Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and company -- are allowed to walk free -- Free! 
Without a hint of impeachment or prosecution! -- is wrong.

Iraq is a festering moil of filth and evil. Those who brought it about are 
guilty of treason. They have betrayed their nation, compromised its 
ability to defend itself and its standing in the world, and they don't 
give a shit. Not a single one of them cares, because they know they can 
get away with it. They already have. The apologists flock in their 
thousands to defend these evil men and no punishment will ever be meted on 
the heads that most deserve it.

Oh, history will tell -- big f*cking deal. How does the interpretation 
of someone living 100 years form now matter to the pricks responsible for 
this disaster *today*?

Nothing -- absolutely nothing -- about Iraq is right.

How much was right about it before GW2?  Is the average Iraqi better off 
or worse off now than then?  Or, for another measure, is the number of 
Iraqi people who are better off without SH in charge greater than the 
number who were better off with him and his sons and cronies in charge?

(These are not rhetorical questions.  I am asking for a serious before 
and after comparison between the common people's lives and their 
potential futures.)

-- Ronn!  :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

At 09:33 PM Tuesday 5/10/2005, Dave Land wrote:
On May 10, 2005, at 7:05 PM, Andrew Paul wrote:
'As others have pointed out, he _is_ calling for action WRT Darfur, which
is laudable.  From what I've learned, it is not possible for the US
alone to intervene there militarily, as our forces are stretched too far
elsewhere.
To use an argument style that really peed me off, does this inability to
intervene in Darfur because the US is stretched out in Iraq, mean that
support for the Iraq war is functionally, tacit approval of the
slaughter in Darfur?
Following your (admittedly regrettable) logic, the fact that the US is
stretched out in Iraq amounts to tacit approval of pretty much any
horror that might come along. Assuming that the decision to act in Iraq
was made rationally, the decision must have taken into consideration
the fact that any number of situations might arise (and might have been
already brewing) where the US would not be able to intervene. Bets are
placed and dice are rolled.
On the topic of the US being stretched out in Iraq, my 8-year-old son
was brought to tears last night by the list of items being requested by
soldiers through www.operationshoebox.com -- his school is gathering
toiletries, snacks, games, and other items to send to our soldiers in
Iraq. What moved him was the sad simplicity of the items being
requested: plastic spoons, tooth brushes, sun screen... His heart was
broken to think about the soldiers having to beg for such basic stuff.
I was reminded of the bumper sticker that reads, It will be a great day
when the schools have all the money they need and the Air Force has to
have a bake sale to buy a bomber. It's painfully ironic that we have 
arrived at that day, but it
seems that there is plenty of money for bombers, but the poor soldiers
have to beg grade-schoolers for chewing gum and nail clippers.

That's because they have to give them up when they get on the plane to go 
over there . . .

-- Ronn!  :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

2005-05-11 Thread JDG

At 04:43 PM 5/10/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote:
And myriad possibilities in between, as well as assistance to NGOs, economic 
intervention by businesses and much more.  Reducing such issues to either-or 
choices doesn't feed hungry people.  

The choice is between taking direct action to help people now, or taking
indirect action that *might* work, or *might* buy the killers enough time
to finish the job before anyone stops them.

JDG
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Br!n: Re: more neocons

2005-05-11 Thread Andrew Paul

JDG wrote 
.
 Yeah, but his argument didn't make any sense, because
 it was just a wholesale abrogation of moral judgment
 to other people - people who have an interest in
 acting in an immoral fashion.  All of the arguments
 you and he make _completely ignore_ that fact.  We
 have many, many examples of different ways in which
 the countries whose sanctions you advocate us seeking
 have showed that moral concerns have little or no
 claim on their stated beliefs. 

Gautam, why is it that only other countries have self-interested
agendas?
Is it possible that now and then, America does too? I think it is, and
that's why I think it is worthwhile getting a second opinion.


I don't know that Gautam has ever denied this.

No, he probably hasn't, as he is not a fool, and this is an area in which he 
has far more expertise than I.

Indeed, he has explicitly made arguments referring to this - such as when
he previously suggested that the War in Iraq was an instance in which
America's self-interest and the selfless morally right thing coincided.

I am unclear how that particular example refutes what I was saying. In this 
case they may have coincided, I was speaking of the general case rather than 
the specific.

Are you of the opinion that American Foreign Policy is always led by selfless 
morality, or are there times when they too stoop to the level of the scummy 
French or the sneaky, dirty Germans, and do things where the self interest of 
the USA outweighs the moral thing to do?

This is not an Anti-American bash, I am more interested  in your opinion.

Andrew

 

 

 

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

2005-05-11 Thread Dave Land

On May 10, 2005, at 8:57 PM, JDG wrote:
At 04:43 PM 5/10/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote:
And myriad possibilities in between, as well as assistance to NGOs, 
economic
intervention by businesses and much more.  Reducing such issues to 
either-or
choices doesn't feed hungry people.
The choice is between taking direct action to help people now, or 
taking
indirect action that *might* work, or *might* buy the killers enough 
time
to finish the job before anyone stops them.
... direct action that *might* help people now, or *might* plunge them
into a morass off killing and lawlessness that is far worse than what
they face now ...
Are you so sure that direct action is the answer? If so, what form would
that direct action take? Air- dropping food pallets to get past the guys
with guns? Or did you have something in mind that would involve more 
guys
with guns?

Sometimes I am so envious of conservatives' ability to reduce everything
to black-and-white. Those damned shades of gray that I have to deal with
as a progressive are such a pain in the ass.
Dave
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

2005-05-11 Thread Nick Arnett

On Wed, 11 May 2005 04:47:48 -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote

 How much was right about it before GW2?  Is the average Iraqi 
 better off or worse off now than then?  Or, for another measure, is 
 the number of Iraqi people who are better off without SH in charge 
 greater than the number who were better off with him and his sons 
 and cronies in charge?

