Re: What America Does with its Hegemony

[Doug Pensinger]

JDG wrote:
I'm continually amazed at our ability to talk past each other on this 
issue.

Of course Bill Clinton would have fallen victim to using much of the same
intelligence.   That's because neither Administration was treating
intelligence as a "black box."They weren't saying "I wonder if Iraq 
has some WMD's still left - perhaps I should consult some intelligence 
to find> out."The existence of WMD's in Iraq was a GIVEN.We knew 
Iraq had
WMD's because we had seen Iraq use them - and it seemed highly 
implausable that Iraq would spend twelve years dodging inspections and 
enduring
sanctions if it had really, bona fide disarmed as the UN had mandated.
One of the reasons we keep talking past each other is because you continue 
to use the phrase "knew" when in fact you should be saying "we thought we 
knew".  In fact we didn't know as recent events have demonstrated.  
Another is that you keep using events that occurred 20 years ago, prior to 
the fist war (and with the tacit approval of the Republican administration 
at the time) to justify the second war.  Furthermore, we've seen time and 
again that the Bush administration exaggerated the threat and continued to 
use discredited information long after other administration officials had 
admitted that the information was false.

Bush approached the situation in Iraq with tunnel vision once he had found 
his justification in 911.  When he should have been concentrating on the 
overall anti-terror picture his mind was set on Iraq and little else.

Moreover, we also knew that even if Iraq had no WMD's now that it surely
was still trying to acquire them now - or else would immediately do so as
soon as France and Russia had their way an ended sanctions on Iraq.
While this may be true it in no way justifies invasion.  It justified the 
inspections that were taking place prior to the war and which were proving 
effective. They were not the instant gratification Bush was hoping to 
achieve with the invasion, but they don't have the baggage that came with 
the invasion and they could conceivably been used to force other internal 
reforms.

I know you'll probably scoff at that last, but it's my opinion that 
gradual changes are more effective and less disruptive than abrupt ones.  
At this point I think that the very best we can hope for is a state 
similar to Iran, with a hatred for Israel (the site of yet another Bush 
disaster) and western society in general and the U.S. in particular.

The only purpose of pursuing the intelligence that ultimately proved to 
be faulty was to make it politically untenable for the French  to 
continue to stand in our way. The reason it was used is because all 
humans are
naturally susceptible to believe things which confirm what they know to 
be true.   In this case, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton shared the same
knowledge of the truth.
I'm relatively certain that Clinton would never have brought in a fox to 
asses whether or not it was a good idea to raid the hen house.

--
Doug
Slow and steady wins the race maru
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: What America Does with its Hegemony

[JDG]

At 09:00 PM 5/17/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote:
>JDG  wrote:
>
>
>> The right idea:
>>
>> -military assaults on no less than four of its neighbors
>>
>> -10,000 children dying per month (per UNICEF and WHO)
>>
>> -a near permanent US presence in the Muslim Holy Land outraging Arabs
>>
>> -four years and counting of defiance of UN weapons inspections
>>
>> -torture of political prisoners
>>
>> -brutality against Olympic athletes
>>
>> -a near-permanent "lukewarm war" with Iraqis shooting at our pilots
>>
>> -child prisons
>>
>> -funding of international terrorists, particularly in Palestine
>>
>> -no elections, no freedom of speech, religion, assembly, or the press
>>
>> -anti-Semitic propaganda/brainwashing of 38 million Arabs
>>
>> -genocide of the Marsh Arab culture
>>
>> -the constant threat that Hussein would someday succeed in acquiring 
>> either
>> a ready-made nuclear bomb, or the necessary ingredients of a nuclear bomb
>>
>> -plundering of oil revenues to build palaces while impoverishing the 
>> people
>> -numerous mass graves
>>
>> -12+ years of sanctions, lies, broken promises, and failed negotiations
>>
>
>The right idea being that a poorly planned, abysmally administrated 
>invasion and subsequent reconstruction, using the trademark Bush 
>administration tactic of ignoring experts that don't come up with the 
>"right" answer, would do little or nothing to solve most of the above 
>problems. 

Exactly which of the above problems have not been solved?   And how does
this compare to the number of the above problems that have been solved?

JDG

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

Re: What America Does with its Hegemony

[JDG]

At 11:15 PM 5/20/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote:
>> Since Bill Clinton himself has stated on many
>> occasions that he agreed with the Bush
>> Administration's interpretation of Iraqi threat,
>> that's a remarkable statement of his omniscience
>> there, Doug.
>
>Would Clinton have depended on stove piped intelligence from expatriate 
>Iraqis with an agenda to make the case for invasion, while ignoring 
>evidence to the contrary from more reliable sources?  Would Clinton have 
>commissioned a study on the costs and difficulties of a war on Iraq and 
>then ignored its results?  Would Clinton have cut short the new inspection 
>regimen that was revealing that Iraq had no stockpiles of WMDs?

I'm continually amazed at our ability to talk past each other on this issue.

Of course Bill Clinton would have fallen victim to using much of the same
intelligence.   That's because neither Administration was treating
intelligence as a "black box."They weren't saying "I wonder if Iraq has
some WMD's still left - perhaps I should consult some intelligence to find
out."The existence of WMD's in Iraq was a GIVEN.We knew Iraq had
WMD's because we had seen Iraq use them - and it seemed highly implausable
that Iraq would spend twelve years dodging inspections and enduring
sanctions if it had really, bona fide disarmed as the UN had mandated.
Moreover, we also knew that even if Iraq had no WMD's now that it surely
was still trying to acquire them now - or else would immediately do so as
soon as France and Russia had their way an ended sanctions on Iraq.

The only purpose of pursuing the intelligence that ultimately proved to be
faulty was to make it politically untenable for the French  to continue to
stand in our way. The reason it was used is because all humans are
naturally susceptible to believe things which confirm what they know to be
true.   In this case, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton shared the same
knowledge of the truth.

JDG

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

Re: What America Does with its Hegemony

[Doug Pensinger]

Gautam wrote:
Since Bill Clinton himself has stated on many
occasions that he agreed with the Bush
Administration's interpretation of Iraqi threat,
that's a remarkable statement of his omniscience
there, Doug.
Would Clinton have depended on stove piped intelligence from expatriate 
Iraqis with an agenda to make the case for invasion, while ignoring 
evidence to the contrary from more reliable sources?  Would Clinton have 
commissioned a study on the costs and difficulties of a war on Iraq and 
then ignored its results?  Would Clinton have cut short the new inspection 
regimen that was revealing that Iraq had no stockpiles of WMDs?

You are right (and I was wrong), Clinton believed that Iraq was a threat.  
But he never would have approached the problem in the haphazard, 
incompetent manner the Bush administration has.

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

Re: What America Does with its Hegemony L3

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Andrew Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 3:21 AM
Subject: FW: What America Does with its Hegemony


> From: Dan Minette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

> I don't recall all the details of Rwanda or Bosnia, so I take your points
as given.
> I would argue that there was sufficient warlike activity going in both
places for
> the reasonable person to classify them as wars, but you raise a good
point.
> When is it a war and when is it a country perusing its own legitimate
internal
> security program. I would think we all agree that in both these cases
what was going
> on was more then just internal security. But there will be cases where it
is less clear.

That's true.I'll ask my Zambian daughter about some of the details when
she comes home from her trip to South America.  But, I was not thinking
about the demarkation line as war/legitimate internal security.  I'm
thinking about it as war/one group in control. The slaughter of the Jews in
Germany (which is just part of the Holocaust of course) wasn't a war
because the Jewish people didn't have an effective armed resistance.  Since
Poland offered some initial resistance, then the slaughter of Jews in
Poland might be called part of war.  I think we agree that both would be
worth intervening over, and neither is a legitimate security interest.

> >> There should be, in my opinion (and I think Doug discusses this above)
> >> some sort of body to make these decisions. The UN is flawed, in many
> >>ways, but it does have the only claim to being a world government.
>
> >But, the reality of world politics is that this will only happen when
other
> >sovereign states are threatened.  The first Gulf War is a great example
of
> >how this works.  The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq portented the
possibility
> >of Iraq taking over most of the oil production in the Middle East.  If
the
> >US didn't stop it, there would be chance that Saudi Arabia and the UAE
> >could stand for more than a few days.  So, the US got the world's
blessing
> >to reverse the invasion, but only to reverse the invasion.  They had to
> >promise to leave Hussein in power in order to obtain the world's
blessing.
> >Bush Sr. took the gamble that Hussein would fall after a big defeat.  It
> >didn't happen.
>
> I didn't know that. I have always wondered why they did not take him out.
> It highlights the current problems with the UN I guess.  Who made Bush
> promise that?

It was the only way to get the rest of the world to cooperate. I

>
> >I understand how that is nice in theory, but it doesn't really happen.
The
> >UN just gave its tacit approval to the genocide that is developing in
> >Sudan.  The UN insisted that its forces should not stop genocide in
Bosnia.
> >The UN refused to consider
>
> Yes, and there is the rub. I am thinking of a meaningful UN, cos yes,
> as it stands, there is too much politics.

I think that this may be an indication of the foundation of our
differences.  While I can admire idealism; I don't think an idealistic goal
without a practial plan to get there is a real option.  One rule of thumb
in engineering is that the best is often the enemy of the good.


> >Let me understand your point clearly then.  Take Gautam's example of the
> >advisability of the British and French stopping the remiliterization of
the
> >Rhine.  By your standards, that would have been wrong.
>
> Again, my lack of history is showing here. But I thought that happened
after
> war had been declared over Poland? They didn't start a war over the Rhine
did
> they? Or am I barking up another tree?

At
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005439


In the 1925 Treaty of Locarno, Germany had recognized both the
inviolability of its borders with France and Belgium and the
demilitarization of the Rhineland. On March 7, 1936, however, Hitler
repudiated this agreement and ordered the German armed forces (Wehrmacht)
into the demilitarized Rhineland. Hitler's action brought condemnation from
Britain and France, but neither nation intervened


Many people think that this was a place were WWII could have been stopped,
with a relatively small price to be paid.  Indeed, since Hitler had ordered
his troops to retreat if this move was opposed, the lives lost would have
been mostly due to accidents.

Looking back at WWI, one of the lessons learned was that the nations were
too quick to go to war over treaties.  Indeed, the lessons could be said to
be overlearned, with France and Germany overcompensating for previous
errors and not taking any prudent measures to stop Hitler...until it was
too late.  It a

Re: What America Does with its Hegemony

[Gary Denton]

On Mon, 17 May 2004 21:09:51 -0400, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> At 06:54 PM 5/13/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote:
> >And are you so sure that some in the U.S. don't have
> >motives that are less than honest?  Whatever their motives, at this point
> >it sure looks like the French (Chineese, Russians, Germans, Canadians etc.
> >etc.) had the right idea.
> 
> The right idea:

Let me turn all of these around.

> 
> -military assaults on no less than four of its neighbors

Assault of Iran, supported and funded by the US and Saudi Arabia.
Assault on Kuwait, only after getting the go-ahead from the US
ambassador. Gulf War 1, after the US refused to recognize it's offer
to withdraw. Attacks on Kurds pre-Gulf War 1 with no objections by the
US.  No attacks on Israel but did reward the families of suicide
bombers - as did religious groups and members of the royal family in
Saudi Arabia.  Attacks on Shiites with no intervention by the US after
Bush 1 encourage them to revolt.


> 
> -10,000 children dying per month (per UNICEF and WHO)
> 

10,000 children dying per month due to the embargo on food and
medicine imposed on Iraq by the  US.

> -a near permanent US presence in the Muslim Holy Land outraging Arabs

As in the above who are you blaming, Saddam or the US?

> 
> -four years and counting of defiance of UN weapons inspections

The UN inspectors were withdrawn after the US said they would likely
be harmed if they didn't withdraw.

> 
> -torture of political prisoners

See above, the US or Saddam?

> 
> -brutality against Olympic athletes

Stretching there.

> 
> -a near-permanent "lukewarm war" with Iraqis shooting at our pilots
> 

After Bush took office an escalation of attacks on all military and
quasi-military targets in the non-UN sanctioned no-fly zones with the
purpose to roll up all defenses and possibly provoke some response
worthy of massive retaliation.

> -child prisons

Photos not available in the US yet depicts the children and women's
wing of Iraqi prisons.

> 
> -funding of international terrorists, particularly in Palestine

No known funding of terrorists except for the family survivor money. 
This in contrast to Saudi funding.

> 
> -no elections, no freedom of speech, religion, assembly, or the press

NO elections, last year reports of how Bremer defunded the election
preparations.  The start of the civil war occurred when the CPA shut
down a Shiite newspaper for critical reporting. Prisoners and
relatives of prisoners have reported many are in jail because
neighbors have made false accusations of being against the CPA.  This
spring things started to go bad in the north after US troops fired on
marches.

> 
> -anti-Semitic propaganda/brainwashing of 38 million Arabs
> 

Criticism of Israel policies not caring how many innocents are killed
to hit one possible terrorist now non-existent in most US media.

> -genocide of the Marsh Arab culture

Revolt encouraged by Bush.  Many Shiites believe now to enable Saddam
to destroy their culture.

> 
> -the constant threat that Hussein would someday succeed in acquiring either
> a ready-made nuclear bomb, or the necessary ingredients of a nuclear bomb

US CIA repeatedly informed by reliable sources that nuclear bomb
development ended as specified in the Gulf War 1 treaty

> 
> -plundering of oil revenues to build palaces while impoverishing the people

As reported at the time with no action taken.

> -numerous mass graves

US responsible for mass graves of thousands in Gulf War 1.  After Gulf
War 1, Bush refused to intervene to stop mass killings after
encouraging revolts.
> 
> -12+ years of sanctions, lies, broken promises, and failed negotiations

You are talking about the U.S. aren't you?

> 
> Oh yes, Doug - France, China, Russia, and Germany had the right idea
> allright.   Without George Bush, things would have been so much better in
> Iraq.   Don't you agree

Absolutely,  we would have gotten rid of Saddam with world cooperation
or verified that he was not a threat to his neighbors.  In fact, we
might have done what Cheney suggested in 1998 and ended sanctions and
reopened trade so Halliburton could make money without costing US
taxpayers $200 billion and what will soon be over a thousand US
soldier lives.

> 
> JDG - Who doesn't seriously expect anyone here to have the guts to actually
> say that.

Surprise, 

This war was a massive failure, planned in the 90's, entered into
illegally, immorally, with patriotic speeches and sleazy back door
corrupt deals. It may have permanently damaged the reputation of the
US in the rest of the world. It not only clearly demonstrates the
corruption of this administration but it's massive incompetence.

Saddam was a brutal mass murdering thug supported by the US until some
people had better plans for Iraq.  I am glad he is gone, but this
administration's only sorry excuse now that they are in charge of Iraq
is that at least they are not as bad as the worst in the world.

FYI, before Bush took office 

Re: What America Does with its Hegemony

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You asked in a different post if Clinton would have
> been able to get 
> France to join the "coalition".  Clinton (or Gore
> for that matter) would 
> have been able to interpret the intelligence well
> enough to realize that 
> Iraq wasn't a real threat, and would have built on
> the good will in the 
> wake of 911 to create a _real_ coalition of free
> nations united in the 
> fight to rid the world of the blight of terrorism.

> Doug

Since Bill Clinton himself has stated on many
occasions that he agreed with the Bush
Administration's interpretation of Iraqi threat,
that's a remarkable statement of his omniscience
there, Doug.

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




__
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price.
http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: What America Does with its Hegemony

[Doug Pensinger]

JDG  wrote:

The right idea:
-military assaults on no less than four of its neighbors
-10,000 children dying per month (per UNICEF and WHO)
-a near permanent US presence in the Muslim Holy Land outraging Arabs
-four years and counting of defiance of UN weapons inspections
-torture of political prisoners
-brutality against Olympic athletes
-a near-permanent "lukewarm war" with Iraqis shooting at our pilots
-child prisons
-funding of international terrorists, particularly in Palestine
-no elections, no freedom of speech, religion, assembly, or the press
-anti-Semitic propaganda/brainwashing of 38 million Arabs
-genocide of the Marsh Arab culture
-the constant threat that Hussein would someday succeed in acquiring 
either
a ready-made nuclear bomb, or the necessary ingredients of a nuclear bomb

-plundering of oil revenues to build palaces while impoverishing the 
people
-numerous mass graves

-12+ years of sanctions, lies, broken promises, and failed negotiations
Oh yes, Doug - France, China, Russia, and Germany had the right idea
allright.   Without George Bush, things would have been so much better in
Iraq.   Don't you agree
JDG - Who doesn't seriously expect anyone here to have the guts to 
actually
say that.

The right idea being that a poorly planned, abysmally administrated 
invasion and subsequent reconstruction, using the trademark Bush 
administration tactic of ignoring experts that don't come up with the 
"right" answer, would do little or nothing to solve most of the above 
problems.  If we wanted to save lives, the kind of effort we've put into 
screwing up the situation in the Middle East (with global repercussions) 
would have gone a long way towards ending an epidemic that kills four 
million people world wide yearly.

You asked in a different post if Clinton would have been able to get 
France to join the "coalition".  Clinton (or Gore for that matter) would 
have been able to interpret the intelligence well enough to realize that 
Iraq wasn't a real threat, and would have built on the good will in the 
wake of 911 to create a _real_ coalition of free nations united in the 
fight to rid the world of the blight of terrorism.

Of course that's _if_ 911 happens under the democrats, which, IMO, is open 
to question.

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

Re: What America Does with its Hegemony

[JDG]

At 06:54 PM 5/13/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote:
>And are you so sure that some in the U.S. don't have 
>motives that are less than honest?  Whatever their motives, at this point 
>it sure looks like the French (Chineese, Russians, Germans, Canadians etc. 
>etc.) had the right idea.

The right idea:

-military assaults on no less than four of its neighbors

-10,000 children dying per month (per UNICEF and WHO)

-a near permanent US presence in the Muslim Holy Land outraging Arabs

-four years and counting of defiance of UN weapons inspections

-torture of political prisoners

-brutality against Olympic athletes 

-a near-permanent "lukewarm war" with Iraqis shooting at our pilots

-child prisons

-funding of international terrorists, particularly in Palestine

-no elections, no freedom of speech, religion, assembly, or the press

-anti-Semitic propaganda/brainwashing of 38 million Arabs

-genocide of the Marsh Arab culture

-the constant threat that Hussein would someday succeed in acquiring either
a ready-made nuclear bomb, or the necessary ingredients of a nuclear bomb

-plundering of oil revenues to build palaces while impoverishing the people
-numerous mass graves

-12+ years of sanctions, lies, broken promises, and failed negotiations

Oh yes, Doug - France, China, Russia, and Germany had the right idea
allright.   Without George Bush, things would have been so much better in
Iraq.   Don't you agree

JDG - Who doesn't seriously expect anyone here to have the guts to actually
say that.






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

FW: What America Does with its Hegemony

[Andrew Paul]

From: Dan Minette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

From: "Andrew Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> I don't think Bosnia or Rwanda were/would have been starting wars.
>> Both were civil wars as I see them, in which one, with the full support
>> of the UN, one could justify intervention to end them, not to start them.
>In Rwanda the tribal war was over.  One side had won.  After it won, it
>killed a significant fraction of the tribe that lost as well as those
>members of its own tribe that protested.  So, there was no war to stop,
>just genocide.

>The UN would definitely not support intervention, because it would violate
>the most important principal held by the member nations of the UN: the
>sovereign nature of each state in the UN.  In other words, the right of a
>nation to handle its own affairs in any way it seems fit is, practically,
>more important than stopping the evil of genocide.

>In Bosnia, it is true that there was some resistance to the Serbs, so you
>could say the war was still going on.  But, the UN's position was crystal
>clear in the Dutchbat report...the UN was not to stop genocide.  What is
>amazing about this report is that it chided Clinton for trying to work as
>an equal partner with the other nations of NATO instead of telling people
>what they would do.

>There was no way this would change at the UN.  Supporting the supremacy of
>the Serbs was in the best interest of the government of Russia. Stopping
>the war and preventing genocide was clearly in the best interest of Western
>Europe. Yet, the US had to drag them into the only real solution kicking
>years after the mess started.
>At the time I thought Bosnia was a perfect opportunity for the EU to show
>its ability to take the lead in handling a crisis in its own back yard.  It
>is clear that the countries of Europe had no stomach for it, and relied on
>the US to force a solution on them.  Looking back, this seems to flow
>naturally from the tragedy of the commons.

I don't recall all the details of Rwanda or Bosnia, so I take your points as given.
I would argue that there was sufficient warlike activity going in both places for
the reasonable person to classify them as wars, but you raise a good point.
When is it a war and when is it a country perusing its own legitimate internal
security program. I would think we all agree that in both these cases what was going
on was more then just internal security. But there will be cases where it is less 
clear.

>> There should be, in my opinion (and I think Doug discusses this above)
>> some sort of body to make these decisions. The UN is flawed, in many
>>ways, but it does have the only claim to being a world government.

>But, the reality of world politics is that this will only happen when other
>sovereign states are threatened.  The first Gulf War is a great example of
>how this works.  The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq portented the possibility
>of Iraq taking over most of the oil production in the Middle East.  If the
>US didn't stop it, there would be chance that Saudi Arabia and the UAE
>could stand for more than a few days.  So, the US got the world's blessing
>to reverse the invasion, but only to reverse the invasion.  They had to
>promise to leave Hussein in power in order to obtain the world's blessing.
>Bush Sr. took the gamble that Hussein would fall after a big defeat.  It
>didn't happen.

I didn't know that. I have always wondered why they did not take him out.
It highlights the current problems with the UN I guess.  Who made Bush
promise that? 

>>And even it would not "start wars", it would reluctantly undertake interventions 
>>in countries that had gone beyond the limit of what was agreed by the world as being
>>acceptable behaviour. That would not be an easy judgement, and lots of stalling and
>>politics would go on, and lots of indecision, but thats how it should be. Rwanda,
>>Bosnia and a few others would fall into the category of places that one would
>>intervene in.

>I understand how that is nice in theory, but it doesn't really happen.  The
>UN just gave its tacit approval to the genocide that is developing in
>Sudan.  The UN insisted that its forces should not stop genocide in Bosnia.
>The UN refused to consider

Yes, and there is the rub. I am thinking of a meaningful UN, cos yes,
as it stands, there is too much politics. 