The death rate has risen -- 100,000 more civilians have died since the 
invasion, based on the death rate before the war.  The rate is 12.3 per 
thousand per year, compared with 4 per thousand per year in surrounding 
countries (Lancet/Johns Hopkins).  Acute malnutrition among children has 
almost doubled, from 4.4 percent to 8 percent (Fafo Institute for Applied 
Social Science).  Twenty-five percent of Iraqi children don't get enough food 
to eat (UN Human Rights Commission).  Health care is less available.  Clean 
water is less available (we targeted the hospital and water supply in Fallujah 
and elsewhere).  Hundreds of thousands still live in refugee camps.  We shut 
down the newspaper in Sadr City (welcome to democracy?).

Does anybody have a measure by which life is better in Iraq today than it was 
before we invaded?  And it has been two years!  At the very least, this points 
to unbelievably poor or non-existent planning.

After doing what we've done in Iraq, I cannot find any way to have faith that 
we can bring peace or to rebuild the infrastructure that we destroyed.  Even 
if the Iraqis believe we have their best interests in mind, we have 
demonstrated enormous incompetence at doing anything positive.  We've shown 
that we know how to charge ahead without international consensus, which can be 
a good thing.  We've shown that we know how to remove the bad guys with force, 
which can be a good thing.  We've shown that we know how to destroy, which can 
work to good.  However, we haven't demonstrated that that the United States is 
competent to nurture, heal and restore, which I find tragic and humbling. 

What is required for us agree as a nation that we have screwed up massively, 
that the way we went about this was wrong, that we must invent better ways to 
deal with such situations, which aren't just about destruction, but also about 
building?  Is what Pax Americana will continue to look like -- successful 
operations that leave the patient crippled and bleeding?  

Our leaders may have had noble intentions, but there's more to bringing 
freedom and peace than knowing how to destroy.

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

At 09:31 AM Wednesday 5/11/2005, Dave Land wrote:
On May 10, 2005, at 8:57 PM, JDG wrote:
At 04:43 PM 5/10/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote:
And myriad possibilities in between, as well as assistance to NGOs, economic
intervention by businesses and much more.  Reducing such issues to either-or
choices doesn't feed hungry people.
The choice is between taking direct action to help people now, or taking
indirect action that *might* work, or *might* buy the killers enough time
to finish the job before anyone stops them.
... direct action that *might* help people now, or *might* plunge them
into a morass off killing and lawlessness that is far worse than what
they face now ...
Are you so sure that direct action is the answer? If so, what form would
that direct action take? Air- dropping food pallets to get past the guys
with guns? Or did you have something in mind that would involve more guys
with guns?

So what sort of non-direct action do you think would have a high 
probability of getting the food past the guys with guns to the people who 
need it (and insuring that the guys with guns don't take it as soon as the 
delivery trucks have pulled away from the making the delivery, or something 
like that)?

-- Ronn!  :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

2005-05-11 Thread Dave Land

On May 11, 2005, at 7:56 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 09:31 AM Wednesday 5/11/2005, Dave Land wrote:
On May 10, 2005, at 8:57 PM, JDG wrote:
At 04:43 PM 5/10/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote:
And myriad possibilities in between, as well as assistance to NGOs, 
economic
intervention by businesses and much more.  Reducing such issues to 
either-or
choices doesn't feed hungry people.
The choice is between taking direct action to help people now, or 
taking
indirect action that *might* work, or *might* buy the killers enough 
time
to finish the job before anyone stops them.
... direct action that *might* help people now, or *might* plunge them
into a morass off killing and lawlessness that is far worse than what
they face now ...
Are you so sure that direct action is the answer? If so, what form 
would
that direct action take? Air- dropping food pallets to get past the 
guys
with guns? Or did you have something in mind that would involve more 
guys
with guns?
So what sort of non-direct action do you think would have a high
probability of getting the food past the guys with guns to the people
who need it (and insuring that the guys with guns don't take it as soon
as the delivery trucks have pulled away from the making the delivery, 
or
something like that)?
I have never presumed to propose any specific action.
I merely questioned the certainty of my listmate's assertion that
the choice is between presumably successful direct action and
presumably unsuccessful indirect action.
Dave
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Tue, 10 May 2005 14:26:32 -0700 (PDT), Gautam
 Mukunda wrote
 
  Yeah, but his argument didn't make any sense,
 because
  it was just a wholesale abrogation of moral
 judgment
  to other people - people who have an interest in
  acting in an immoral fashion.  
 
 Oh, baloney.  Your generalization deserves no more
 intelligent refutation than 
 that.

Well, the next time you supplied one would be the
first time, so okay.
 
  You can be in favor of
  intervention to stop genocide in Rwanda/Darfur
 _or_
  you can say that intervention on moral principles
 is
  contingent on international consensus.  
 
 And myriad possibilities in between, as well as
 assistance to NGOs, economic 
 intervention by businesses and much more.  Reducing
 such issues to either-or 
 choices doesn't feed hungry people.  Do we have so
 little imagination that 
 these are the only choices?  We end up distracting
 ourselves from the real 
 issues of poor and oppressed people with ideological
 arguments, trying to 
 settle whether or not a conservative or liberal
 strategy is right.  The 
 problem is the argument is wrong.

NGOs have real difficulties when people with guns line
up and shoot them if you try to deliver food.  It
takes an army to do something in that situation.  When
you found a company, do you just assert I have a
billion dollars in my bank account and expect to be
able to withdraw it at an ATM?  This is the exact
equivalent.  This is the way the world works.  There
are people in the world with guns who want to kill
other people.  Other people with guns can choose to
stop them.  Or they can choose not to stop them. 
You're one of the people who choose not to stop them,
you just not honest enough to admit it.  As _always_
you say Can't we come up with other solutions? 
Well, you're constantly telling us how brilliant and
accomplished you are, Nick, suggest something that's
even vaguely plausible.  Just once.  No airy, castles
in the sky, I'm so much better than everyone else
calls for arm-waving.  No statements that God will
save us all if we just ask him to.  Tell me something
that would stop a genocide that _doesn't_ involve
force.
 