>> Perhaps, eventually, Iraq would have too, once all other avenues had been
>>fully explored.

>France has a veto power and it specifically stated that there were no
>circumstances in which this would happen. Further, France and Russia worked
>hard between '98 and '01 to remove all restraints on Hussein.
>Gautam's senior thesis at Harvard gave a very good explaination for this.
>French comments have supported his thesis.  Oversimplifying it, I would say
>it is  nations strive to improve their relative position with the other
>nations of the world. Thus, since Hussein poses a difficult challange to
>the US, keeping Hussein in power weakens the US.  If Fr

Re: What America Does with its Hegemony

[Kevin Tarr]

At 09:54 PM 5/13/2004, you wrote:

Steve Sloan wrote:

Doug Pensinger wrote:

 > What did the U.S. have to gain by intervening in Rwanda?

Diddly squat, but that doesn't mean dedicated critics of the
US couldn't come up with something. Presumably, Rwanda had
something useful enough for past European imperialists to
colonize the country, and the critics could use that.
There have been very few critics of our intervention in Bosnia.  Even 
those who were opposed to it at the time point to it as proof of our good 
intentions.

 > If we were successful in preventing a genocide and that was
 > our clear motive in interveneing, the success of our mission
 > would speak for itself. If, instead of asking for another
 > $25 B for Iraq, we put that kind of money and effort towards
 > ending the AIDS epidemic, who could doubt our motive was pure?
Critics would claim the politicians who proposed it were using
African AIDS victims as an excuse for taking money from
taxpayers, and giving it to their buddies in the pharmaceutical
companies.

 > Only those who have dishonest motives themselves.

France's dishonest motives for opposing the war in Iraq haven't
hurt them so far.
Are you sure about that?  Were _all_ of France's motives for opposing the 
war dishonest?  And are you so sure that some in the U.S. don't have 
motives that are less than honest?  Whatever their motives, at this point 
it sure looks like the French (Chineese, Russians, Germans, Canadians etc. 
etc.) had the right idea.

--
Doug


Sure they had the right idea. Filling up their treasuries and lining 
individual pockets with stolen lucre and sweetheart deals while innocents 
died by the thousands, ten thousand a month.who wouldn't support that?

Kevin T. - VRWC
Devil in the details
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: What America Does with its Hegemony

[Doug Pensinger]

Steve Sloan wrote:

Doug Pensinger wrote:

 > What did the U.S. have to gain by intervening in Rwanda?

Diddly squat, but that doesn't mean dedicated critics of the
US couldn't come up with something. Presumably, Rwanda had
something useful enough for past European imperialists to
colonize the country, and the critics could use that.
There have been very few critics of our intervention in Bosnia.  Even 
those who were opposed to it at the time point to it as proof of our good 
intentions.

 > If we were successful in preventing a genocide and that was
 > our clear motive in interveneing, the success of our mission
 > would speak for itself. If, instead of asking for another
 > $25 B for Iraq, we put that kind of money and effort towards
 > ending the AIDS epidemic, who could doubt our motive was pure?
Critics would claim the politicians who proposed it were using
African AIDS victims as an excuse for taking money from
taxpayers, and giving it to their buddies in the pharmaceutical
companies.

 > Only those who have dishonest motives themselves.

France's dishonest motives for opposing the war in Iraq haven't
hurt them so far.
Are you sure about that?  Were _all_ of France's motives for opposing the 
war dishonest?  And are you so sure that some in the U.S. don't have 
motives that are less than honest?  Whatever their motives, at this point 
it sure looks like the French (Chineese, Russians, Germans, Canadians etc. 
etc.) had the right idea.

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

Re: What America Does with its Hegemony

[Steve Sloan II]

Doug Pensinger wrote:

> > I agree that the US should have intervened. Do you agree, if
> > it would have done so, it would have been dissed by a great
> > deal of the world for imperealism? Should we have been
> > willing to violate international law to save half a million
> > human lives?
> What did the U.S. have to gain by intervening in Rwanda?

Diddly squat, but that doesn't mean dedicated critics of the
US couldn't come up with something. Presumably, Rwanda had
something useful enough for past European imperialists to
colonize the country, and the critics could use that.
> If we were successful in preventing a genocide and that was
> our clear motive in interveneing, the success of our mission
> would speak for itself. If, instead of asking for another
> $25 B for Iraq, we put that kind of money and effort towards
> ending the AIDS epidemic, who could doubt our motive was pure?
Critics would claim the politicians who proposed it were using
African AIDS victims as an excuse for taking money from
taxpayers, and giving it to their buddies in the pharmaceutical
companies.
> Only those who have dishonest motives themselves.

France's dishonest motives for opposing the war in Iraq haven't
hurt them so far.
__
Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama => [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brin-L list pages .. http://www.brin-l.org
Science Fiction-themed online store . http://www.sloan3d.com/store
Chmeee's 3D Objects  http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee
3D and Drawing Galleries .. http://www.sloansteady.com
Software  Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links
Science fiction scans . http://www.sloan3d.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: What America Does with its Hegemony

[Doug Pensinger]

Dan wrote:

So, let my put forth a hypothetical.  Lets assume this was done by an
administration that had shown a real sucess rebuilding Afganistan, and 
had a very good team ready to work in reconstructing Iraq, and had laid 
out the real costs to the American people and gotten buy in.  Lets 
suppose that
Bush had not exaggerated the level of certainty for WMD from "there are
very strong indications...even French intelligence thinks so" to total
certainty.  In this case, with proper preparation for sucess, would
completing the Gulf War have been wrong?...especially since it faded 
into a often violated cease fire agreement instead of ending in '91.
I'm a bit confused.  You seem to be talking about the current struggle at 
the beginning of the paragraph and the first Gulf war at the end of it.  
But if the question is would I have supported the present war had the 
administration been better prepared and told the truth about its 
intentions and motivations, the answer is a definate maybe.  I think 
that's the kind of thing you can't really speculate on unless you know all 
the details of the situation.  I'll be honest with you though, Bush's 
interest in Iraq is too much like a bear's interest in a honey tree for me 
to feel comfortable with his judgement in this situation.



And the fact that the UN repeatedly insisted on not acting.  As Gautam
said, stopping the slaughter violated international law.  This brings up
the obvious question: what is the value in international law when it
requires us to, when asked, stand aside so genocide can occure?  Are we
required to follow the wishes of the UN and allow genocide to take place,
or are we morally compelled to stop genocide.  (I will argue strongly 
that the third option, getting the UN to stop genocide is often not a 
real
option.)
Some laws are just wrong.  The U.N. is a flawed institution, but the idea 
of an impartial world governing body that can solve these kinds of 
problems is, IMO, a good one.  We need to either fix the U.N. or create 
something that works.  I just don't think we can expect the rest of the 
world to be saddled and ridden by the U.S.  That said, I agree with the 
criticism of European nations in matters such as the Yugoslavia debacle.

I agree that the US should have intervened.  Do you agree, if it would 
have done so, it would have been dissed by a great deal of the world for
imperealism? Should we have been willing to violate international law to
save half a million human lives?
What did the U.S. have to gain by intervening in Rwanda?  If we were 
successful in preventing a genocide and that was our clear motive in 
interveneing, the success of our mission would speak for itself.  If, 
instead of asking for another $25 B for Iraq, we put that kind of money 
and effort towards ending the AIDS epidemic, who could doubt our motive 
was pure?  Only those who have dishonest motives themselves.

One thing I think a lot of people don't understand.  Terrorism and the war 
against it are not about convincing the terrorists that they are right or 
convincing those that fight terrorism that they are right - its about 
convincing those people that aren't sure who to believe who is right.  
Terrorists can behead a hundred Americans and it won't be as damaging to 
their reputation as the prison guard scandal is to us.  We're the ones 
waving the flag of freedom and democracy and human dignity, and the 
scandal calls our sincerity into question.  That the terrorists are 
murdering, gutless scumbags is not breaking news, but the prison scandal 
reinforces the idea that they _have_ to be murdering, gutless scumbags in 
order to combat this mega-power that humiliates their people.

Please don't construe the above as justifying anything the terrorists do.  
Terrorism needs to be eliminated, but we're going about it all wrong.  Win 
the hearts and minds of the undecided.  Prove your sincerity in a manner 
it's difficult to question.  Intervening in Rwanda with nothing to gain 
other than knowing we we're doing the right thing, is the kind of thing 
that convinces the undecided that we are sincere.  Invading Iraq where our 
motives are more easily questioned, no matter how sincere we might be, is 
a much more difficult proposition.

I've got to cut this off and get some sleep.  Hopefully I can finish 
tomorrow.

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

Re: What America Does with its Hegemony

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: What America Does with its Hegemony


> Dan wrote:
>
 wrong with overturning a genocidal dictator.
>
> I think the world needs a mechanism to deal with these crisis.  This
would
> obviously require the cooperation of many disparate nations and after the
> current debacle is more of a pipe dream than ever.  What Bush has tried
to
> do is to tell the world how things are going to be and I think that the
> lesson we are learning is that no matter how powerful we are, we're not
> going to get the Middle East or any other region of the world to tow the
> line based on our say so.

To be fair to him, I think what he was trying to do was change the nature
of the game.  The thought was, just like Japan and Germany, people would be
happy with a good representative government in Iraq.  This happiness would
make them very protective of that government, and in short order we'd have
a shining example of what could be in the mid-East.  This would be the
first step in "draining the swamp."

In principal, it is a worthwhile goal.  Our own Gautam has been trying to
risk his life to help accomplish this goal.  I think that the folks who
pushed for this from way back are idealists...complete with the blindness
to reality that some realists have.

I fault the Bush administration for acting as if, once Hussein was
overthrown, things would work out very straightforwardly.  They were
horrendously unprepared, and acted as a typical leadership team caught up
in management by wishful thinking.  They considered those who pointed out
real difficulties nay-sayers and either ignored them or pushed them out.

So, let my put forth a hypothetical.  Lets assume this was done by an
administration that had shown a real sucess rebuilding Afganistan, and had
a very good team ready to work in reconstructing Iraq, and had laid out the
real costs to the American people and gotten buy in.  Lets suppose that
Bush had not exaggerated the level of certainty for WMD from "there are
very strong indications...even French intelligence thinks so" to total
certainty.  In this case, with proper preparation for sucess, would
completing the Gulf War have been wrong?...especially since it faded into a
often violated cease fire agreement instead of ending in '91.



> Our action in Bosnia was the culmination of a problem that had festered
in
> eastern Europe for a decade or so.  It wasn't just the 'cleansing' that
> was taking place at the time that prompted the action, but the fact that
a
> series of atrocities had occurred over the years and it became obvious
> that the cycle of violence had to be ended.

And the fact that the UN repeatedly insisted on not acting.  As Gautam
said, stopping the slaughter violated international law.  This brings up
the obvious question: what is the value in international law when it
requires us to, when asked, stand aside so genocide can occure?  Are we
required to follow the wishes of the UN and allow genocide to take place,
or are we morally compelled to stop genocide.  (I will argue strongly that
the third option, getting the UN to stop genocide is often not a real
option.)

While I'm asking questions, I should explictly give my own position here.
The best thing to have happened was for NATO to intervene with all force
necessary immediately...with Europe in the lead...with or without UN
blessing. The next best thing was for the US to prod Europe into doing
this.

> Rwanda is probably the most persuasive argument for a policing mechanism.
> There is very little political interest in these poor African nations and
> just as importantly there is little interest in the press.  The AIDS
> epidemic is a festering wound and our lack of decisiveness to combat it
is
> going to come back to bite us.  Big time.  So yes, we should have taken
> action in Rwanda and I think that if Clinton had tried to he could have
> made a huge difference there.  Its a black mark on his record, and no one
> knows it more than he does.

I agree that the US should have intervened.  Do you agree, if it would have
done so, it would have been dissed by a great deal of the world for
imperealism? Should we have been willing to violate international law to
save half a million human lives?


> Iraq was (and remains) a much more difficult problem.  In basing our
> economy around oil we have accorded an importance to the nations of the
> Middle East that they would never have achieved otherwise. One of Bush's
> big mistakes, IMO, was to reverse the trend towards trying to develop
> alternatives to the oil that fuels this exaggerated importance.  You
might
> recall a post that JDG made about how we are much less vulner

Re: What America Does with its Hegemony

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 10:23 AM
Subject: Re: What America Does with its Hegemony

I had an unfinished thought...sorry.

> I understand how that is nice in theory, but it doesn't really happen.
The
> UN just gave its tacit approval to the genocide that is developing in
> Sudan.  The UN insisted that its forces should not stop genocide in
Bosnia.
> The UN refused to consider

the genocide in Rwanda in any serious manner.  They only way that it would
have been stopped in time was for the US to make a plausible threat to
immediately intervene with all due speed and all necessary means to stop
it.  The US would be called all sorts of names for this, of course, if the
genocide were stopped early enough most of the rest of the world would have
denied its existence...but the disgust of the rest of the world would have
been the necessary price paid by the US to stop genocide.

Dan M.


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

Re: What America Does with its Hegemony

[Julia Thompson]

Dan Minette wrote:

> I understand how that is nice in theory, but it doesn't really happen.  The
> UN just gave its tacit approval to the genocide that is developing in
> Sudan.  The UN insisted that its forces should not stop genocide in Bosnia.
> The UN refused to consider

Consider what?

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

Re: What America Does with its Hegemony

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Andrew Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 8:08 AM
Subject: RE: What America Does with its Hegemony

> I dont think Bosnia or Rwanda were/would have been starting wars.
> Both were civil wars as I see them, in which one, with the full support
> of the UN, one could justify intervention to end them, not to start them.

In Rwanda the tribal war was over.  One side had won.  After it won, it
killed a significant fraction of the tribe that lost as well as those
members of its own tribe that protested.  So, there was no war to stop,
just genocide.

The UN would definately not support intervention, because it would violate
the most important principal held by the member nations of the UN: the
soverign nature of each state in the UN.  In other words, the right of a
nation to handle its own affairs in any way it seems fit is, practically,
more important than stopping the evil of genocide.

In Bosnia, it is true that there was some resistance to the Serbs, so you
could say the war was still going on.  But, the UN's position was crystal
clear in the Dutchbat report...the UN was not to stop genocide.  What is
amazing about this report is that it chided Clinton for trying to work as
an equal partner with the other nations of NATO instead of telling people
what they would do.

There was no way this would change at the UN.  Supporting the supremacy of
the Serbs was in the best interest of the government of Russia. Stopping
the war and preventing genocide was clearly in the best interest of Western
Europe. Yet, the US had to drag them into the only real solution kicking
years after the mess started.

At the time I thought Bosnia was a perfect opportunity for the EU to show
its ability to take the lead in handling a crisis in its own back yard.  It
is clear that the countries of Europe had no stomach for it, and relied on
the US to force a solution on them.  Looking back, this seems to flow
naturally from the tragedy of the commons.



> There should be, in my opinion (and I think Doug discusses this above)
> some sort of body to make these decisions. The UN is flawed, in many
ways,
> but it does have the only claim to being a world government.

But, the reality of world politics is that this will only happen when other
soverign states are threatened.  The first Gulf War is a great example of
how this works.  The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq portented the possibility
of Iraq taking over most of the oil production in the Middle East.  If the
US didn't stop it, there would be chance that Saudi Arabia and the UAE
could stand for more than a few days.  So, the US got the world's blessing
to reverse the invasion, but only to reverse the invasion.  They had to
promise to leave Hussein in power in order to obtain the world's blessing.
Bush Sr. took the gamble that Hussein would fall after a big defeat.  It
didn't happen.


> And even it would
> not "start wars", it would reluctantly undertake interventions in
countries that
> had gone beyond the limit of what was agreed by the world as being
acceptable
> behaviour. That would not be an easy judgement, and lots of stalling and
politics
> would go on, and lots of indecision, but thats how it should be. Rwanda,
Bosnia
> and a few others would fall into the category of places that one would
intervene in.

I understand how that is nice in theory, but it doesn't really happen.  The
UN just gave its tacit approval to the genocide that is developing in
Sudan.  The UN insisted that its forces should not stop genocide in Bosnia.
The UN refused to consider

> Perhaps, eventually, Iraq would have too, once all other avenues had been
fully explored.

France has a veto power and it specifically stated that there were no
circumstances in which this would happen. Further, France and Russia worked
hard between '98 and '01 to remove all restraints on Hussein.
Gautam's senior thesis at Harvard gave a very good explaination for this.
French comments have supported his thesis.  Oversimplifying it, I would say
it is  nations strive to improve their relative position with the other
nations of the world. Thus, since Hussein poses a difficult challange to
the US, keeping Hussein in power weakens the US.  If France gains
commercial contracts with Hussein, France benefits.  Thus, Hussein
represents a benefit to France...and it is in France's best interest to
keep Hussein in power. It is also in France's best interest for the US to
check that power, since a nuclear armed Hussein would pose a danger to
France.  But, since France can count on Israel and the US to check these
ambitions, it even behooves France to help Hussein become a nuclear power.

Back to the Gulf War. Hussein started a new campaign of killing (which
looked like the start of genocide) after recovering 

Re: [L3] Re: Warhorses (was: What America Does with its Hegemony)

[Damon Agretto]

> la gineta style of riding, which influenced the horse
> cultures of the Gauchos, Charros and Llaneros."
>
> They spell it "gineta."  (I'd seen it as something
> more like "jineta.")

FYI this seems to be alluding to the Jinetes class of military fighting men
of Spain, of lower class and equipment than a knight and IIRC drawn from the
free peasantry or possibly holding fiefs as sergeants. They wore little to
no armor, and were adept at horsemanship in a way and style that was
different from knights and other mtd sergeants then in Europe (using short
sturrups and smaller saddles, rather than in other nations, where the trend
was towards longer stirrups and higher saddles, which were beneficial when
fighting on horseback).

> OK - and I'm coming at it from a horseman's
> perspective as well.  But then is this site incorrect,
> WRT the Battle of Hastings?

Numbers seem a little off, or rather, a little high. Willian probably had
half that number. Additionally, William's knights were less than decisive.
In a time when battles lasted a few hours at the most, Hastings apparently
(according to the sources) lasted most of the day, from about dawn to dusk.
William's cavalry had great difficulty against the English, who had arrayed
themselves on a ridge that IIRC straddled the Old Roman road from the coast.
So not only was Willaim charging up-hill, but he was additionally charging
into the shields and spears of the English.

The English fighting style of the day was a shieldwall...essentially
fighting men would array themselves much like a Greek phalanx with shields
nearly overlapping, presenting the enemy a wall bristling with spears. As
long as they kept the formation and remained steady (the front ranks were
often made up the best armored and steadiest of men, usually wealthy freemen
oweing fyrd service, or even the household troops -- Housecarls -- of the
nobles and the King) horses will not charge through such an impedement.
Additionally, the terrain was such that Willaim couldn't turn the flanks.

Some of the sources suggest that one branch of King Harold Godwinson's army
became emboldened at the latest failed charge of Willaims knights and tried
to pursue. They broke formation and were destroyed by the knights. This
breach allowed the knights then to roll up the flanks and (eventually) kill
Harold (though the sources differ on how he was killed).
> OTOH, this site says they carried under 300#:

Yes, I agree more with this. My sources (such as Prestwich, Contamine and
Nicolle) suggest the size and power of warhorses were more for the endurance
they could provide, rather than sheer lifting (or carrying) power.
Additionally (to dispell more myths) a fully armored fighting man in plate
armor was quite agile, and probably less burdened than a modern infantryman
wearing a full pack. Sources (not to mention modern reenactors) show that a
fully armored man could leap over the hindquarters of his mount and do other
feats.

Additionally, horse armor was rare in European armies until much later.
Although there is tantalizing mentions of mail bard for warhorses as early
as the late 12th C, horse armor didn't really appear to be popular (unless
you count the heraldric bard of earlier times -- trappers and such -- which
may have hid padded armor that was surprisingly effective against slashing
blows than one would think) until the 14th C, when leather and/or steel
armor was used to protect the head and chest of horses. It wasn't until a
century later that full plate bard would come to use, probably starting
early in the 15th C, but becoming more popular (relatively speaking) around
the middle to late 15th C.

Damon.

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

[L3] Re: Warhorses (was: What America Does with its Hegemony)

[Deborah Harrell]

> Damon Agretto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[I wrote]

> > I'll try to find some on-line pix of the various
> > riding styles (knight vs. Moor) etc.
 
> The reason why I inquired is because, as you may
> know, I have a history
> degree, and would tenatively describe myself as a
> military historian. I have
> plenty of source material on the subject. But when
> you say that Arabians
> "revolutionized" cavalry, you must be very careful
> to define specifically what you mean. 

"Arabians and Barbs," I wrote; the 'revolution' was in
the changeover from heavier-type horses to lighter,
more responsive ones -- although this is certainly
from the horseman's perspective, and I daresay the
introduction of guns had a far more revolutionary
impact on warfare than a change of riding technique.
It was not overnight, as the Muslim invasion began in
~711 AD, and conflict continued for centuries.

http://www.sulphurs.com/history.htm
"Regardless of the exact influence of one breed over
another [Iberian Sorreia and North African Barb -
there is some evidence that the Barb came from the
Sorreia and not the other way 'round], it is evident
that the exchange of blood was mutually beneficial and
that it produced many similarities between the two
breeds, to the point that the modern Barb resembles
the Iberian stock and the Criollo horses of South
America. During the almost eight hundred years in
which Spain and Portugal were in constant war with the
Moors, horse and horsemanship had become finely
attuned to the war exercises. This superb war horse
was the one that the conquistadors introduced and
dispersed throughout the New World together with the a
la gineta style of riding, which influenced the horse
cultures of the Gauchos, Charros and Llaneros." 

They spell it "gineta."  (I'd seen it as something
more like "jineta.")  [This site is somewhat biased in
favor of the antiquity of the Iberian horse and its
influence - but so are Arabian, Appaloosa and many
other breeders/sites!  IMHO, the Arabian and the
Iberian are both very important in the history of
horsebreeds - but not coincidentally, I adore both.]