 How about if we use this list to brainstorm new
 approaches, since the old 
 choices are both failing?

How about closing our eyes, holding hands, and singing
kumbaya?
 
 What could private businesses do?  What NGOs could
 we support that would 
 alleviate some of the trouble?  How about a
 faith-based initiative! What other 
 ways are there to intervene?

That don't involve men with guns?  To first order,
none.
 
 I don't have any problem ignoring the UN if it is
 paralyzed by ideological 
 arguments.  But that doesn't automatically mean we
 go it alone.
 
 Nick

Again with the ideological arguments.  It's amazing -
apparently when you commit or support genocide you're
not a bad person, you're just pursing a different
ideology.  Apparently including Milosevic and Hussein
judging by your support for Ramsay Clark.  In this
case, however, the UN isn't hobbled by ideological
arguments.  The UN is hobbled because France has been
bought off and Russia and China want to preserve their
right to commit genocide in the future, should it ever
become something they decide to do again.  That isn't
exactly an ideological argument.  It's not anything. 
You want to stop genocide with something that doesn't
involve force?  Suggest something.  Don't say someone
should come up with something.  That's just evading
responsibility (again!).  Suggest something.


Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Freedom is not free
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com



__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Br!n: Re: more neocons

--- Andrew Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Gautam, why is it that only other countries have
 self-interested
 agendas?
 Is it possible that now and then, America does too?
 I think it is, and
 that's why I think it is worthwhile getting a second
 opinion.

No, the question is the exact opposite.  Why is it
that you claim that it's _only_ America that acts only
in its self-interest, and everyone else gets a pass? 
We constantly hear about war for oil or what not in
the US's case, when there's no logical connection
there.  But when there _is_ a connection between
corruption and self-interest and nations that _oppose_
the United States - not a word.  Other countries -
Britain, for example - do sometimes act in ways that
are not purely self-interested.  That's why you have
to analyze each case.  Now, in the Sudan, we have a
case of genocide going on where the US is saying
Let's try to do something.  And France is saying
There's no genocide here.  Now one of those two
countries has massive oil contracts with the Sudanese
government.  I leave you to guess which one.  And
which one is more likely to be acting for selfish
reasons.

 Perhaps that is what you believe. I don't know. I
 like America, but I
 don't think it is perfect.

You have a funny way of showing it.  You know, I
constantly hear, I like America from people who
never have anything good to say about it and who
oppose everything it does in the world - particularly
when they are the _beneficiaries_ of what it does in
the world.  You'll forgive me if the simple statement
doesn't quite convince me one way or the other.

 To use an argument style that really peed me off,
 does this inability to
 intervene in Darfur because the US is stretched out
 in Iraq, mean that
 support for the Iraq war is functionally, tacit
 approval of the
 slaughter in Darfur?

 I Was Shocked Too Maru
 
 Andrew

Well the argument probably peed you off because it's
_true_.  People said Don't invade Iraq.  And we said
That will leave Saddam Hussein in power.  And they
said, Don't invade Iraq.  And we said The _only
way_ to remove Saddam Hussein from power is to invade
Iraq.  And that statement is true, and hasn't been
refuted by anyone on the list, and can't be refuted,
because it is, in fact, a true statement.  Maybe you
don't care.  Maybe you think removing Saddam isn't
worth the cost.  But you can't say that opposing the
invasion wasn't functionally a stand in favor of
Saddam remaining in power, _because it was_.

And no, in this case it's not true, because whether or
not we were going to do what we did in Iraq, we
wouldn't be invading the Sudan.  A quick look at a map
will tell you why.  It's an _awfully_ big country.  It
would pretty much take the whole US army to occupy it.
 And we're not going to do that.  Iraq really didn't
have anything to do with that choice one way or the other.

Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Freedom is not free
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com



__ 
Yahoo! Mail Mobile 
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

--- Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I have never presumed to propose any specific
 action.
 
 I merely questioned the certainty of my listmate's
 assertion that
 the choice is between presumably successful direct
 action and
 presumably unsuccessful indirect action.
 
 Dave

Ah, the _perfect_ leftist stance.  I have no idea what
to do, but I know that you're wrong, so that makes me
better than you, _even though_ I can make no
contribution to solve the problem and actively oppose
anyone who does try to solve the problem. 
Congratulations, Dave, you've actually achieved the
perfect post.

Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Freedom is not free
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com



Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

2005-05-11 Thread Gary Denton

On 5/11/05, Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 At 11:19 PM Tuesday 5/10/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
 On May 10, 2005, at 7:33 PM, Dave Land wrote:
 snip
 Oh, history will tell -- big f*cking deal. How does the interpretation
 of someone living 100 years form now matter to the pricks responsible for
 this disaster *today*?
 
 Nothing -- absolutely nothing -- about Iraq is right.
 
 How much was right about it before GW2? Is the average Iraqi better off
 or worse off now than then? Or, for another measure, is the number of
 Iraqi people who are better off without SH in charge greater than the
 number who were better off with him and his sons and cronies in charge?
 
 (These are not rhetorical questions. I am asking for a serious before
 and after comparison between the common people's lives and their
 potential futures.)
 
 
 -- Ronn! :)
 
JDG will complain that the measures we use to explain that the average 
Iraqis are worse off are not valid.

Just like he will complain we are using the wrong measures and not looking 
at the big picture when studies show that the Iraq war has increased 
terrorism around the world and made Americans less safe.

His big argument will be we have not had another 9/11. He will not connect 
that there have been no instances of a terror attack on the US being 
intercepted as there were in the Clinton administration. 

Do the terrorists feel that giving us Bush is punishment enough or that W is 
their best recruitment tool?