I also mentioned 'other oriental horses' and they were
introduced to the Iberian Penninsula at various times:

http://www.appaloosa-crossing.com/history101.htm
"Great quantities of Oriental blood were introduced
into Spain centuries prior to the birth of Christ. 
Periods of civilization and/or invasion of the
peninsula include those of the Iberians (originally
from north of Africa), peoples of the Alamanni,
Basques (province of Navarre), Carthaginians, Celts,
Cimbrians, Franks, Greeks, the Moorish invasion of
172-175 A.D., the Muslim invasion of 711 A.D.,
Ostragoths, Phoenicians, Romans, Suebi, Teutons,
Vandals, Vistigoths, and perhaps some others (and not
in order given).  Each of these civilizations brought
horses that had an influence on the native horses of
Spain."
[although the Sorreia-type has I think the more
ancient claim and influence, and I believe that it is
also found in cave paintings.]

>For example, I'm a big proponent of
> the Late Medieval
> military revolution of using fully mounted armies.
> This revolution was
> strategic, rather than tactical (most of the troops
> would ride to the
> battlefield, but dismount to actually come to grips
> with the enemy). So obviously our terms differ.

OK - and I'm coming at it from a horseman's
perspective as well.  But then is this site incorrect,
WRT the Battle of Hastings?

http://www.imh.org/imh/kyhpl2a.html#xtocid165601
"In 1066, William the Conqueror of Normandy put 3,000
horses on 700 small sailing ships and headed across
the channel to England. William had come to secure his
right to the English throne from King Harold. They met
in a valley near Hastings where William's army was
victorious due largely to his cavalry assisted by
archers. They charged into the wall of shields put up
by the Saxon infantry, but shields were little defense
against war-horses and knights." 
 
> For more information, I would highly reccommend
> looking at medieval history
> books. In particular, Michael Prestwich in _Armies
> and Warfare in the Middle
> Ages: The English Experience_ has some good info on
> warhorses in medieval
> England (which would probably be applicable to other
> areas of Europe,
> especially as the English busily imported breeding
> stock from Spain during the 14th C).

  And from Friesland as well:
http://www.imh.org/imh/bw/friesian.html
"From records of the past we know that the Friesian
horse of old was famous. There is information from as
early as 1251 and there are books in which Friesian
horses were mentioned and praised from as early as the
16th century. 

"Armored knights of old found this horse very
desirable, having the strength to carry great weight
into battle and still maneuver quickly. Later, its
suppleness and agility made the breed much sought
after for use in riding schools in Paris and Spain
during the 15th and 16th centuries...

"...The well-known E

RE: What America Does with its Hegemony

[Andrew Paul]

From: Dan Minette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 


>> I don't agree with Andrew completely.  For instance the pre-emptive strike
>> by Israel in the Seven Day War was justified.

Thats a tricky one, to be honest I don't know enough about it to comment.
Taking a premptive strike, like if the French had launched an attack hours before
the Germans invaded in 1940, to gain a strategic advantage over an enemy poised to 
invade
and essentially already at war, I would not view that as "starting" a war. The balance 
of strenght is 
also relevant. I am not opposed to defensive wars, they are unfortunate but beyond 
ones control
really. Its wars of agression that you dont start.

For any who wish to cast this as the situation in Iraq, with TWAT as the war already
declared, I would seek three bits of info. 1) Where were the poised Iraqi Armies
about to invade America, or England, or Australia et al. 2) Where is the evidence
that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 etc, ie that he was at war with any of the 
above.
3)Even if both the above were true, what sort of evidence do we have that America
was in any way threated by Iraq.

>> It becomes more obvious every day however, that the invasion of Iraq was
>> unjustified, ill advised and poorly executed (not withstanding the
>> effectiveness of the military whose initial performance was exemplary.)

>OK, you put brackets on your opinion, which I appreciate.  But, let me
>explore it further.  Was our intervention in Bosnia acceptable?  Should we
>have stopped the genocide in Rwanda?  Our hands are full, but should
>somebody stop what's going on in Sudan?  What about my position.  If
>Hussein was sill killing people by the tens of thousands per year after we
>had a success in Afghanistan, and the sanctions were working no better,
>would it have been justified?

I dont think Bosnia or Rwanda were/would have been starting wars. 
Both were civil wars as I see them, in which one, with the full support
of the UN, one could justify intervention to end them, not to start them.
Afghanistan is a little more complex, but I can see that as a legitimate 
response to an attack. The war started on 9/11, and it was clear that
the Taliban were a party to it. I dont think that was starting a war,
and it had the tacit backing of the world community.

>The lack of preparation by the Bush administration clearly was a factor in
>my believing the war in Iraq was unwise.  But, I don't think there is
>anything inherently wrong with overturning a genocidal dictator.
 
There should be, in my opinion (and I think Doug discusses this above)
some sort of body to make these decisions. The UN is flawed, in many ways,
but it does have the only claim to being a world government. And even it would
not "start wars", it would reluctantly undertake interventions in countries that
had gone beyond the limit of what was agreed by the world as being acceptable 
behaviour. That would not be an easy judgement, and lots of stalling and politics
would go on, and lots of indecision, but thats how it should be. Rwanda, Bosnia
and a few others would fall into the category of places that one would intervene in.
Perhaps, eventually, Iraq would have too, once all other avenues had been fully 
explored.
 
Soverign nations dont start wars with other soverign nations. Wars are forced upon you,
not undertaken cos it seems like a good idea at the time.
 
Anyway, moral issues aside, I just thought it was a stupid idea to invade Iraq.
 
Ohh, I got bitten by an insect ! Hey look there is a bee's nest, lets go and
poke a stick in it and swirl it about a bit, that will stop it happening again.
Sure.. great idea guys.
 
Andrew
 

 


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

Re: What America Does with its Hegemony

[Doug Pensinger]

Dan wrote:

OK, you put brackets on your opinion, which I appreciate.  But, let me
explore it further.  Was our intervention in Bosnia acceptable?  Should 
we
have stopped the genocide in Rwanda?  Our hands are full, but should
somebody stop what's going on in Sudan?  What about my position.  If
Hussein was sill killing people by the tens of thousands per year after 
we had a success in Afghanistan, and the sanctions were working no 
better,
would it have been justified?

The lack of preparation by the Bush administration clearly was a factor 
in my believing the war in Iraq was unwise.  But, I don't think there is
anything inherently wrong with overturning a genocidal dictator.
I think the world needs a mechanism to deal with these crisis.  This would 
obviously require the cooperation of many disparate nations and after the 
current debacle is more of a pipe dream than ever.  What Bush has tried to 
do is to tell the world how things are going to be and I think that the 
lesson we are learning is that no matter how powerful we are, we're not 
going to get the Middle East or any other region of the world to tow the 
line based on our say so.

Our action in Bosnia was the culmination of a problem that had festered in 
eastern Europe for a decade or so.  It wasn't just the 'cleansing' that 
was taking place at the time that prompted the action, but the fact that a 
series of atrocities had occurred over the years and it became obvious 
that the cycle of violence had to be ended.

Rwanda is probably the most persuasive argument for a policing mechanism.  
There is very little political interest in these poor African nations and 
just as importantly there is little interest in the press.  The AIDS 
epidemic is a festering wound and our lack of decisiveness to combat it is 
going to come back to bite us.  Big time.  So yes, we should have taken 
action in Rwanda and I think that if Clinton had tried to he could have 
made a huge difference there.  Its a black mark on his record, and no one 
knows it more than he does.

Iraq was (and remains) a much more difficult problem.  In basing our 
economy around oil we have accorded an importance to the nations of the 
Middle East that they would never have achieved otherwise. One of Bush's 
big mistakes, IMO, was to reverse the trend towards trying to develop 
alternatives to the oil that fuels this exaggerated importance.  You might 
recall a post that JDG made about how we are much less vulnerable to 
inflation as the result of a fuel shortage than we were in the late '70s, 
reason being we are _less_ dependant on that fuel.  But with the emergence 
of China as a consumer nation and the maturing of other populous nations 
such as India, the demand for fossil fuels is rising quickly, and the 
importance of the Middle East - the relevance of the Middle East is 
rapidly rising.

What does this have to do with the invasion of Iraq?  Everything.  No 
matter how desperate the condition of the people in Iraq, any intervention 
there had to be approached with the utmost delicacy.  Our motivations, 
even with the best of intentions, are automatically suspect by the Iraqis, 
by all Arab/Middle East nations and indeed by the entire world community.  
That's why it was even more important to line up an air-tight coalition 
prior to intervention for humanitarian purposes.

Of course, despite the smoke and mirrors thrown up by the supporters of 
the invasion after the fact, the stated reason for the invasion was not 
humanitarian in nature.  So the question really goes back to did Iraq pose 
a threat to us and in retrospect, they did not.

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

Re: What America Does with its Hegemony

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 1:11 AM
Subject: Re: What America Does with its Hegemony



> I don't agree with Andrew completely.  For instance the pre-emptive
strike
> by Israel in the Seven Day War was justified.


> It becomes more obvious every day however, that the invasion of Iraq was
> unjustified, ill advised and poorly executed (not withstanding the
> effectiveness of the military whose initial performance was exemplary.)

OK, you put brackets on your opinion, which I appreciate.  But, let me
explore it further.  Was our intervention in Bosnia acceptable?  Should we
have stopped the genocide in Rwanda?  Our hands are full, but should
somebody stop what's going on in Sudan?  What about my position.  If
Hussein was sill killing people by the tens of thousands per year after we
had a success in Afghanistan, and the sanctions were working no better,
would it have been justified?

The lack of preparation by the Bush administration clearly was a factor in
my believing the war in Iraq was unwise.  But, I don't think there is
anything inherently wrong with overturning a genocidal dictator.

Dan M.


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

Re: What America Does with its Hegemony

[Doug Pensinger]

Dan wrote:

But, if one supports Andrew's statement as it stands, it would be 
worthwhile to see how they consider the most obvious counter-examples.
I don't agree with Andrew completely.  For instance the pre-emptive strike 
by Israel in the Seven Day War was justified.

It becomes more obvious every day however, that the invasion of Iraq was 
unjustified, ill advised and poorly executed (not withstanding the 
effectiveness of the military whose initial performance was exemplary.)

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

Re: What America Does with its Hegemony

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 11:41 AM
Subject: RE: What America Does with its Hegemony

>   If I usually argue that certain
> reports on the list that things are disastrous are not
> true, that's because almost everyone else on the list
> is in the opposite direction and I _loathe_
> groupthink.

One of the things that I noticed is that discussion on the finer points of
the question involved usually trails off into nothing.

For example, yesterday Andrew Paul stated that starting a war is always
wrong because it always turns out for the worst. Gautam and I question the
word "always" and gave some potential counter examples.  Nothing came in
response.

It seems that this is fertile ground for debate.  My guess for a generality
is that the right answer is that starting a war is usually wrong but
sometimes necessary.  The real question is what are the factors.  Gautam
came up with what sounded like a reasonable set of criteria back before the
war started.

We could debate those criteria if we disagree with them; we could debate
the present circumstance against those criteria if we agree with them. All
that would generate more light than heat.

IMHO, a good start would either be a defense of Andrew's statement or
statements that this is an overgeneralization, but that a better statement
would be Xby those who think the Iraq war was a bad idea.  Obviously
I'm biased here, because I see a very complex question...and naturally see
my own position as most reasonable.  But, if one supports Andrew's
statement as it stands, it would be worthwhile to see how they consider the
most obvious counter-examples.