-- 
Gary Denton
Easter Lemming Blogs
http://elemming.blogspot.com
http://elemming2.blogspot.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

2005-05-11 Thread Nick Arnett

On Wed, 11 May 2005 09:23:08 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote

 Ah, the _perfect_ leftist stance.  I have no idea what
 to do, but I know that you're wrong, so that makes me
 better than you,

Are you sure that those who criticize your ideas only care about feeling 
superior, not about other people, the millions of human beings caught in 
oppression, violence and poverty?  Do you feel inferior?

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

At 12:07 PM Wednesday 5/11/2005, Nick Arnett wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2005 09:23:08 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote
 Ah, the _perfect_ leftist stance.  I have no idea what
 to do, but I know that you're wrong, so that makes me
 better than you,
Are you sure that those who criticize your ideas only care about feeling
superior, not about other people, the millions of human beings caught in
oppression, violence and poverty?  Do you feel inferior?

No.
I just wonder what can be done to solve the plight of those millions of 
human beings, and so far haven't heard much in the way of suggestions on 
how to save them, or an argument that the status quo is somehow the best of 
all possible scenarios and anything anyone does will only lead to more 
death and suffering.

-- Ronn!  :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

- Original Message - 
From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 11:16 AM
Subject: RE: Br!n: Re: more neocons

Maybe you think removing Saddam isn't
 worth the cost.  But you can't say that opposing the
 invasion wasn't functionally a stand in favor of
 Saddam remaining in power, _because it was_.

I think that overstates the case a bit.  I'll agree that anyone who was
opposed to the invasion, including me, would have to accept that his
remaining in power was a highly probable outcome...so it should be accepted
as the price of not invading.  But, by the same token, people for invasion
needed to accept the very good chance of other significant negative
outcomes, including the tens of thosands who have died during the
occupation.  I know you agree with that.

I wouldn't state that your stand was functionally in favor of these deaths,
because I saw you guessing, at the time,  that the total number of deaths
in Iraq would be lower with the invasion than without.  I guessed that the
total cost of invading was higher than the total cost of containment.  I'd
rather say that both of us need to accept the costs as well as the benefits
of our stands, then say we were in favor of the costs.

Dan M.

Dan M.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

On May 11, 2005, at 2:47 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
How much was right about it before GW2?  Is the average Iraqi better 
off or worse off now than then?  Or, for another measure, is the 
number of Iraqi people who are better off without SH in charge greater 
than the number who were better off with him and his sons and cronies 
in charge?
The answer is of course it depends. Were there torturings and unjust 
imprisonments before the attack? Yes, absolutely. Are there now? Yes, 
absolutely. Were innocents being killed before the attacks? Yes, 
absolutely. Are there innocents being killed now? Yes, absolutely.

Iraqis complain -- this is instructive -- that the basic utilities 
(water, power) were more dependable *before* the attack. There was 
considerably less random crime committed by citizens before the attack; 
we can all recall, I think, the footage of looting taking place after 
Baghdad was overrun.

Was Saddam bad? Sure he was. Did he use chemicals against his own 
nationals? Sure he did. Did he attempt genocide at some point in the 
past? Indubitably.

Was he a threat to the US? Not clearly. Was he continuing to oppress 
his people to the point of death? He was, but then, not as badly as 
before. Were there other options for enforcement of humanitarian ideals 
in Iraq? Probably, but few were tried; those that were were not in 
place very long.

The discussion shifted rapidly after the attack from ties to OBL to 
WMDs to overthrowing a dictator. The ties to OBL were totally spurious, 
but that was the reason many Americans fell for. The WMDs were a nice 
touch; if Saddam was in bed with OBL, and if Iraq had WMDs, obviously 
it would be just a matter of time before OBL used nukes, bio or chem 
weapons in a harbor someplace or whatever.

But the fact was -- and this was not a secret in 2002 -- that Saddam 
had NO ties to OBL. That was simply a lie noised about by people with a 
pro-attack agenda. The fact was that while there was no proof Iraq 
didn't have WMDs, there was no proof they DID have WMDs. So that was 
tenuous evidence at best. The third reason -- regime change -- was 
and is not a sufficient one to assault ANY nation, ever.

Now, of course, the argument is about aftermath. But to me this is on 
par with police planting evidence of pot usage in the home of someone 
they believe is guilty of embezzlement, then discovering after the 
(groundless; therefore illegal) search that the suspect is *instead* 
trafficking in stolen car parts. Hey, we got a criminal off the 
street... That's not a justification for the planted evidence that led 
to discovery of wrongdoing which was NOT the suspected crime to begin 
with.

If an American citizen were thrown in jail based on the above, there 
would be a massive outcry against the conviction and it would be 
overturned in a damn big hurry. There would be probes into departmental 
wrongdoing on many levels. Heads would roll. People would resign; poll 
results might end up changing a few politicians' careers permanently.

Yet when an analogous thing happens with Iraq, many seem unable to see 
the clear injustice of the thing.

(These are not rhetorical questions.  I am asking for a serious 
before and after comparison between the common people's lives and 
their potential futures.)
The problem here is that the premise, as I see it, is flawed. The 
premise *seems to be* that the Iraqis are getting a democratic 
government, which gives them the opportunity of self-determination, and 
which justifies a few eggs being broken. But this premise ignores, I 
think, several crucial points.

1. Innocents are still dying. Iraqis, US soldiers, and civilians 
kidnapped and killed by resistance are all, to varying degrees, 
innocent. We don't even know how many have been killed; it's thousands 
at least. And we don't know how many more are yet to be killed. It 
could be many times the unknown current number. At what point do death 
tolls weigh in against the establishment of a democratic government? 
Here's a possible way to consider it. Since democracy is supposed to be 
about a choice, the only people who die for it should be the ones who 
decide to do so as a sacrifice. Of the people being killed now in Iraq, 
how many are verifiably of that persuasion?

2. Iraq is still not stable, nor is it self-policing. All major forces 
for law and order are still coalition troops, not Iraqi nationals. 
There is no indication of when this condition will change. I should 
repeat that. There is no hint of any stretch of time in which Iraq will 
become a self-policing, internally stable nation. It might happen in a 
year. It might not happen for a decade. And it was and remains our 
problem.