Dan M.


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

RE: What America Does with its Hegemony

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Ritu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As for the 'unobjective' bit, that wasn't posturing.
> It was my honest
> opinion. I wasn't challenging the validity of your
> sources, just your
> interpretation of the news. I don't mean to offend,
> but I do think that
> your enthusiasm for this project [democratising the
> mid-east via Iraq]
> often clouds your perception of how well the project
> is shaping up on
> the ground.
> 
> Ritu

Ritu, I'm pretty confident that only one person on
this list _knows_ what my perception of how well the
project is shaping up is.  I have been very careful
not to share it.  If I usually argue that certain
reports on the list that things are disastrous are not
true, that's because almost everyone else on the list
is in the opposite direction and I _loathe_
groupthink.  

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




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs  
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: What America Does with its Hegemony

[Ritu]

Gautam wrote:

> Gautam has spent long enough on this list that his
> patience is entirely worn out, which occasionally
> shows up in unwarranted sarcasm.

That's perfectly understandable. :)
Please feel free to take an occasional swipe at me. After all, it lets
me do the same and there *are* times when nothing is quite as satisfying
as being sarcastic. Wouldn't you agree? ;)

> And, Ritu, to be fair to myself I could ask you the
> same.  If you want to posture about how I'm
> unobjective or the superiority of your foreign news
> sources, you can certainly expect some of the same
> back.  I daresay I have my own ways of getting
> information that stand up to those of most people
> outside the government.

Gautam, I don't consider my foreign news sources 'superior'. All I can
access atm is the net and that is available to everyone.

As for the 'unobjective' bit, that wasn't posturing. It was my honest
opinion. I wasn't challenging the validity of your sources, just your
interpretation of the news. I don't mean to offend, but I do think that
your enthusiasm for this project [democratising the mid-east via Iraq]
often clouds your perception of how well the project is shaping up on
the ground.

Ritu

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

Re: Warhorses (was: What America Does with its Hegemony)

[Damon Agretto]

> I'll try to find some on-line pix of the various
> riding styles (knight vs. Moor) etc.

The reason why I inquired is because, as you may know, I have a history
degree, and would tenatively describe myself as a military historian. I have
plenty of source material on the subject. But when you say that Arabians
"revolutionized" cavalry, you must be very careful to define specifically
what you mean. For example, I'm a big proponent of the Late Medieval
military revolution of using fully mounted armies. This revolution was
strategic, rather than tactical (most of the troops would ride to the
battlefield, but dismount to actually come to grips with the enemy). So
obviously our terms differ.

For more information, I would highly reccommend looking at medieval history
books. In particular, Michael Prestwich in _Armies and Warfare in the Middle
Ages: The English Experience_ has some good info on warhorses in medieval
England (which would probably be applicable to other areas of Europe,
especially as the English busily imported breeding stock from Spain during
the 14th C).

> Don't Throw Me Into That Briar-patch Maru  ;)

We all have our briar patches...

Damon.

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

Warhorses (was: What America Does with its Hegemony)

[Deborah Harrell]

> Damon Agretto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [I wrote:]

> > Arabian horses, of course!  ;)
> > I'm being a little over-the-top, but since at the
> >time horses were the best overland transport and
> military
> > assets, the impact of the introduction of Arabian
> >and Barb horses, along with style-of-riding, was 
>  huge.  As
> > anyone who has worked with heavy/draft horses vs.
> > Arabs & their cousins can tell you, the
> responsiveness
> > of the light horse is remarkable; they changed
> >cavalry tactics -- perhaps not, in retrospect, a
> > thing for the better...
 
> Can you put this in historical context? Medieval
> warhorses were not
> clydesdales, or draft horses. They were larger, yes,
> but according to my
> sources this meant they had larger chests and
> hindquarters.

I'm going to answer from the books I've read, but will
check out 'net sources later -- because I've spotted
at least one error in _The Encyclopedia Of The Horse_,
which is generally a very good sourcebook put out by
the British Riding Club (or Association?).

The drafts Shire, Belgian and probably the Percheron
were all descendents of what is called either the
Great Horse of Flanders or the Great Medieval Warhorse
(when crossed with native mares in England, it became
the Great English Black Horse -> eventually the
Shire).  These horses carried roughly 400# of man,
armor, tack and horse-armor, IIRC; as a horse cannot
easily carry more than a quarter of its bodyweight for
significant periods of time, that would make these
animals need to be 1600#, which puts them in the
drafter category.  The Friesian-type, a lighter draft,
goes back for at least 1000 years (it was modified by
the addition of Andalusian blood centuries ago, they
in turn a result of the crossing of Moorish Barbs and
other oriental horses with the Spanish native
jennets), and would be less bulky and more nimble than
the other drafters (of course the Percheron also was
influenced by the introduction of Arabian blood after
-IIRC- the Battle of Tours, and they too are a bit
lighter and nimbler than the Shire).

Interestingly, there were 'clydesdale-type' horses in
some prehistoric European cave paintings, as well as
Exmoor pony-types and tarpan-types (the latter typical
of the Assyrian charioteer horses).

However, the modern German Holsteiner (now greatly
lightened by the addition of Thoroughbred and other
blood) did descend from the German medieval warhorse,
and those were more of a carriage-type build than
draft-type -- I recall seeing some woodcuts of German
knights who appeared to be less heavily-armored, and
on lighter horses such as you describe.

I'll try to find some on-line pix of the various
riding styles (knight vs. Moor) etc.

Debbi
Don't Throw Me Into That Briar-patch Maru  ;)




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs  
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: What America Does with its Hegemony

[Damon Agretto]

> Arabian horses, of course!  ;)
> I'm being a little over-the-top, but since at the time
> horses were the best overland transport and military
> assets, the impact of the introduction of Arabian and
> Barb horses, along with style-of-riding, was huge.  As
> anyone who has worked with heavy/draft horses vs.
> Arabs & their cousins can tell you, the responsiveness
> of the light horse is remarkable; they changed cavalry
> tactics -- perhaps not, in retrospect, a thing for the
> better...

Can you put this in historical context? Medieval warhorses were not
clydesdales, or draft horses. They were larger, yes, but according to my
sources this meant they had larger chests and hindquarters.

Damon.

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

Re: What America Does with its Hegemony

[Deborah Harrell]

> Gary Denton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Richard Baker wrote:

> > The Muslims may have contributed many worthwhile
> things to civilisation
> > but the invention of zero wasn't one of them. So
> far as I know, the idea
> > of "zero" in number systems was independently
> invented by the
> > Babylonians, the Mayans and the Indians (before
> Islam!); the Arabs
> > learned about zero from India, and then passed the
> idea on to Europe.

> Translations of Arabic works helped spark  the
> Renaissance but except
> for some paper, medicine, mathematics and drugs I am
> not sure what
> Europeans acquired that was original to the Islamic
> world.

Arabian horses, of course!  ;)
I'm being a little over-the-top, but since at the time
horses were the best overland transport and military
assets, the impact of the introduction of Arabian and
Barb horses, along with style-of-riding, was huge.  As
anyone who has worked with heavy/draft horses vs.
Arabs & their cousins can tell you, the responsiveness
of the light horse is remarkable; they changed cavalry
tactics -- perhaps not, in retrospect, a thing for the
better...

Debbi
A La Jineta And A La Breda* Maru

*spelling might be way off; refers to a more forward
seat with shorter stirrups vs. long stirruped 'hold
the rider in place' riding




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs  
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: What America Does with its Hegemony

[Damon Agretto]

> Translations of Arabic works helped spark  the
> Renaissance but except
> for some paper, medicine, mathematics and drugs I am
> not sure what
> Europeans acquired that was original to the Islamic
> world.

That is, if you believe in a Rennaisance...

The translation of Greco-roman literature from Arabic
sources accounts for only a part of the literature
available to Europe. Often underplayed are the
scriptorums of Italy and Southern France (amongst
others) that busily preserved such literature
throughout the MA. 

Furthermore, much of the foundation for Arabic
learning is of course Greco-Roman, and was gained
through the contact they had with the Romans in the
East (i.e. the Byzantines).

Damon.



=

Damon Agretto
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum."
http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html
Now Building: 





__
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs  
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: What America Does with its Hegemony

[Gary Denton]

Translations of Arabic works helped spark  the Renaissance but except
for some paper, medicine, mathematics and drugs I am not sure what
Europeans acquired that was original to the Islamic world.

The loss of the great universities and even the manufacturing sites in
Spain also had a lot to do with the decline of Islamic culture.


On Thu, 6 May 2004 02:53:17 -0700, Richard Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Muslims may have contributed many worthwhile things to civilisation
> but the invention of zero wasn't one of them. So far as I know, the idea
> of "zero" in number systems was independently invented by the
> Babylonians, the Mayans and the Indians (before Islam!); the Arabs
> learned about zero from India, and then passed the idea on to Europe.
> 
> Rich
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: What America Does with its Hegemony

[Richard Baker]

Mike said:

> Hey, Gary, there's a whole bunch of us not afraid to say that Western
> democracy is better by far than anything the Muslims have done since the
> invention of zero.

The Muslims may have contributed many worthwhile things to civilisation
but the invention of zero wasn't one of them. So far as I know, the idea
of "zero" in number systems was independently invented by the
Babylonians, the Mayans and the Indians (before Islam!); the Arabs
learned about zero from India, and then passed the idea on to Europe.

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

Re: What America Does with its Hegemony

[Gary Denton]

On Thu, 6 May 2004 00:55:04 -0700, Mike Lee claiming not to be pussy
whipped wrote:

> Gary Denton, traitor in waiting:

Patriotism isn't screaming at everyone who disagrees with you.

> > Neo-imperialist or even, as a couple political scientists
> > have pointed, out neo-confederate might be better.
> 
> Hey, Gary, there's a whole bunch of us not afraid to say that Western
> democracy is better by far than anything the Muslims have done since the
> invention of zero. 

I dislike the Wahabi non-separation of government and religion but our
own fundies also have that problem.  By your statements I haven't seen
you as a strong supporter of Western democratic values.  I think the
high point of Islam culture was about 500 years ago because of their
conservative religious practices mixing with politics, science and
business..  Will 500 years from now people or AI say that 1999 was
America's high point for the same reasons?

>I'm all for imperialism or confederacy or whatever it
> takes to make the sand Nazis quit cutting off little girls' clits and being
> racist morons and go out and get a job.
> 
> Islam sucks.

Troll words, 

I like women's enjoyment of sex and condemn that practice.  Are you
advocating back to Somalia and take those scalpels away here or is
this leading to another nuke-em all solution.  Odd to hear you use the
words "racist moron" after your sand-Nazi's and other statements.

> 
> Anybody who can't say that out loud and proud is PC pussy->whipped dhimmi-bait.

Mixed modifiers there.. ... is a politically correct, meek and
dominated by women, Jew or Christian living in an Islamic country -
bait.  Oh, if you study it does make a twisted sense.  I don't think a
lot of the GOP leadership could say that, at least not on camera.