3. Democracy, to be effective, can't be foisted off on a nation; it has 
to be something the people themselves want enough to put into place. 
Iraq now does NOT have an elective democracy. It has a democracy that 
was forced upon it by another, more powerful, foreign entity; for all

Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

On May 11, 2005, at 7:56 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
Our leaders may have had noble intentions, but there's more to bringing
freedom and peace than knowing how to destroy.
Noble intentions are nullified by arrogance. Until we start seeing some 
genuine humility -- starting from the top down -- we won't see any 
improvement as a nation. But it's much easier to give medals to nitwits 
than it is to confess to f*cking up.

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

On May 11, 2005, at 9:08 AM, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
[to Nick]
Suggest something.
Why should he? After several paragraphs of nearly ceaseless ad hominem 
attacks, why should ANYONE attempt to carry on a rational discussion 
with you?

Gautam, there's a big difference between being passionate about 
something and being patronizing, condescending and insulting toward the 
intelligence of others. I fear your style has been tainted by others 
who seem unable to make the distinction, and it's disappointing.

There's a lot of hubris involved in lecturing others on the existence 
of people with guns; there's a lot of hubris involved in telling others 
how they will respond to things you suggest. And that hubris does not 
strengthen your position. If your position is sound, you don't need 
hubris. If it's unsound, you shouldn't be putting it forth.

I think you raise interesting points but it's nearly impossible to 
agree with them -- even when I *want* to -- solely because they're 
couched in language that presumes your infallibility while at the same 
time suggesting your correspondents are too unintelligent to recognize 
even basic facts about the world.

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

On May 11, 2005, at 10:15 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
I just wonder what can be done to solve the plight of those millions 
of human beings, and so far haven't heard much in the way of 
suggestions on how to save them, or an argument that the status quo is 
somehow the best of all possible scenarios and anything anyone does 
will only lead to more death and suffering.
Apropos to Iraq, I've asked this question a few times and so far no 
one's answered it.

So I'll ask it again.
Assuming that:
1. The US is interested in spreading the idea/blessing/gift/[whatever] 
of democracy to the other nations of the world; and

2. The US's security is better served by reducing, rather than 
increasing, places where terrorists can train; and

3. In 2001 and 2002, the REAL purpose of the US was to find and 
prosecute OBL and his cabal of lunatics; and

4. A good US presence in the middle east would be a way to see goals 2 
and 3 successfully met,

...why was #1 not enacted in a nation that we know had terrorist camps, 
ties to OBL, and an oppressed people yearning for freedom?

In early 2002, Afghanistan was entirely beaten. The oppressive Taliban 
had finally been sent packing into the hills, OBL's main training site 
had been completely taken over by US troops, the world -- with a few 
exceptions -- was completely behind us, and it looked like it would 
only be a matter of months before OBL was chased out of his own little 
spider hole somewhere.

So why, given the above, was Afghanistan not democratized and 
stabilized entirely? With a good solid pro-US government there, 
couldn't pressure have been mounted on other nations to force 
terrorists away? Wouldn't it have been much more useful to have a 
committed and strengthening ally on a border with Pakistan? (That is, 
two such -- India, and then Afghanistan.)

What would have been imprudent or undesirable about effecting total 
democratic transformation in Afghanistan first, using it as a case 
study to prove that we could do it? Why leave Afghanistan an unresolved 
mess -- which it still is -- to go and make another unresolved mess?

What the hell were Rummy and the rest thinking? I'd really like to 
know. And I'd really like to know why anyone would suggest that the 
aforementioned course would have been *worse* than the one we're on 
now.

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

2005-05-11 Thread Maru Dubshinki

On 5/11/05, Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On May 11, 2005, at 10:15 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
 
  I just wonder what can be done to solve the plight of those millions
  of human beings, and so far haven't heard much in the way of
  suggestions on how to save them, or an argument that the status quo is
  somehow the best of all possible scenarios and anything anyone does
  will only lead to more death and suffering.
 
 Apropos to Iraq, I've asked this question a few times and so far no
 one's answered it.
 
 So I'll ask it again.
 
 Assuming that:
 
 1. The US is interested in spreading the idea/blessing/gift/[whatever]
 of democracy to the other nations of the world; and
 
 2. The US's security is better served by reducing, rather than
 increasing, places where terrorists can train; and
 
 3. In 2001 and 2002, the REAL purpose of the US was to find and
 prosecute OBL and his cabal of lunatics; and
 
 4. A good US presence in the middle east would be a way to see goals 2
 and 3 successfully met,
 
 ...why was #1 not enacted in a nation that we know had terrorist camps,
 ties to OBL, and an oppressed people yearning for freedom?
 
 In early 2002, Afghanistan was entirely beaten. The oppressive Taliban
 had finally been sent packing into the hills, OBL's main training site
 had been completely taken over by US troops, the world -- with a few
 exceptions -- was completely behind us, and it looked like it would
 only be a matter of months before OBL was chased out of his own little
 spider hole somewhere.
 
 So why, given the above, was Afghanistan not democratized and
 stabilized entirely? With a good solid pro-US government there,
 couldn't pressure have been mounted on other nations to force
 terrorists away? Wouldn't it have been much more useful to have a
 committed and strengthening ally on a border with Pakistan? (That is,
 two such -- India, and then Afghanistan.)
 
 What would have been imprudent or undesirable about effecting total
 democratic transformation in Afghanistan first, using it as a case
 study to prove that we could do it? Why leave Afghanistan an unresolved
 mess -- which it still is -- to go and make another unresolved mess?
 
 What the hell were Rummy and the rest thinking? I'd really like to
 know. And I'd really like to know why anyone would suggest that the
 aforementioned course would have been *worse* than the one we're on
 now.
 
 
 --
 Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books

 I'm worried about an opponent who uses nation-building and the
military in the same sentence. See, our view of the military is for
our military to be properly prepared to fight and win war and,
therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place.
--Bush

Here's a snippet from a piece in the Boston Globe:

At [presidential debate, October 11, 2000] Bush recalled that the
U.S. humanitarian mission in Somalia -- begun by his father, President
George H.W. Bush -- had changed into a nation-building mission, and
that's where the mission went wrong.

He was referring to the deaths of 18 U.S. Army rangers who were killed
in Mogadishu on Oct. 3-4, 1993, after a gun battle. U.S. forces were
soon withdrawn from Somalia.

The mission was changed, and as a result, our nation paid a price,
Bush continued. And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for
what's called nation building.   


~Maru
Hope that helps
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

-- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Are you sure that those who criticize your ideas
 only care about feeling 
 superior, not about other people, the millions of
 human beings caught in 
 oppression, violence and poverty?  Do you feel
 inferior?
 
 Nick

Not really, no.  Those who criticize?  No.  People
who pontificate endlessly but suggest nothing, who
attack any idea but provide none of their own, who
preen constantly but contribute nothing - them, yes, I
think that about _their_ motives.

Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Freedom is not free
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com



Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

On May 11, 2005, at 12:36 PM, Maru Dubshinki wrote:
On 5/11/05, Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

So why, given the above, was Afghanistan not democratized and
stabilized entirely? With a good solid pro-US government there,
couldn't pressure have been mounted on other nations to force
terrorists away? Wouldn't it have been much more useful to have a
committed and strengthening ally on a border with Pakistan? (That is,
two such -- India, and then Afghanistan.)

 I'm worried about an opponent who uses nation-building and the
military in the same sentence. See, our view of the military is for
our military to be properly prepared to fight and win war and,
therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place.
--Bush
Here's a snippet from a piece in the Boston Globe:
At [presidential debate, October 11, 2000] Bush recalled that the
U.S. humanitarian mission in Somalia -- begun by his father, President
George H.W. Bush -- had changed into a nation-building mission, and
that's where the mission went wrong.
He was referring to the deaths of 18 U.S. Army rangers who were killed
in Mogadishu on Oct. 3-4, 1993, after a gun battle. U.S. forces were
soon withdrawn from Somalia.
The mission was changed, and as a result, our nation paid a price,
Bush continued. And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for
what's called nation building.   
~Maru
Hope that helps
Not really. :(
We're nation-building now, and in 2002, the field had changed in two 
important respects.

Bush was commenting, in 2000, from a standpoint of being a theorist 
rather than someone having to make tough decisions; also, it's arguable 
that what he was saying *then* reflected what he believed the US 
electorate wanted to hear, not what he really felt to be true.

No, I'm looking for something a lot more current, like post-9/11/01 but 
pre-Iraq assault.

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Maybe you think removing Saddam isn't
  worth the cost.  But you can't say that opposing
 the
  invasion wasn't functionally a stand in favor of
  Saddam remaining in power, _because it was_.
 
 I think that overstates the case a bit.  I'll agree
 that anyone who was
 opposed to the invasion, including me, would have to
 accept that his
 remaining in power was a highly probable
 outcome...so it should be accepted
 as the price of not invading.  But, by the same
 token, people for invasion
 needed to accept the very good chance of other
 significant negative
 outcomes, including the tens of thosands who have
 died during the
 occupation.  I know you agree with that.

I absolutely do.  If I had said A stand against the
invasion was a stand against the people of Iraq -
that would have been completely untrue.  It is
possible - I think it unlikely, but possible - that
five years from now the people of Iraq will be worse
off than they would have been under Saddam.  Saying
they are so _now_ is like saying the people of France
were worse off in August of 1944.  They were, but that
does not make D-Day a bad idea.  But it is possible
that things will not have improved five years from
now.  But without the invasion Saddam would still have
been in power, and that's a big difference, and all I
was referring to. 

Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Freedom is not free
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com



__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Make Yahoo! your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

On May 11, 2005, at 1:06 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe you think removing Saddam isn't
worth the cost.  But you can't say that opposing
the
invasion wasn't functionally a stand in favor of
Saddam remaining in power, _because it was_.
I think that overstates the case a bit.  I'll agree
that anyone who was
opposed to the invasion, including me, would have to
accept that his
remaining in power was a highly probable
outcome...so it should be accepted
as the price of not invading.  But, by the same
token, people for invasion
needed to accept the very good chance of other
significant negative
outcomes, including the tens of thosands who have
died during the
occupation.  I know you agree with that.
I absolutely do.  If I had said A stand against the
invasion was a stand against the people of Iraq -
that would have been completely untrue.  It is
possible - I think it unlikely, but possible - that
five years from now the people of Iraq will be worse
off than they would have been under Saddam.  Saying
they are so _now_ is like saying the people of France
were worse off in August of 1944.
Uhh, actually, more like October of 1946, don't you think? Some 26 
months *after* Normandy, right?

They were, but that
does not make D-Day a bad idea.  But it is possible
that things will not have improved five years from
now.  But without the invasion Saddam would still have
been in power, and that's a big difference, and all I
was referring to.
Yeah, unless something really unexpected happened. That's another 
reason I wonder why we didn't focus more extensively on Afghanistan. 
Wouldn't it have been a good place in which to base our own insurgents? 
Only these agitating for change internally, or maybe just some 
well-placed, ahem, operatives with excellent long-distance vision and 
steady fingers?

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

At 02:36 PM Wednesday 5/11/2005, Maru Dubshinki wrote:
On 5/11/05, Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On May 11, 2005, at 10:15 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:

  I just wonder what can be done to solve the plight of those millions
  of human beings, and so far haven't heard much in the way of
  suggestions on how to save them, or an argument that the status quo is
  somehow the best of all possible scenarios and anything anyone does
  will only lead to more death and suffering.

 Apropos to Iraq, I've asked this question a few times and so far no
 one's answered it.