Sometimes with you I feel like Spock on a Berkley bus.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: What America Does with its Hegemony

[Mike Lee]

Gary Denton, traitor in waiting:


> Neo-imperialist or even, as a couple political scientists 
> have pointed, out neo-confederate might be better.

Hey, Gary, there's a whole bunch of us not afraid to say that Western
democracy is better by far than anything the Muslims have done since the
invention of zero. I'm all for imperialism or confederacy or whatever it
takes to make the sand Nazis quit cutting off little girls' clits and being
racist morons and go out and get a job. 

Islam sucks. 

Anybody who can't say that out loud and proud is PC pussy-whipped
dhimmi-bait. 

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

RE: What America Does with its Hegemony

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Ritu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ritu, who wonders why Gautam keeps on making
> assumptions about her news
> sources instead of just asking her

And, Ritu, to be fair to myself I could ask you the
same.  If you want to posture about how I'm
unobjective or the superiority of your foreign news
sources, you can certainly expect some of the same
back.  I daresay I have my own ways of getting
information that stand up to those of most people
outside the government.

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




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs  
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: What America Does with its Hegemony

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Ritu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ritu, who wonders why Gautam keeps on making
> assumptions about her news
> sources instead of just asking her

Gautam has spent long enough on this list that his
patience is entirely worn out, which occasionally
shows up in unwarranted sarcasm.  The masturbatory
echo chamber is quite remarkably wearying if you stand
against the accepted orthodoxy.

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




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs  
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: What America Does with its Hegemony

[Ritu]

/vbbb
Gautam Mukunda wrote:

> http://oxblog.blogspot.com/2004_05_02_oxblog_archive.html#1083
> 58591971936946
> 
> Ritu, Andrew, I'm sure the Iraqis would be _much_
> better off if nothing like this ever happened there.
>
> I am willing to make a bet that no report of this, or anything like
> it, will show up in the supposedly "independent" news sources that you

> two rely on.

Well, I dunno how many papers carried that story - there are thousands
of reports on Iraq each day and I don't read all of them. However, I
have read this story before as Oxblog is one of my regular haunts. I
don't agree with their every assessment but they do spend a lot of time
keeping up with the news. Besides, David Adnesik is a pleasure to argue
with - not only is he intelligent, he can actually defend his ideas
without assuming that everyone who disagrees with him is uninformed.

Ritu, who wonders why Gautam keeps on making assumptions about her news
sources instead of just asking her

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

Re: What America Does with its Hegemony

[Gary Denton]

On Tue, 04 May 2004 20:10:53 -0500, Steve Sloan II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> OK, that essentially fixes what I was having so much trouble
> buying. I couldn't see any reason why Saddam would quit trying
> to build or buy nuclear weapons, because he certainly wouldn't
> do it out of the goodness of his heart. These articles give a
> reason, and I *can* believe that his scientists tried for a
> long time and failed, then he gave it up to move on to some
> other scheme after Gulf War I wrecked his facilities.
> 

Glad to be of help.

#1 on google for liberal news
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: What America Does with its Hegemony

[Steve Sloan II]

Gary Denton wrote:
> > > Well, I learned about the reliability of the American
> > > press last year when I went to independent sources and
> > > found out that Iraq had shut down its nuclear weapons
> > > program immediately after the first Gulf War.
> > Where did this information come from? That definitely
> > sounds like one of those "extraordinary claims require
> > extraordinary evidence" sorta situations...
> God, where have you been? Do you just watch Fox?  Sorry, this
> has been in my blog so many times and finally filtered out to
> mainstream media months ago.
> Here Is USATODAY 12/1/03 but I think it is more than a little
> self-serving and also was set up to provide an out for intel
> in the US who got it wrong.
> "Iraqi scientists never revived their long-dead nuclear bomb
> program, and in fact lied to Saddam Hussein about how much
> progress they were making before U.S.-led attacks shut the
> operation down for good in 1991, Iraqi physicists say.
> "Other leading physicists, in Baghdad interviews, said the
> hope for an Iraqi atomic bomb was never realistic. "It was
> all like building sand castles," said Abdel Mehdi Talib,
> Baghdad University's dean of sciences. "
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-12-01-iraq-arms_x.htm
OK, that essentially fixes what I was having so much trouble
buying. I couldn't see any reason why Saddam would quit trying
to build or buy nuclear weapons, because he certainly wouldn't
do it out of the goodness of his heart. These articles give a
reason, and I *can* believe that his scientists tried for a
long time and failed, then he gave it up to move on to some
other scheme after Gulf War I wrecked his facilities.
__
Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama => [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brin-L list pages .. http://www.brin-l.org
Science Fiction-themed online store . http://www.sloan3d.com/store
Chmeee's 3D Objects  http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee
3D and Drawing Galleries .. http://www.sloansteady.com
Software  Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links
Science fiction scans . http://www.sloan3d.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: What America Does with its Hegemony

[Gary Denton]

On Tue, 4 May 2004 14:50:33 +1000, Andrew Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think most of us wordly-wise enough to take most of
> our media with a good dash of salt. Anyway, we all tend
> to believe what we like and not believe what we don't,
> in regard to opinions/rumours/slants expressed in the press.
> 
> My real concern is when facts are wrong, or, as you point
> out, things are just never reported. Do you think much of
> the media, be it Arab, American, Indian etc, actually lies
> about facts? Is there some source of great truth we can check
> them against, and where is it?

I know I take my media with a double chaser, no salt and an aspirin.
Since high school if I get interested in something I try to read
several opposing viewpoints and try to understand who is more correct
and why.

Most media reports now are simply what the spokesperson said until
someone grabs an interesting story and slant and runs with it and
reporters like a flock of blackbirds all take off after.

The media does not lie very often, not nearly as often as the people
they report on or their spokesmen do.  The problem with the media is
that they will just print someone in authority's lie and rarely dig
deeper.

Damn if I know a source of great truth, I do try to determine what is
in the interest of the publication to report.

TV is easiest, whatever gets the most attention to get more people
watching to sell more commercial product.  Nearly all of American
media is owned by large corporations now so whatever is not in large
corporate interests is harder to find.  

It is much more important to note that  most editors and publishers
have a corporate bias than that most reporters have a human interest
bias. Reporters report on the stories that editors and publishers give
them and then they pass through the editor again.  If you watch news
on CNN or the major networks for an hour or so you can detect that
they have a slight agenda in favor of people which might be called a
liberal agenda, if you watch Fox for five minutes you see an obvious
agenda in favor of simple flag-waving solutions from "private
enterprise" with good guys and bad guys.  But it isn't dull.

the biggest problem is the never reported stories.  My most
frustrating "never reported" story now, Bush aides scrubbed his
military records to hide the fact he was administratively punished. 
The facts are right there in the paperwork and reporters can't read,
and can't add, and can't subtract dates, or at least can't get it
published.  I think the story maybe needs something more to it than it
is a federal crime.  Perhaps a major credible figure with knowledge to
go with the paperwork. The Texas WMD case and the Tiger Force Vietnam
atrocities made the back pages of some papers, that is more than this
story.  

I decided a goal for me now is to work for the media for a closer look
at the beast.

#1 on google for liberal news
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: What America Does with its Hegemony

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Andrew Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 11:50 PM
Subject: RE: What America Does with its Hegemony



>My real concern is when facts are wrong, or, as you point
>out, things are just never reported. Do you think much of
>the media, be it Arab, American, Indian etc, actually lies
>about facts? Is there some source of great truth we can check
>them against, and where is it?

The Arab media has repeatedly lied about Jews.  From claiming that Jews
were warned about the 9-11 attack, which was by Israel to Jewish leaders
co-planning the Holocaust, to the Protocol of the Elders of Zion being
given as history, regular lies are told.

I don't think you will get the same level of fantasy journalism from major
US sources.

As for the great source of truth, that's a good philosophical question.
Even science isn't about the truth, just observations.  But, I think it is
more than reasonable to require that journalism be consistent with present
and historical facts.  One can check against them.

Dan M.


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

Re: What America Does with its Hegemony

[Gary Denton]

On Mon, 03 May 2004 20:58:12 -0500, Steve Sloan II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gary Denton wrote:
> 
> > Well, I learned about the reliability of the American press
> > last year when I went to independent sources and found out
> > that Iraq had shut down its nuclear weapons program
> > immediately after the first Gulf War.
> 
> Where did this information come from? That definitely sounds
> like one of those "extraordinary claims require extraordinary
> evidence" sorta situations...
___
> Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama => [EMAIL PROTECTED]

God, where have you been? Do you just watch Fox?  Sorry, this has been
in my blog so many times and finally filtered out to mainstream media
months ago.

Here Is USATODAY 12/1/03 but I think it is more than a little
self-serving and also was set up to provide an out for intel in the US
who got it wrong.

"Iraqi scientists never revived their long-dead nuclear bomb program,
and in fact lied to Saddam Hussein about how much progress they were
making before U.S.-led attacks shut the operation down for good in
1991, Iraqi physicists say.

"Other leading physicists, in Baghdad interviews, said the hope for an
Iraqi atomic bomb was never realistic. "It was all like building sand
castles," said Abdel Mehdi Talib, Baghdad University's dean of
sciences. "

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-12-01-iraq-arms_x.htm

Now my blog mostly had it from Imad Khadduri who posted it on the web
in November of 02.  He was a real Iraqi nuclear scientist who escaped
to Canada, unlike the fake bombmaker Khidhir Hamza, who Chalabi and
the neocons provided the American press.  After the first Gulf War all
engineers were pressed into service to repair all the damage from US
bombing and shut down the nuclear weapons program which Saddam had
agreed to do.   What is more the CIA and US intelligence knew this
from Kamil who told them and provided documents in 94.  
http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=874

I could go more into the example of Kamil and how his evidence of shut
down programs was twisted by neocons, not the CIA, to support a war
but that is not what you are asking.

My archive search can only reach back to 2/14/03 but you can see by my
post I had it earlier:  "They were getting notoriety for carrying Imad
Khadduri, a former Iraqi nuclear scientist who has stated that Iraq's
nuclear program was shut down after Gulf War 1 and that Khidhir Hamza,
another former Iraqi scientist, and the Bush administration have
fabricated and exaggerated claims otherwise."

http://elemming2.blogspot.com/2003_02_14_elemming2_archive.html

Is that enough, or would three or more examples be better?

I really thought that Bush and Cheney should have been providing that
extraordinary evidence, didn't you?

#1 on google for liberal news
http://elemming2.blogspot.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: What America Does with its Hegemony

[David Land]

The Fool wrote:

The world Orwell described does not require complete
control of the press, just a very large market share.
-Kuro5hin Poster
Does anybody remember Neil Postman's excellent "Amusing Ourselves to 
Death" from the mid-80's (Amazon: )?

Using "1984" and "Brave New World," he made pretty much the point above. 
No central agency of government control is needed to enslave the minds 
of the masses: just give 'em "American Idol," "Fear Factor" and Fox News 
(are the last even two different shows?), and they'll gladly enslave 
themselves, and pay for the privilege.

Now, excuse, me, the NBC Blockbuster Television Event "10.5" is on.


 Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] 408-551-0427
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: What America Does with its Hegemony

[Andrew Paul]

> From: Gautam Mukunda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> 
> --- Gary Denton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I try to balance Green zone reports with reports
> > from the Red Zones.
> 
> Well, you have to ask yourself how you feel about
> treating the Arab press as reliable.  Do you, for
> example, believe that the entire war in Iraq is a
> Jewish conspiracy launched by sinister "neocons" who
> are actually pawns of the state of Israel?  That
> would, after all, be the standard story of the war as
> reported in the Arab press.  I tend to trust other
> media just a tiny bit more...
> 

I think most of us wordly-wise enough to take most of 
our media with a good dash of salt. Anyway, we all tend
to believe what we like and not believe what we don't,
in regard to opinions/rumours/slants expressed in the press.

My real concern is when facts are wrong, or, as you point
out, things are just never reported. Do you think much of
the media, be it Arab, American, Indian etc, actually lies
about facts? Is there some source of great truth we can check
them against, and where is it?

Andrew

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

Re: What America Does with its Hegemony

[The Fool]

--
From: Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

--- Gary Denton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I try to balance Green zone reports with reports
> from the Red Zones.

Well, you have to ask yourself how you feel about
treating the Arab press as reliable.  Do you, for
example, believe that the entire war in Iraq is a
Jewish conspiracy launched by sinister "neocons" who
are actually pawns of the state of Israel?  That
would, after all, be the standard story of the war as
reported in the Arab press.  I tend to trust other
media just a tiny bit more...



The Same press that was all over the Texas-Cyanide Bomber story?  The One
where they captured conspirators with ~~actual~~ WMD, capable of killing
tens of thousands.  Oh, wait.  They _didn't_ report on the Texas-Cyanide
Bomber story.

-
The world Orwell described does not require complete control of the
press, just a very large market share.
-Kuro5hin Poster
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: What America Does with its Hegemony

[Doug Pensinger]

Gautam wrote:

http://oxblog.blogspot.com/2004_05_02_oxblog_archive.html#108358591971936946

Ritu, Andrew, I'm sure the Iraqis would be _much_
better off if nothing like this ever happened there.
I am willing to make a bet that no report of this, or
anything like it, will show up in the supposedly
"independent" news sources that you two rely on.
from the blog:

"A new multipurpose recreation facility has opened in the Al Dura 
neighborhood, benefiting thousands of residents in Baghdad's Al Rashid 
district."

Ahh, build Recreation Commons, fewer drones. 8^)

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

Re: What America Does with its Hegemony

[Gary Denton]

On Mon, 3 May 2004 10:12:18 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, you have to ask yourself how you feel about
> treating the Arab press as reliable.  Do you, for
> example, believe that the entire war in Iraq is a
> Jewish conspiracy launched by sinister "neocons" who
> are actually pawns of the state of Israel?  That
> would, after all, be the standard story of the war as
> reported in the Arab press.  I tend to trust other
> media just a tiny bit more...

Well, I learned about the reliability of the American press last year
when I went to independent sources and found out that Iraq had shut
down its nuclear weapons program immediately after the first Gulf War.
 This was at the same time our VP and President were saying that we
could not wait for weapons inspectors because the only warning we
would get would be a mushroom cloud. Our press never challenged them. 
The closest to reliable reporting in mainstream American papers 
preceeding the war was a few deep buried articles in the Washington
Post and some Kight-Ridder stories.

I have constantly found out stuff days to years before the American
media ever picks it up.  When Powell went to the UN within days there
was an analysis of his purported claims in the UK.  Six months after
the war was when the first American newspaper went back and looked at
those claims.

When Powell's assistant in charge of Iraq weapons quit and went public
that there was nothing to Powell's claims this was months old  to me.

I suppose I should respond to your specifics - 

Sure the Arab press can be unreliable, so is the American.  Live with
it and learn the bias.  They don't teach that at Harvard?

The neocons - no quotes - were very open that they were going to have
this war, for two of the latest people who say that look to General
Zinni "it was an open secret' and former Treasury Secretary O'Neal who
had to attend all the NSC meetings - the very first meeting was how to
take out Saddam, by force if necessary, military plans were ordered
updated.  Do you disagree with that?

For the earliest neocon plans for the region and the world look up
Project for a New American Century, they are quite open about it, but
realize the principals were planning it much earlier starting with
Bush ! where they formed the uberhawk team B that overhyped threats to
the US. They had other informal names in the White House at that time.

More neocons are Catholic and Christian than Jewish.  While the Likud
party approved of the US attacking Iraq and a couple of the neocons
have links to the party the neocons are not pawns of Israel.

I actually think the name neocon might be a misnomer.  Neo-imperialist
or even, as a couple political scientists have pointed, out
neo-confederate might be better.

#1 on google for liberal news
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: What America Does with its Hegemony

[Andrew Paul]

> From: Gautam Mukunda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> 
> http://oxblog.blogspot.com/2004_05_02_oxblog_archive.html#1083
> 58591971936946
> 
> Ritu, Andrew, I'm sure the Iraqis would be _much_
> better off if nothing like this ever happened there.  
> 
> I am willing to make a bet that no report of this, or
> anything like it, will show up in the supposedly
> "independent" news sources that you two rely on.
> 

I don't recall it making the front pages Gautam, no.
That's been reserved for other, more "exciting" stories.
But you forget, I am in Australia. Our SAS was blowing up Iraqi's
before war was even declared, so fear not, I am well supplied with
biased media on both sides.

It is a shame that more of the good stuff does not get told,
but that's the way our 'Free Press' works. They want blood
and excitement and gore. And that's our fault as much as anyones.

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

Re: What America Does with its Hegemony

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Gary Denton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sure the Arab press can be unreliable, so is the
> American.  Live with
> it and learn the bias.  They don't teach that at
> Harvard?

Well, they did teach us that Marines don't quiver and
hide.  They particularly when they're winning battles.
 You might want to ask, what does it say that your
response to that story was "That sounds about right." 
Where did you go to "learn" that they did? 

Much of the rest of what you "learned" from the
foreign press happens to be not true, so hey...

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




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs  
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: What America Does with its Hegemony

[Gary Denton]

On Mon, 3 May 2004 17:47:08 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Well, they did teach us that Marines don't quiver and
> hide.  They particularly when they're winning battles.

They lost.

> You might want to ask, what does it say that your
> response to that story was "That sounds about right."

Huh?  That isn't there.  Are you trying to become a neocon?

> Where did you go to "learn" that they did?

Not sure what you mean - Canadian press, other countries  and some
"independent press" had the reports by Iraqi scientists and engineers
you didn't get in the American press.
> 
> Much of the rest of what you "learned" from the
> foreign press happens to be not true, so hey...

So hey, you hiding the the WMDs under your bed for Saddam?
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: What America Does with its Hegemony

[Steve Sloan II]

Gary Denton wrote:

> Well, I learned about the reliability of the American press
> last year when I went to independent sources and found out
> that Iraq had shut down its nuclear weapons program
> immediately after the first Gulf War.
Where did this information come from? That definitely sounds
like one of those "extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence" sorta situations...
__
Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama => [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brin-L list pages .. http://www.brin-l.org
Science Fiction-themed online store . http://www.sloan3d.com/store
Chmeee's 3D Objects  http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee
3D and Drawing Galleries .. http://www.sloansteady.com
Software  Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links
Science fiction scans . http://www.sloan3d.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: What America Does with its Hegemony

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Gary Denton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I try to balance Green zone reports with reports
> from the Red Zones.

Well, you have to ask yourself how you feel about
treating the Arab press as reliable.  Do you, for
example, believe that the entire war in Iraq is a
Jewish conspiracy launched by sinister "neocons" who
are actually pawns of the state of Israel?  That
would, after all, be the standard story of the war as
reported in the Arab press.  I tend to trust other
media just a tiny bit more...

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




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs  
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: What America Does with its Hegemony

[Gary Denton]

On Mon, 3 May 2004 06:11:04 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I am willing to make a bet that no report of this, or
> anything like it, will show up in the supposedly
> "independent" news sources that you two rely on.

Yes, I like the internet you can get the reports from all sides.

That was an interesting report from a Green Zone. The soccer field is
somewhere in neighborhood 76 on this map. You can  blow this up (a bad
choice of words) about 8 times and still get detail.

http://www.humanitarianinfo.org/iraq/maps/280a%20A4%20Baghdad%20districts%20neighbourh%20300dpi.pdf

I try to balance Green zone reports with reports from the Red Zones.

For example, this report translates Arab news reports:of the "Iraqi
resistance against the American aggressors".

Even less likely  to appear on the news.

US Marine reacts with hysterical joy when retreating from al-Fallujah.

Iraqi police at one location were surprised when they took over a
position from retreating Americans to find one US Marine crying and
shouting hysterically for joy at the opportunity to leave the defiant
city of al-Fallujah.  The incident provoked laughter and derision from
the policemen, according to the correspondent of Mafkarat al-Islam.

Mafkarat al-Islam's correspondent in al-Fallujah writes that
eyewitnesses among the residents of al-Fallujah now returning to the
city over an-Nu'aymi crossing point report that the US occupation
troops were allowing them to cross on condition that they give the
Americans cigarettes and food.

US troops take cigarettes, food from returning refugees from al-Fallujah.

Returnees told the same story Friday at 2:00 and then again at 4:00
local time after the guard at the crossing had changed.  With the
Iraqi Resistance wrecking havoc with US supplies, the occupation
soldiers have been experiencing shortages.

http://www.albasrah.net/moqawama/english/0504/iraqiresistancereport_010504.htm

But let's not go that far from mainstream news.  This seems more
important than opening a soccer field, but I can't think of anything
that isn't, and it is from the conservative AP news wire:

U.S. officials have for months publicly promoted the notion that
foreign fighters and terrorists are playing a major role in the
anti-American insurgency in Fallujah and the rest of Iraq.

By blaming foreigners, U.S. authorities hope to quash the idea that
Iraqis are rising up against military occupation and frame the
conflict as part of the wider war on terror. However, foreigners play
a tiny role in Iraq's insurgency, many military experts say.

In Fallujah, U.S. military leaders say around 90 percent of the 1,000
or more fighters battling the Marines are Iraqis. To date, there have
been no confirmed U.S. captures of foreign fighters in Fallujah
although a handful of suspects have been arrested.

Those who have spent time inside Fallujah have described a city
consumed with the fight fathers and sons fighting for the local
mujahedeen and wives and daughters cooking and caring for the wounded.

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/124/world/BAGHDAD_Iraq_AP_U_S_officials_:.shtml

Since the Fallujah battle started I could look up several "independent
journalists" reports who went in and out.  Bush is a uniter, he
unified Sunni and Shiites to rush supplies to Fallujah to support the
resistance or try to evacuate the women and children (too late for
over 250 of them). The Arab reports of marines blockading the hospital
and snipers eliminating the drivers of ambulances had lost this war
even before the photos of the reintroduction of Saddam prison
atrocities under the Americans and the Brits.

Maybe we can stage a farewell soccer game as we declare victory and leave.

http://elemming2.blogspot.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

What America Does with its Hegemony

[Gautam Mukunda]

http://oxblog.blogspot.com/2004_05_02_oxblog_archive.html#108358591971936946

Ritu, Andrew, I'm sure the Iraqis would be _much_
better off if nothing like this ever happened there.  

I am willing to make a bet that no report of this, or
anything like it, will show up in the supposedly
"independent" news sources that you two rely on.

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




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs  
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l