 So I'll ask it again.

 Assuming that:

 1. The US is interested in spreading the idea/blessing/gift/[whatever]
 of democracy to the other nations of the world; and

 2. The US's security is better served by reducing, rather than
 increasing, places where terrorists can train; and

 3. In 2001 and 2002, the REAL purpose of the US was to find and
 prosecute OBL and his cabal of lunatics; and

 4. A good US presence in the middle east would be a way to see goals 2
 and 3 successfully met,

 ...why was #1 not enacted in a nation that we know had terrorist camps,
 ties to OBL, and an oppressed people yearning for freedom?

 In early 2002, Afghanistan was entirely beaten. The oppressive Taliban
 had finally been sent packing into the hills, OBL's main training site
 had been completely taken over by US troops, the world -- with a few
 exceptions -- was completely behind us, and it looked like it would
 only be a matter of months before OBL was chased out of his own little
 spider hole somewhere.

 So why, given the above, was Afghanistan not democratized and
 stabilized entirely? With a good solid pro-US government there,
 couldn't pressure have been mounted on other nations to force
 terrorists away? Wouldn't it have been much more useful to have a
 committed and strengthening ally on a border with Pakistan? (That is,
 two such -- India, and then Afghanistan.)

 What would have been imprudent or undesirable about effecting total
 democratic transformation in Afghanistan first, using it as a case
 study to prove that we could do it? Why leave Afghanistan an unresolved
 mess -- which it still is -- to go and make another unresolved mess?

 What the hell were Rummy and the rest thinking? I'd really like to
 know. And I'd really like to know why anyone would suggest that the
 aforementioned course would have been *worse* than the one we're on
 now.


 --
 Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
 I'm worried about an opponent who uses nation-building and the
military in the same sentence. See, our view of the military is for
our military to be properly prepared to fight and win war and,
therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place.
--Bush
Here's a snippet from a piece in the Boston Globe:
At [presidential debate, October 11, 2000] Bush recalled that the
U.S. humanitarian mission in Somalia -- begun by his father, President
George H.W. Bush -- had changed into a nation-building mission, and
that's where the mission went wrong.
He was referring to the deaths of 18 U.S. Army rangers who were killed
in Mogadishu on Oct. 3-4, 1993, after a gun battle. U.S. forces were
soon withdrawn from Somalia.
The mission was changed, and as a result, our nation paid a price,
Bush continued. And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for
what's called nation building.   
~Maru
Hope that helps

I'm not sure I saw an answer to my question in there . . .
-- Ronn!  :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

On May 11, 2005, at 1:50 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
I'm not sure I saw an answer to my question in there . . .
Not from me; I was lobbing a tangent.
--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

At 03:45 PM Wednesday 5/11/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On May 11, 2005, at 1:06 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe you think removing Saddam isn't
worth the cost.  But you can't say that opposing
the
invasion wasn't functionally a stand in favor of
Saddam remaining in power, _because it was_.
I think that overstates the case a bit.  I'll agree
that anyone who was
opposed to the invasion, including me, would have to
accept that his
remaining in power was a highly probable
outcome...so it should be accepted
as the price of not invading.  But, by the same
token, people for invasion
needed to accept the very good chance of other
significant negative
outcomes, including the tens of thosands who have
died during the
occupation.  I know you agree with that.
I absolutely do.  If I had said A stand against the
invasion was a stand against the people of Iraq -
that would have been completely untrue.  It is
possible - I think it unlikely, but possible - that
five years from now the people of Iraq will be worse
off than they would have been under Saddam.  Saying
they are so _now_ is like saying the people of France
were worse off in August of 1944.
Uhh, actually, more like October of 1946, don't you think? Some 26 months 
*after* Normandy, right?

They were, but that
does not make D-Day a bad idea.  But it is possible
that things will not have improved five years from
now.  But without the invasion Saddam would still have
been in power, and that's a big difference, and all I
was referring to.
Yeah, unless something really unexpected happened. That's another reason I 
wonder why we didn't focus more extensively on Afghanistan. Wouldn't it 
have been a good place in which to base our own insurgents? Only these 
agitating for change internally, or maybe just some well-placed, ahem, 
operatives with excellent long-distance vision and steady fingers?

Good breath control is necessary, too.
-- Ronn!  :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

Since you asked... ;)
On May 11, 2005, at 10:15 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
I just wonder what can be done to solve the plight of those millions 
of human beings
Nothing.
There is no way to save the world. There is no way to change human 
nature. And what we define as a solution now might not apply in a 
different social context 100 years from now. For instance 150 years ago 
the answer to dealing with all the backward people suffering in the 
Congo seemed pretty obvious.

There's some question, too, regarding how much of the world actually 
needs saving. Do we stop at oppressive regimes? Which ones? Only the 
ones who can't nuke is in response? (So N. Korea is safe.) Just the 
ones we don't get along with at the moment? (So Saudi Arabia's safe 
too.) Or do we keep going with nations whose governmental structures 
don't match ours closely enough to suit us? (Look out, Egypt!) Or do we 
keep going based on how close to holiness -- some flavor of Xtianity 
or other -- we think they are? (Bye-bye, Thailand!)

Now with situations like Rwanda, I think things are obvious. With Iraq 
they were grey. (Why haven't we done a Regime Change on Cuba yet?) And 
then there are some are-they-or-aren't-they cases where no clear 
solution presents itself, and that makes me think that possibly -- just 
possibly -- we shouldn't be trying to fix things in the first place.

Besides, I think we're seeing that an enforced change won't work. It 
looks like the older means is still the better one -- be an example and 
let change be effected internally to a given nation. Maybe supply 
training and *some* weaponry to the freedom fighters; maybe not. The 
USSR collapsed without a revolution. That it has happened before 
suggests it can happen again.

But attempting to shoulder the responsibility of saving millions of 
miserable people, ostensibly from some oppressive government-bugaboo of 
the week? Not practical and not possible. Regrettable -- tragic -- but 
I think true.

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

At 03:53 PM Wednesday 5/11/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On May 11, 2005, at 1:50 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
I'm not sure I saw an answer to my question in there . . .
Not from me; I was lobbing a tangent.

Did its path make it an arctangent?
-- Ronn!  :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

- Original Message - 
From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

 Since you asked... ;)

 On May 11, 2005, at 10:15 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:

  I just wonder what can be done to solve the plight of those millions
  of human beings

 Nothing.

 There is no way to save the world. There is no way to change human
 nature. And what we define as a solution now might not apply in a
 different social context 100 years from now. For instance 150 years ago
 the answer to dealing with all the backward people suffering in the
 Congo seemed pretty obvious.

 There's some question, too, regarding how much of the world actually
 needs saving. Do we stop at oppressive regimes? Which ones? Only the
 ones who can't nuke is in response? (So N. Korea is safe.) Just the
 ones we don't get along with at the moment? (So Saudi Arabia's safe
 too.) Or do we keep going with nations whose governmental structures
 don't match ours closely enough to suit us? (Look out, Egypt!) Or do we
 keep going based on how close to holiness -- some flavor of Xtianity
 or other -- we think they are? (Bye-bye, Thailand!)

 Now with situations like Rwanda, I think things are obvious. With Iraq
 they were grey. (Why haven't we done a Regime Change on Cuba yet?) And
 then there are some are-they-or-aren't-they cases where no clear
 solution presents itself, and that makes me think that possibly -- just
 possibly -- we shouldn't be trying to fix things in the first place.

 Besides, I think we're seeing that an enforced change won't work. It
 looks like the older means is still the better one -- be an example and
 let change be effected internally to a given nation. Maybe supply
 training and *some* weaponry to the freedom fighters; maybe not. The
 USSR collapsed without a revolution. That it has happened before
 suggests it can happen again.

 But attempting to shoulder the responsibility of saving millions of
 miserable people, ostensibly from some oppressive government-bugaboo of
 the week? Not practical and not possible. Regrettable -- tragic -- but
 I think true.

But, it has worked a number of times, as well as not having worked a number
of times.  Western Europe and Japan are classic examples of this.  On the
whole, if you look at the amount of influence/leverage the US has had with
a country, there is a strong correlation between that influence and
representative governments.

Dan M.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

- Original Message - 
From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

 On May 11, 2005, at 1:50 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:

  I'm not sure I saw an answer to my question in there . . .

 Not from me; I was lobbing a tangent.

Weren't those outlawed in the same protocol that outlawed gas attacks?

Dan M. 

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

On May 11, 2005, at 2:06 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED]

On May 11, 2005, at 10:15 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
I just wonder what can be done to solve the plight of those millions
of human beings
Nothing.
[...]
But, it has worked a number of times, as well as not having worked a 
number
of times.
Has it? Apart from Germany and Japan post WWII, when in the history of 
the US have we been successful in installing a democratic model of 
government in any nation? (I'm really asking; I might well have 
forgotten some things!)

Western Europe and Japan are classic examples of this.
Japan was beaten. Much of Western Europe was already skewing democratic 
pre WWII. And we had the backing of the rest of the allied forces in 
both cases (post-Nazi Germany, post-imperial Japan) to help us.

Times were probably a bit simpler as well. There were no pro-Nazi or 
pro-Hirohito terrorist training camps; the context and the nature of 
the enemy have both changed considerably in the last six decades.

On the
whole, if you look at the amount of influence/leverage the US has had 
with
a country, there is a strong correlation between that influence and
representative governments.
Influence is a far cry from direct frontal assault. And it is not our 
responsibility to fix the world, particularly as there are still many 
parts of it that don't *want* our kind of fixing in the first place.

Leaving aside that it's literally practically impossible to change the 
world, what right have we to force a democratic, nominally atheistic 
government on, say, Saudi Arabia, which is a theocracy (essentially) 
steeped in Islamic literalism? Would it be any different from, for 
instance, forcing the Amish to accept the Internet? (On an ethical 
level, I mean.)

Freedom, famously, is not free; but when it's forced on someone else, 
it is not freedom.

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

2005-05-11 Thread Nick Arnett

On Wed, 11 May 2005 12:47:45 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote

 Not really, no.  Those who criticize?  No.  People
 who pontificate endlessly but suggest nothing, who
 attack any idea but provide none of their own, who
 preen constantly but contribute nothing - them, yes, I
 think that about _their_ motives.

I sense frustration.

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

2005-05-11 Thread Maru Dubshinki

On 5/11/05, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Wed, 11 May 2005 12:47:45 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote
 
  Not really, no.  Those who criticize?  No.  People
  who pontificate endlessly but suggest nothing, who
  attack any idea but provide none of their own, who
  preen constantly but contribute nothing - them, yes, I
  think that about _their_ motives.
 
 I sense frustration.
 
 Nick

Hmm... Much frustration do I sense.
Hmm... Frustration leads to fear...
Fear leads to anger...
Anger! ... leads to hatred...
Hatred leads to the Flame War, hmm yes.


~Maru 
(Should I have said 'Republican side? :)
Hmm... What up is my posterior?
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

Stick of broom it is.
At 04:42 PM Wednesday 5/11/2005, Maru Dubshinki wrote:
On 5/11/05, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Wed, 11 May 2005 12:47:45 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote

  Not really, no.  Those who criticize?  No.  People
  who pontificate endlessly but suggest nothing, who
  attack any idea but provide none of their own, who
  preen constantly but contribute nothing - them, yes, I
  think that about _their_ motives.

 I sense frustration.

 Nick
Hmm... Much frustration do I sense.
Hmm... Frustration leads to fear...
Fear leads to anger...
Anger! ... leads to hatred...
Hatred leads to the Flame War, hmm yes.
~Maru
(Should I have said 'Republican side? :)
Hmm... What up is my posterior?
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
-- Ronn!  :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons