Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who's ne

[R. A. Hettinga]

--- begin forwarded text


Status: RO
To: "R. A. Hettinga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Somebody
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 16:58:23 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil.
Who's ne

FWIW (Trivia)

> It is said that Simon Kenton could reload his Kentucky
> rifle in 12 seconds. The world record Springfield reload is about
> 6.5 seconds, a Brown Bess will take a bit longer than a
> Springfield.

"Jacob" (his rifle given him by Jacob Butler whose last name Kenton
used stole whilst on the run from a possible murder he thought he'd
done) was an Pennsylvania flintlock - after some practice, and on the
way to Fort Pitt, he was seen downing a turkey from 332 paces by
taking its head off...the beginning of truly legendary shooting.
These long shots by "colonials" with rifled bbls went a long way
toward traumatizing the Brits and Hessians...

Properly loaded, these slugs were being sent out with sabots on them,
assuring some pretty remarkable flights...

By the bye...CSI Miami just shot to HELL the concept of
"fingerprinting" the other night by covering a sniper using
sabots...and didn't mention a damned thing, much to my dismay...

Now, back to the thread..



--- end forwarded text


-- 
-
R. A. Hettinga 
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/>
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who's ne

[Peter Fairbrother]

Kevin Elliott wrote:

> 2) rifled muskets were not effective because of the ponderous reload
> time (I don't have precise figures, but the number 1/6th-1/10th the
> rate of fire of a smoothbore musket comes to mind)

There isn't that much difference in reload times - say 30 seconds for a
Kentucky rifle, as opposed to 20 seconds for a Brown Bess musket, for
well-trained troops. However, if you are in a volley line and waiting for
the last man to reload before firing a volley, that's a lifetime. Remember,
you are standing up to reload! Putting a few men armed with rifles in a line
of musketmen, they would seem useless, or worse, a liability.

Before I get flamed about those figures, may I point out that modern black
powder flintlock rifle shooters can and do shoot about one round a minute,
without trying to fire fast - a hotspot on the barrel can cause the powder
to cookoff unexpectedly, so they service the bore and touch hole between
shots, which slows them; but this isn't so important on the battlefield when
risks can be taken. It is said that Simon Kenton could reload his Kentucky
rifle in 12 seconds. The world record Springfield reload is about 6.5
seconds, a Brown Bess will take a bit longer than a Springfield.


At first glance the rifle was a better infantry weapon, but pitched battles
at 300 yards just didn't happen - and smoke obscuring the battlefield made
aimed shots difficult after a few volleys. Muskets weren't usually aimed,
just pointed in the right direction - musketmen were sometimes told to close
their eyes when firing to prevent injury from pan flash.

In volley fire it isn't really possible to aim - for aimed fire you need to
fire when the rifleman is ready, not on command. The superior accuracy of a
rifle is no use if you can't or don't aim it. The time taken to aim also
slows the rate of fire over an unaimed weapon.

Another problem was that early rifles weren't optimised for battle or use in
an army. It was often difficult starting the ball down the barrel, which can
slow reload time - there's a tool to do it, and you then use the ramrod, but
if the rifle/ball/patch combination is right you can start the ball by
hitting it with the ball of your hand, and the ramming can be quite quick.

Rifles were seldom fitted with bayonets, important to the tactics used at
the time - fire a volley or two, then a bayonet charge while your opponents
are reloading. They were also too fragile to use as a close quarter club.

Rifles weren't standardised either, so ammunition and parts couldn't be
shared and the riflemen had to cast/roll their own balls. Rifle balls need
to be more accurate than musket balls. Rifles take more training to use as
well.

But I think the main reason that rifles didn't play a bigger part, apart
from the usual military inertia (google Ferguson rifle for a British example
of this), was the simple lack of rifles, and their cost. Many men fighting
in the Revolutionary War didn't have any firearms at all.


-- 
Peter Fairbrother

Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who's ne

[Tiarnan]

> "MD" == Mike Diehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

MD> And the middle east is the only place we meddle?  I think not.
MD> But the middle east is the only place who has overtly attacked
MD> us.  

A minor point about grammar and logic: places don't attack, overtly or
covertly, neither are they persons, despite prevailing trends in
propaganda. It is just these kinds of elisions that make Bush and
Rumsfeld's machinations easier than they should be.

MD> Isolationism would eliminate all such meddling, but it
MD> would also prevent us from protecting our interestes abroad.
MD> Like it or not, we have interests.  Damned if we do, and
MD> damned if we don't.

>> Well, I agree that no human is absolved of personal
>> responsibility for their actions, no matter what the
>> "cause". That said, I firmly believe that if US foreign policy
>> all these years had been non-meddling, 9/11

MD> If we had never bothered them, they might still hate us.
MD> They'd still have religious, historical, political, and
MD> economic reasons to hate us.  You can't rationalize with
MD> people like this.  It's just like any "Holy War."

Please give examples of a Holy War fought without any view to economic
or political advantage. 

MD> Israeli tanks aren't the ONLY things that kill someone's kids.
MD> The whole region has been at war for 100's of years.  

You have to get some historical context to make the above statement
meaningful. Since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, European powers
(and, post WW-II, the US and Russia) have used the Middle East as a
playground for power politics. It's naive to attribute all of this to
"those crazy warlike Arabs".

MD> Israel backed down', they'd risk being the middle east's
MD> doormat forever.  

No immediate danger of that, I'd say, given that they're the only
country in the region with a modern military.

   MD> No, I think the Muslims need to back down,
MD> or be forced to.

Who, the Palestinians? The Afghans? The Indonesians? The Muslims in
Britain or America? The Nation of Islam? Refine your categories.

MD> And that is what makes these people so evil.

And the US so _good_?

T

Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who's ne

[Jim Choate]

On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Tyler Durden wrote:

> "Well, they have enough non-central leadership to all be against Israel and
> the US.  And to have been at war against the Israelies since Bible times..."
>
> OK, Mike, this is a good example of the kind of "facts" that lead to fairly
> easy (though erroneous) conclusions.
>
> Let's have some history here. The "Muslims" have not been at war against the
> "Israelites" since Biblical times. That is completely wrong. Hell, there
> haven't been any "Israelites" for nearly two millenia.

The labels we put on them today are irrelevant and actually hide the
facts (which is their intent after all, break the continuity of history
into nice neat chunks and it's easy to hide what really happened).

The -fact- is there was a culture in that region that was reasonably
consistent. At some point 4,000 years or so ago several 'sects' formed.
These sects were in general tolerated to start with, but as time went on
they were less and less tolerated. The secondary sects became what we
today call 'Jews'. As time went on these secondary sects congregated and
coalesced into a more consistent nearly-single entity under the banner of
Judaism. A little later this group faced its own fragmentation that led to
the Christians.

So historically what we have is the mother group (Islam) spawning a
splinter group (Jews). Which as time went by were persecuted by Islam. As
a result of these pressures (and probably a lot of others) the Jews
themselves split and we got Christians. The Jews were originally rather
tolerant but as time went by they became less tolerant. So Islam dumped on
the Jews, the Jews dumped on the Christians, the Christians dumped on them
both, and now Capitalism is dumping on all. It's the lack of recognition
of that last state that is so troublesome.

Greed <> Good.

These people did what they did not because of religion or politics, they
did it because people are xenophobic -and- clanish by nature. Comes from
being social animals. What these labels did do was provide a easy way to
tell them apart so people khew who to go to for help when attacked (or who
to to attack themselves). This emotional aspect of human psychology is
also what makes 'staying out of other peoples business' so hard. We
naturally believe we have -the- answer (and back to Godel we are).

Shibboleth comes to mind...


 --


We don't see things as they are,  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
we see them as we are.   www.ssz.com
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anais Nin www.open-forge.org

Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who's ne

[Jim Choate]

On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Mike Diehl wrote:

> Granted.  I wish we could go back to isolationism, but as the worlds only
> remaining Super Power, that seems unlikely.  No matter what we do, we simply
> can't win.

Life isn't a football game, quite 'trying to win' and I think you'd find a
lot of issues just evaporate.


 --


We don't see things as they are,  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
we see them as we are.   www.ssz.com
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anais Nin www.open-forge.org

Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who's ne

[Tyler Durden]

"As to dangerous, I find that most of the people using violence in this
country are anti-drug, not pro."

Can't exactly agree with ya' here. Just watch COPS...most of those actually 
committing stupid crimes are apparently pro-Alchohol.

Pot? We can't have THAT be legalized now, or the CIA will lose a valuable 
source of covert action funding.






From: Jim Choate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: Alif The Terrible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. 
Who's ne
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 00:50:09 -0600 (CST)

On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Mike Diehl wrote:

> As to drugs and employment.  I'm glad to see that you recognized that a
> programer, like myself, has far fewer responsibilities than a (mere?)
> babysitter.  But, I still don't want to go to work with someone who is 
high
> on something.  When people are high, they are unpredictable, and 
potentially
> dangerous.  Drugs are a form of escapism.

That is complete and total bullshit. The fact -some- drugs have problems
doesn't equate to -all- drugs.

Further, people are unpredictable in and of themselves. Drugs or no drugs.
As to dangerous, I find that most of the people using violence in this
country are anti-drug, not pro.

When was the last time a group of pot heads kicked anyones door down?


 --


We don't see things as they are,  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
we see them as we are.   www.ssz.com
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anais Nin www.open-forge.org




_
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online 
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who's ne

[cubic-dog]

On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Kevin Elliott wrote:

> At 14:06 -0700  on  11/19/02, Mike Diehl wrote:
> >>  The british got VERY upset with us because of a tendency
> >>  to shoot officers which was considered very bad "form".  I believe it
> >>  was common practice to hang anyone found armed with a rifle for what
> >>  amounted to war crimes.  But again, very poor rate of fire kept them
> >>  from replacing the smoothbore.
> >
> >This probably stemmed from the aristocratic culture of the times?
> 
> It's probably partly historical as well (meaning there used to be a 
> good reason).  Think about a large conscript army, basically 
> completely undisciplined by todays standard.  Very poor 
> communication, so the officer core on site has nearly complete 
> autonomy.  Killing a large piece of that officer core could very well 
> remove any constraints on the soldiers behavior.  Next thing you know 
> the orderly army has turned into a marauding barbarian horde.  That's 
> not good for either side.
>

I always thought this was hype generated by the Officer cadre to
cover their butts.
Discipline was dolled out by the NCOs, not officers. Killing the
officers might piss off a few, but certainly not all, esp in a
conscript unit. The NCOs are in charge, the Officers have the 
agenda. Kill the officer, kill the agenda. 

Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who's ne

[Jim Choate]

On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Tyler Durden wrote:

> >Granted.  I wish we could go back to isolationism, but as the worlds >only
> >remaining Super Power, that seems unlikely.  No matter what we >do, we
> >simply can't win.  When faced with a game I can't win, I either >decide to
> >not play, or I cheat.  For the US, the first isn't an option.
>
> Waitaminute...I think I understand your point, but NOT meddling in the
> affairs of the middle east is by no means "isolationism".

EXACTLY! It's a pity more people don't see this particular point as
either/or.

I deal with my local grocer all the time, but they -never- get involved in
my personal domestic issues.

No, this observation actually leads to one of the primary problems of our
world today (and yesterday, and tomorrow). Unfortunately because it is so
very seldom voiced it is unstudied.


 --


We don't see things as they are,  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
we see them as we are.   www.ssz.com
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anais Nin www.open-forge.org

Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who's ne

[Kevin Elliott]

At 14:06 -0700  on  11/19/02, Mike Diehl wrote:

 The british got VERY upset with us because of a tendency
 to shoot officers which was considered very bad "form".  I believe it
 was common practice to hang anyone found armed with a rifle for what
 amounted to war crimes.  But again, very poor rate of fire kept them
 from replacing the smoothbore.


This probably stemmed from the aristocratic culture of the times?


It's probably partly historical as well (meaning there used to be a 
good reason).  Think about a large conscript army, basically 
completely undisciplined by todays standard.  Very poor 
communication, so the officer core on site has nearly complete 
autonomy.  Killing a large piece of that officer core could very well 
remove any constraints on the soldiers behavior.  Next thing you know 
the orderly army has turned into a marauding barbarian horde.  That's 
not good for either side.
--
_
Kevin Elliott  ICQ#23758827

Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who's ne

[Mike Diehl]

On Tuesday 19 November 2002 01:48 pm, Kevin Elliott wrote:
 > Well, there nuggets and the larger truth...  Rifles were widely used
 > as sniper rifles by the Americans.  They were commonly available
 > (though expensive) because they are a far superior hunting tool than
 > a smoothbore musket.  The definition of a "Kentucky Rifle" is a long
 > barreled _rifled_ musket.  Much of their reputation came from the
 > fact they were rifles and any rifle will shoot rings around a
 > smoothbore.  

That resolves the contradiction.  We were using poorly trained soldiers, but 
they were using supperior weopons and tactics.

 > The british got VERY upset with us because of a tendency
 > to shoot officers which was considered very bad "form".  I believe it
 > was common practice to hang anyone found armed with a rifle for what
 > amounted to war crimes.  But again, very poor rate of fire kept them
 > from replacing the smoothbore.

This probably stemmed from the aristocratic culture of the times?

 > On the other hand, track the battles.  The US lost most of the early
 > engagements and for at least the first 2 years was doing very poorly.
 > We succeeded in later battles because of improved training and
 > discipline (part of the significance of Valley Forge was that it was
 > used as a training ground that improved the general quality of troops
 > immensely).  Yorktown was a fairly traditional Napoleonic battle
 > which we only one because French ships prevented Cornwallis from
 > retreating.  He was forced to surrender when it became clear that he
 > couldn't break out of the American lines and that the French were
 > more than willing to bring the whole town down around his ears from
 > the coast.

Thanx for the history lesson.  I admit, I'm not well educated in the era of 
history.

-- 
Mike Diehl
PGP Encrypted E-mail preferred.
Public Key via: http://dominion.dyndns.org/~mdiehl/mdiehl.asc

Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who's ne

[James A. Donald]

--
On 19 Nov 2002 at 12:02, Kevin Elliott wrote:
> If you read between the lines of US history, you'll discover
> that America did not begin to succeed in the war until late
> in the war when the troops had become better trained and
> disciplined.

This is not my interpretation.  Rather, the American *never*
succeeded in conventional warfare.  The British were able to
march hither and yon, destroying whatever they chose, and
killing whoever got in their way.  However this cost them, and
it did not bring them political control.  After marching up and
down and back and forth, and losing lots of men in the process,
they eventually gave up.

--digsig
 James A. Donald
 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
 8rJK0TzKk1D62GWmAZ6vUvsi4CeZZEc5RL+nY/pG
 4uNqMiU5DCnLXIoq1IVsaQobFOgZedKfb3qFuXYdl

Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who's ne

[Kevin Elliott]

At 13:14 -0700  on  11/19/02, Mike Diehl wrote:

On Tuesday 19 November 2002 01:02 pm, Kevin Elliott wrote:
 > Correction in the interest of historical accuracy.  The idea that we
 > succeeded in the revolutionary war by "inventing a new form of
 > warfare".  The reality is that the british were marching in formation
 > for very, very good reasons.  Their tactics were an early form of
 > Napoleanic tactics (the techniques perfected by Bonaparte and used to
 > SMASH most of the rest of Europe).  They evolved from several factors
 > notably:

That is very interesting and smells true.  But I have read an historical
account of how we slaughtered the "Reds" from the hills as they marched.
Seems to be a contradiction here that I can't resolve.


Well, there nuggets and the larger truth...  Rifles were widely used 
as sniper rifles by the Americans.  They were commonly available 
(though expensive) because they are a far superior hunting tool than 
a smoothbore musket.  The definition of a "Kentucky Rifle" is a long 
barreled _rifled_ musket.  Much of their reputation came from the 
fact they were rifles and any rifle will shoot rings around a 
smoothbore.  The british got VERY upset with us because of a tendency 
to shoot officers which was considered very bad "form".  I believe it 
was common practice to hang anyone found armed with a rifle for what 
amounted to war crimes.  But again, very poor rate of fire kept them 
from replacing the smoothbore.

On the other hand, track the battles.  The US lost most of the early 
engagements and for at least the first 2 years was doing very poorly. 
We succeeded in later battles because of improved training and 
discipline (part of the significance of Valley Forge was that it was 
used as a training ground that improved the general quality of troops 
immensely).  Yorktown was a fairly traditional Napoleonic battle 
which we only one because French ships prevented Cornwallis from 
retreating.  He was forced to surrender when it became clear that he 
couldn't break out of the American lines and that the French were 
more than willing to bring the whole town down around his ears from 
the coast.
--
_
Kevin Elliott  ICQ#23758827

Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who's ne

[Mike Diehl]

All of your comments are very reasonable.  I agree with most of them.  
However, I have to take issue with your comments on drugs and employment, and 
how we have hurt the Afghan people.

As to drugs and employment.  I'm glad to see that you recognized that a 
programer, like myself, has far fewer responsibilities than a (mere?) 
babysitter.  But, I still don't want to go to work with someone who is high 
on something.  When people are high, they are unpredictable, and potentially 
dangerous.  Drugs are a form of escapism.  Work is work; that's why they call 
it work.   Having said that, I will admit that I write pretty good code 
after 5 beers.  But I do it at home.  Please notice that I'm not making a 
judgement on "escapism,"  but it needs to be done at home.

As for the Afghan people, being hurt by American policy, they have joined the 
club.  Our policy has never been for the benefit of the Afghan people.  It's 
been a policy based so-called weopons of mass distruction, oil, economics, 
unfriendly leadership.  Right or wrong, but let's be blunt.  I don't think 
it's fair, but that IS how things go with humans.  I don't like it either.  I 
also don't see many alternatives.  If we left them alone, we'd be in constant 
fear of various types of terrorism funded by many governments in that region. 
 We'd always be a hostage to OPEC.  We'd have to re-establish diplomatic 
relations every time some Arab nation changes leadership.  That entire region 
has been at war with themselves for 100's of years, and no one has ever come 
out the victor.  Stalemate.  Now we come along, and we can probably tip the 
scales.  History may look at us as Evil, or as a stabalizing force.  I don't 
know.  Just something to think about.

BTW, I recognize the benefit of a LAWFULL dictator, and have no idealogical 
problems with that form of government.

On Monday 18 November 2002 12:53 am, Alif The Terrible wrote:
 > On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, Mike Diehl wrote:
 > > Dubbya has only been in office about a year and a half, and in that
 > > time, he has destroyed Freedom in this country?
 >
 > Not entirely, just *mostly*.
 >
 > > I don't think so.  I'm still able to
 > > practice my religion freely.
 >
 > Sure.  Provided your religion does not offend the mainstream
 > sensibilities.
 >
 > >  I can criticize my government and stay out of
 > > prison.
 >
 > As long as your criticism is not highly visible.
 >
 > > I don't have soldiers living with/watching me.
 >
 > When was the last time you were out in public?  How about an airport?
 >
 > >  Saddam is just as
 > > bad as most dictators, but let's not confuse the issue; he's still a
 > > DICTATOR!
 >
 > So?
 >
 > >  >Dubbya and Asscruft have millions of people in prison for
 > >  > doing nothing wrong, only violating their bullshit rules in
 > >  > the War On Some Drugs.
 > >
 > > Hey, the law is posted.  You may not agree with it, but it is the
 > > law.
 >
 > Saddam is the LAWFUL DICTATOR.  You may not agree with it, but it IS
 > THE LAW.
 >
 > > I
 > > wouldn't have agreed with Prohibition, but I would have followed the
 > > law while at the same time trying to abolish it.  Guess what, I have
 > > that freedom, still.
 >
 > As long as you do not attract any serious attention, yes.  Once you
 > attract serious attention, all bets are off.  You'll either be found
 > holding your breath forever, or you'll be carted off to the nearest
 > Re-education Camp (maybe to share a cell with Bell).
 >
 > >  Personall, I don't care what you do in the privacy of your
 > > own home, but I won't want to drive on the same street, go to work
 > > with, or have my child watched, by anyone who is high on some drug. 
 > > If that means smoking dope keeps someone from being imployed, that's
 > > not my problem.
 >
 > Why should my employment in a programming capacity be contingent on
 > what you find desirable in a baby-sitter?
 >
 > >  >They have killed thousands of innocent Afghans, and are intent
 > >  > on murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis just to
 > >  > steal their oil. This makes Dubbya a mass-murder far beyond
 > >  > the scale of Saddam.
 > >
 > > Well, mass-murder is a bit strong.
 >
 > No. It's exactly correct.  How about what we have done in Iraq? Both
 > life expectancy and quality of life have nosedived as a direct result
 > of OUR actions, not Saddam's.  Remember, before we got into the act,
 > Saddam was providing the worlds finest medical services, world-class
 > education, housing, etc...  We are the ones who not only destroyed it,
 > but have spent the last 12 years insuring that the people we are
 > supposedly "concerned for" are systematically starved to death,
 

Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who's ne

[Clarke McMakin]

You can no be so single minded in this case you must realize that if America can justify Attacking Iraq then China can easily justify attacking there missing land Tiewon or a hundred different feuds between countries, and Dubbya cant place this in his long lost war agents “terrorism” witch has completely left. he must realize that he will not go down in the history books as the Prez. That put down Saddam Hussein's Dictatorship. Maybe the one that starts WWIII, but come on Dubbya
-ClarkeDo you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site

Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who's ne

[Harmon Seaver]

On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 09:22:48PM -0500, Mike Diehl wrote:
> On Thursday 14 November 2002 11:29 pm, Harmon Seaver wrote:
>  >How wonderful for you. Many of us sincerely wish we could practice
>  > our religion freely as well.
> 
> And just who is stopping you?  And what religion is it?

   The Christers. And the gov't, of course. The Christers began this as soon as
they hit the shores of this hemisphere, including inquisitions, torture,
destruction of temples, etc. It was formalized by the US gov't in the 1880's
with a law forbidding Native American religous ceremonies - you might have heard
of Wounded Knee? Where hundreds of peaceful, unarmed people were murdered as
they were involved in religious ceremonies. Many of these laws are still in
effect today. 
Many religions are persecuted in the US today. If you were paying attention,
you would have heard, during the debates, Dubbya being asked what he would do to
alleviate the US military's rules against Wiccan ceremonies by soldiers. He
replied that Wicca wasn't a religion and wouldn't be allowed. Wicca not a
relgion --sheesh, it's a much older religion than the Christers have. The list
of persecutions and prosectutions of various religions in the US is voluminous
-- NY pigs are especially fond of raiding Santeria and Vodun ceremonies. 
The WOSD is really religous persecution. Many world religions use cannabis
in their worship -- Hinduism, Rastafarianism, Shinto (where even the Emperor of
Japan partakes in cannabis during the biggest Shinto ceremony) -- and shamanism
invariably uses entheobotanicals all across the globe. Shamans using traditional
sacrements such as ayahuasca, psilocybic mushrooms, or peyote risk prison in the
US. 
   So much for 1st Amendment relgious freedoms, eh? All because of the
Christers, especially Christer politicians. I like the Rasta chant -- "Burn de
church, burn de priest, burn de Pope, burn Babylon."



> 
>  > > I can criticize my government and stay out of
>  > > prison.
>  >Can you? As long as you do it at home or in your local bar, I
>  > suppose. Try taking it out on the street and getting in their face.
> 
> H.  What do you mean by "getting in their face?"

   You apparantly don't watch the news. Ever see any coverage of the WTO
protests? 


> 
>  > >  I don't have soldiers living with/watching me.
>  >Plenty of pigs watching a lot of us. The fedzis are everywhere
>  > these days. Perhaps you've heard about them infiltrating church
>  > groups, demanding the reading lists from libraries, etc. How do you
>  > know they haven't bugged your house? Your computer? Got Carnivore at
>  > your ISP?
> 
> Well, between gpg, cryptofs, and IPSec, I doubt that they have my computer 
> bugged, and I don't worry about Carnivore.  I can and do encrypt anything I 
> don't wish to share.
> 
   Lot of good that does you when the keyboard snaggers send your passwds to the
pigs, or the hidden cameras in your room record your keystrokes. I notice you
ignored the above about cointelpro and libraries, etc. We live in a police
state.

(rest of this boring discussion snipped, what's the point of talking to
sleep-walking quislings)


-- 
Harmon Seaver   
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

"War is just a racket ... something that is not what it seems to the
majority of people. Only a small group knows what its about. It is
conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the
masses."  --- Major General Smedley Butler, 1933

"Our overriding purpose, from the beginning through to the present
day, has been world domination - that is, to build and maintain the
capacity to coerce everybody else on the planet: nonviolently, if
possible, and violently, if necessary. But the purpose of US foreign
policy of domination is not just to make the rest of the world jump
through hoops; the purpose is to faciliate our exploitation of
resources."
- Ramsey Clark, former US Attorney General
http://www.thesunmagazine.org/bully.html

Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who's ne

[Steve Furlong]

On Thursday 14 November 2002 12:16, Harmon Seaver wrote:

>It's all relative -- what Dubbya and Asscruft have done to destroy
> freedom in the US is far worse than anything Saddam has done. Iraq
> had no freedom to lose.

So...When Iraqis are tortured to death, it's not really that bad because 
they're just wogs and don't know any better?


>Dubbya and Asscruft have millions of people in prison for doing
> nothing wrong, only violating their bullshit rules in the War On Some
> Drugs.

I agree that the WoSD is bullshit, but get some historical perspective. 
The WoSD has been in place for thirty years (Nixon), or for almost a 
century (vil blacks and hispanics using marijuana to seduce white 
women). Bush43 and Ashcroft have been in office less than two years, 
and neither was alive when _Reefer Madness_ came out..


> They have killed thousands of innocent Afghans

"Thousands of Afghans" has been thoroughly debunked. Only the very 
stupid continue to believe or propagate it.


>Not that Klinton was any better.

Bubba was much worse. He killed people to distract attention from his 
crimes. Bush43 at least has a supportable rationale, whether or not you 
agree with it.


Now, I am far from a Bush43 supporter. I have serious concerns about his 
interest in the rights of Americans. But idiots like Harmon Seaver make 
it more difficult to effectively oppose Bush43 and Asscruft (*) because 
their supporters need only point to the idiots to discredit all of the 
opposition.

(*) I'm the one who came up with that nickname, so you can assume that 
my opinion of him is not favorable.

SRF

-- 
Steve FurlongComputer Condottiere   Have GNU, Will Travel

Vote Idiotarian --- it's easier than thinking

Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who's ne

[Harmon Seaver]

On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 11:31:23AM -0500, Ken Hirsch wrote:
> Harmon Seaver wrote:
> 
> >   I don't see that Saddam is any less moral than Dubbya and Asscruft.
> 
> What can you possibly mean by saying this?  You lose all credibility for
> real criticism when you utter such inanities.  It's like comparing a
> shoplifter with Jeffrey Dahmer.  Either you're ignorant of what Saddam is
> about or you have no sense of proportion.

   It's all relative -- what Dubbya and Asscruft have done to destroy freedom in
the US is far worse than anything Saddam has done. Iraq had no freedom to
lose. Is Saddam really any different than any other mid-east dictator? For that
matter, the people of Korea are suffering far worse, and they're developing WOMD
too -- why don't we attack them? 
   Dubbya and Asscruft have millions of people in prison for doing nothing
wrong, only violating their bullshit rules in the War On Some Drugs. They have
killed thousands of innocent Afghans, and are intent on murdering hundreds of
thousands of innocent Iraqis just to steal their oil. This makes Dubbya a
mass-murder far beyond the scale of Saddam.
   Not that Klinton was any better. 

(snip)


-- 
Harmon Seaver   
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

"War is just a racket ... something that is not what it seems to the
majority of people. Only a small group knows what its about. It is
conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the
masses."  --- Major General Smedley Butler, 1933

"Our overriding purpose, from the beginning through to the present
day, has been world domination - that is, to build and maintain the
capacity to coerce everybody else on the planet: nonviolently, if
possible, and violently, if necessary. But the purpose of US foreign
policy of domination is not just to make the rest of the world jump
through hoops; the purpose is to faciliate our exploitation of
resources."
- Ramsey Clark, former US Attorney General
http://www.thesunmagazine.org/bully.html

Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who's ne

[Ken Hirsch]

Harmon Seaver wrote:

>   I don't see that Saddam is any less moral than Dubbya and Asscruft.

What can you possibly mean by saying this?  You lose all credibility for
real criticism when you utter such inanities.  It's like comparing a
shoplifter with Jeffrey Dahmer.  Either you're ignorant of what Saddam is
about or you have no sense of proportion.

Or maybe I'm just not paying attention.  Was I not watching the news the
night when Bush, after seizing power, marched onto the floors of Congress in
front of cameras and had 21 top officials hauled off for summary execution,
as Saddam did in 1979?  (btw, the U.S. had nothing to do with Saddam taking
power)

Did I miss it when Bush had Colin Powell's brother tortured to death, like
Saddam did with his foreign minister's son?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,801613,00.html

I must have missed the revelation of the prison where Bush is holding
children hostage, like Saddam's prison which was too horrible for Scott
Ritter to talk about.
(http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,351165,00.html)

I must have missed the testimony about Bush crippling and maiming children
with torture.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/from_our_own_correspondent/2058253.stm or
http://tinyurl.com/2p21)

I must have missed the thousands of political prisoners executed.  I must
have missed it when Bush invaded Canada AND Mexico.  I think my radio was
broken the day Bush gassed Berkeley.

Get a clue!  Check out Amnesty International's annual report on Iraq.
http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/aireport/ar99/mde14.htm or ANY OTHER YEAR!

Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who's ne

[Harmon Seaver]

On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 05:41:55PM -0500, Steve Furlong wrote:
> On Thursday 14 November 2002 12:16, Harmon Seaver wrote:
> 
> >It's all relative -- what Dubbya and Asscruft have done to destroy
> > freedom in the US is far worse than anything Saddam has done. Iraq
> > had no freedom to lose.
> 
> So...When Iraqis are tortured to death, it's not really that bad because 
> they're just wogs and don't know any better?

   First of all, do we really *know* that Iraqis are being tortured at all,
other than what Dubbya, et al, and the bullshit mass media tell us? Secondly, it
certainly appears that people (non-POWs and other detainees)  are being tortured
by our military. We know for a fact that political protesters in this country
are tortured with "pain holds", capsicum applied directly into the eyes, etc. We
know for a fact that prisoners were tortured, and tortured to death, in Vietnam
by US troops. We know for a fact that US allies and puppets have tortured
massive numbers of people, often to death. So what's new?

> 
> 
> >Dubbya and Asscruft have millions of people in prison for doing
> > nothing wrong, only violating their bullshit rules in the War On Some
> > Drugs.
> 
> I agree that the WoSD is bullshit, but get some historical perspective. 
> The WoSD has been in place for thirty years (Nixon), or for almost a 
> century (vil blacks and hispanics using marijuana to seduce white 
> women). Bush43 and Ashcroft have been in office less than two years, 
> and neither was alive when _Reefer Madness_ came out..
> 
I have a pretty good historical perspective. The WOSD was a mere cat and
mouse game 30 years ago. It was Bush Sr. and Klinton who massively escalated it,
and Dubbya/Asscruft have exponentially escalated it -- arrests of medical
marijuana users in wheelchairs, arrests of doctors for "prescribing too many
pain meds", attempting to outlaw hemp food products, outlawing GHB (sold in
health food stores for over 30 years, it's in every cell of your body, you can't
live without it, and it's now Schedule 1???). The WOSD is dead or dying in
Canada and much of Europe, but the evil twins are going banzai on it. 

> 
> > They have killed thousands of innocent Afghans
> 
> "Thousands of Afghans" has been thoroughly debunked. Only the very 
> stupid continue to believe or propagate it.
> 

   Really? How many Afghans died in the US bombing and invasion. You mean they
were able to overthrow the Taliban without killing anyone? 


> 
> >Not that Klinton was any better.
> 
> Bubba was much worse. He killed people to distract attention from his 
> crimes. Bush43 at least has a supportable rationale, whether or not you 
> agree with it.

   What rationale -- getting the US military back in the heroin trade? Getting
his Enron buddies some new oilfields? 

> 
> 
> Now, I am far from a Bush43 supporter. I have serious concerns about his 
> interest in the rights of Americans. But idiots like Harmon Seaver make 
> it more difficult to effectively oppose Bush43 and Asscruft (*) because 
> their supporters need only point to the idiots to discredit all of the 
> opposition.

   And Quislings like Steve Furlong prop up evil men like Dubbya/Asscruft by
justification of their crimes. "Supporable rationale" my ass. You have "serious
concerns" -- how pathetic. 


-- 
Harmon Seaver   
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

"War is just a racket ... something that is not what it seems to the
majority of people. Only a small group knows what its about. It is
conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the
masses."  --- Major General Smedley Butler, 1933

"Our overriding purpose, from the beginning through to the present
day, has been world domination - that is, to build and maintain the
capacity to coerce everybody else on the planet: nonviolently, if
possible, and violently, if necessary. But the purpose of US foreign
policy of domination is not just to make the rest of the world jump
through hoops; the purpose is to faciliate our exploitation of
resources."
- Ramsey Clark, former US Attorney General
http://www.thesunmagazine.org/bully.html

Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who's ne

[Harmon Seaver]

On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 11:13:06AM -0500, Mike Diehl wrote:
> Dubbya has only been in office about a year and a half, and in that time, he 
> has destroyed Freedom in this country?  I don't think so.  I'm still able to 
> practice my religion freely. 

   How wonderful for you. Many of us sincerely wish we could practice our
religion freely as well. 


> I can criticize my government and stay out of 
> prison.

   Can you? As long as you do it at home or in your local bar, I suppose. Try
taking it out on the street and getting in their face.

>  I don't have soldiers living with/watching me.

   Plenty of pigs watching a lot of us. The fedzis are everywhere these
days. Perhaps you've heard about them infiltrating church groups, demanding the
reading lists from libraries, etc. How do you know they haven't bugged your
house? Your computer? Got Carnivore at your ISP? 


>  Saddam is just as 
> bad as most dictators, but let's not confuse the issue; he's still a DICTATOR!

What do you call an unelected president?

> 
>  >Dubbya and Asscruft have millions of people in prison for doing
>  > nothing wrong, only violating their bullshit rules in the War On Some
>  > Drugs. 
> 
> Hey, the law is posted.  You may not agree with it, but it is the law.

   Fuck that. The Nazis posted a law saying all Jews were illegal. People didn't
agree with it, "but it was the law" -- right? 

>  I 
> wouldn't have agreed with Prohibition, but I would have followed the law 
> while at the same time trying to abolish it. 

 Yup, just following orders, right? 

> Guess what, I have that 
> freedom, still.  Personall, I don't care what you do in the privacy of your 
> own home, but I won't want to drive on the same street, go to work with, or 
> have my child watched, by anyone who is high on some drug.

   You don't use any drugs yourself, of course. Never touch any alcohol or
tobacco, eh?

>  If that means 
> smoking dope keeps someone from being imployed, that's not my problem.
> 
Yes, I keep hearing this same theme from a lot of fat-cat amerikans -- "I
don't care what the gov't does, they aren't bothering me." "I don't care if they
read my email." "I don't have anything to hide, who cares if they tap all the
phones?"


>  >They have killed thousands of innocent Afghans, and are intent
>  > on murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis just to steal
>  > their oil. This makes Dubbya a mass-murder far beyond the scale of
>  > Saddam.
> 
> Well, mass-murder is a bit strong.  I believe we are motivated by oil; not 
> arguement there. 

   So it's okay to take what belongs to someone else if your strong enough to do
it, eh? Hmmm, where do you live? Got any nice toys? How much cash do you usually
carry?


> Perhapse Dubbya is looking out for the US's, and his own? 
> best interests.  I'll bet you drive a car and like a warm home, and like that 
> electricity stuff. 

Yup, but I'm making my own biodiesel to run my van and pickup on, and soon
will have a gasifier to produce all the heat and electricity I need from
biomass, mostly waste. But we lived for 18 years with *no* electricity and only
wood for all our heating and cooking, it's no biggy. I don't need or want a drop
of Iraqi oil.

> Well, it all NEEDS OIL!  The average American Sheep would 
> riot in the street if they couldn't drive their SUV to church on sunday.
> 
   
You sound pretty much like one of those sheeple. I'll laugh my ass off when
the oil well goes dry. I sincerly hope a lot of those fat ass amerikans who
support the likes of Dubbya starve and freeze to death.


-- 
Harmon Seaver   
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

"War is just a racket ... something that is not what it seems to the
majority of people. Only a small group knows what its about. It is
conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the
masses."  --- Major General Smedley Butler, 1933

"Our overriding purpose, from the beginning through to the present
day, has been world domination - that is, to build and maintain the
capacity to coerce everybody else on the planet: nonviolently, if
possible, and violently, if necessary. But the purpose of US foreign
policy of domination is not just to make the rest of the world jump
through hoops; the purpose is to faciliate our exploitation of
resources."
- Ramsey Clark, former US Attorney General
http://www.thesunmagazine.org/bully.html

Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who's ne

[Steve Schear]

[A edited copy of a piece I published Oct 4th in the International 
Relations list.  steve]

I think that most Western nation leadership will eventually support the U.S.'
military action against Iraq. However, they may do so not because they
necessarily think Bush is right that Saddam's weapons are a threat to the
West, but because it is a politically acceptable pretext concealing longer
term economic and geo-political issues--ones they do not wish to share at
this time with their citizens.

Forked Tongue
The war with Iran, a heavily militarized powerful client state of the U.S.
under the dictatorship of the Shah, left Iraq bankrupt. Faced with
rebuilding its infrastructure destroyed in the war, Iraq needed money. No
country would loan it money except the U.S. Borrowing money from the U.S.
made Iraq its client state. A client State could take no action without the
permission of the more powerful nation.

In 1990 Saddam Hussein complained to our State Department about Kuwait's
illegal removal of Iraqi underground oil by slant drilling across the
border into Iraq. This had continued for years, but now Iraq needed the
money that this oil would supply to pay its bills. Saddam considered a war
with Kuwait but needed Washington's permission.

 From Ramsey Clark's "The Fire This Time" (1994, Thunder's Mouth Press),
pp.23-24:
On July 25 - the day after the United States announced Gulf exercises with
the UAE, while Iraqi troops were massing on the Kuwaiti border, and as
General Schwarzkopf readied CENTCOM for war against Iraq - Saddam Hussein
summoned Ambassador [April] Glaspie to his office in what seems to have
been a final attempt to clarify Washington's position on his dispute with
Kuwait. Glaspie assured him: "We have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts,
like your border disagreement with Kuwait [Secretary of State] James
Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction."
[83] She was expresssing official policy. On July 24, she had received a
cable from the State Department explicitly directing her to reiterate that
the United States had "no position" on "Arab-Arab" conflicts. [84]

After the war, on March 21, 1991, Glaspie denied this version of her
meeting with Hussein. She testified to the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee that she had repeatedly warned Hussein that the United States
would not tolerate Iraq's use of violence to settle the dispute with
Kuwait. She said Hussein had been too "stupid" to understand how the Unite
States would react. [85]

But in July 1991, Glaspie's cables to the State Department describing the
meeting were finally released to the Senate. The cable showed that her
Senate testimony was largely fabricated, and that the version released by
Iraq was accurate. [86]

On July 12, 1991 Committee Chairman Senator Claiborne Pell wrote an angry
letter to Secretary of State James Baker demanding an explanation for the
inconsistencies between Glaspie's testimony and the cable. Senator Alan
Cranston charged that Glaspie had deliberately misled Congress about her
role in the Gulf War. [the book continues with Assistant Secretary of State
Kelly telling a Congressional committee on 31 July that the US had no
treaty obligations to defend Kuwait]

Follow the Oil (eh, Money)
Its seems somewhat odd that our State Department would tell Iraq "go ahead,
we don't care" and shortly thereafter launch one of the largest military
actions in this century. Was this simple a case of "crossed wires" (pretty
hard to believe) or intentional, part of a long-term U.S. or Western
strategy to provide cover for future unilateral actions to assure the
unimpeded flow of oil? Its critical that Americans realize that Bush,
Chenney and some senior advisors come from the petroleum
industry. Whatever one may think of their politics, they are no fools when
it comes to oil.

Based on analysis of oil exploration records, Dr. M. King Hubbert developed
a model and predicted in 1956 that the USA would peak in its production of
oil around 1970. He was discouraged from disclosing this foreboding news by
his employers. He felt morally obligated to disclose the truth, and yet
when he did so, his peers laughed at him. As we all know, he was right on,
and the USA and the world suffered the first oil shock soon after the USA
reached the peak he predicted.

If oil production peaks are key economic turning points then the peak in
world production should be of keen interests to all economists; to all
citizens of developed countries. Dr. C.J.Campbell, "Oil Depletion -
Updated Through 2001," http://www.hubbertpeak.com/campbell/update2002.htm
believes that "...the peak of Conventional oil may have been passed in
2000, the peak of all liquids (e.g., shale oil, etc) comes around 2010,
followed by the peak of all hydrocarbons around 2015. The entry of
deepwater production and growing NGL from gas is seen as critical. If they
come in as forecast, overall oil production need not fall below present
levels for about twenty 

Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who's ne

[Marshall Clow]

[ I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but there might be someone out there who could 
benefit from this. ]

Tyler Durden wrote:
>Aside from this is the issue of continued American dependence on oil, a dependence 
>that could be greatly reduced if we put our minds to it, but we seem to be so 
>addicted to our current lifestyle that we would rather launch wars rather than face 
>our internal issues.

You blithely say "if we put our minds to it", as if that were a simple thing.
[ Hint: Minds have been "put to it" before. ]

For your amusement, here are a few dates from history:

November 7, 1973
President Nixon launches Project Independence, with the goal of achieving 
energy self-sufficiency by 1980.

April 18, 1977
President Carter announces National Energy Plan in his first major energy 
speech.
Goal is to reduce oil imports by 65%, and to reduce energy growth to 2%/year.

March 17, 1987
President Reagan's Energy Security Report outlines the
Nation's increasing dependence on foreign oil.

February 20, 1991
President Bush presents the Department's National Energy Strategy
to Congress and the American people.
-- 
-- Marshall

Marshall Clow Idio Software   
Hey! Who messed with my anti-paranoia shot?

Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who's ne

[Harmon Seaver]

On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 03:10:13AM +0100, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> Gary Jeffers writes:
> 
> >The purpose of the coming Iraq war is to steal their oil. After we get 
> > Iraq oil, which arab country is next? If U. State can get away with the
> > theft of Iraq, then why not just keep on stealing?
> >
> >  The beneficiaries of this war are:
> >
> > 1. United State:
> >
> > 2. Corporations, connected.
> >
> > 3. The ruling elite families.
> >
> > 4. The Zionists.
> 
> Even if all this were true, so what?  All of the groups above would
> do better things with the oil.  The represent the forces of enterprise,
> initiative and enlightenment in the world today.  What is the alternative?
> Iraq?  Saddam Hussein?  You think the world is a better place with
> someone like him controlling Iraqi oil?

Right, and I can do better things with your money than you can, so why
shouldn't I just kill you and take it? 

> 
> He's no better than any of the groups above.  He took power by force
> and rules his country with an iron fist.  See the recent elections -
> 100% of the vote was supposedly for Hussein!  What a joke.
> 
> How can anyone claim that the U.S. or Israel or corporations or rich
> Americans are morally worse than the likes of Hussein?
> 
   I don't see that Saddam is any less moral than Dubbya and Asscruft. 



> A 21st century where democratic, liberal Western democracies control the
> world will be far more prosperous, safe and free than one where backwards,
> repressive, religious ideologies like Islam dominate.

   A far better idea is for the UN to invade the US, depose it's evil,
warmongering leader, destroy all the WOMD, and free the oppressed populace. 

(rest of absurd rant snipped)


-- 
Harmon Seaver   
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

"War is just a racket ... something that is not what it seems to the
majority of people. Only a small group knows what its about. It is
conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the
masses."  --- Major General Smedley Butler, 1933

"Our overriding purpose, from the beginning through to the present
day, has been world domination - that is, to build and maintain the
capacity to coerce everybody else on the planet: nonviolently, if
possible, and violently, if necessary. But the purpose of US foreign
policy of domination is not just to make the rest of the world jump
through hoops; the purpose is to faciliate our exploitation of
resources."
- Ramsey Clark, former US Attorney General
http://www.thesunmagazine.org/bully.html

Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who's ne

[Harmon Seaver]

   Hmm, interesting -- how come the original of this came never came thru
lne.com? And I think there's been at least a couple of others lately that I only
saw in someone quote -- wasn't 100% sure about them, but I am this one. 


> Gary Jeffers writes:
> 
> >The purpose of the coming Iraq war is to steal their oil. After we get 
> > Iraq oil, which arab country is next? If U. State can get away with the
> > theft of Iraq, then why not just keep on stealing?
> >
> >  The beneficiaries of this war are:
> >
> > 1. United State:
> >
> > 2. Corporations, connected.
> >
> > 3. The ruling elite families.
> >
> > 4. The Zionists.
> 




-- 
Harmon Seaver   
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com

"War is just a racket ... something that is not what it seems to the
majority of people. Only a small group knows what its about. It is
conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the
masses."  --- Major General Smedley Butler, 1933

"Our overriding purpose, from the beginning through to the present
day, has been world domination - that is, to build and maintain the
capacity to coerce everybody else on the planet: nonviolently, if
possible, and violently, if necessary. But the purpose of US foreign
policy of domination is not just to make the rest of the world jump
through hoops; the purpose is to faciliate our exploitation of
resources."
- Ramsey Clark, former US Attorney General
http://www.thesunmagazine.org/bully.html

Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who's ne

[Tyler Durden]

"How can anyone claim that the U.S. or Israel or corporations or rich
Americans are morally worse than the likes of Hussein?"

Can't answer that directly, aside from pointing out that theUS is largely 
responsible for Hussein's rise to power. I could be argued that oil in our 
hands has created many a Saddam.

Aside from this is the issue of continued American dependence on oil, a 
dependence that could be greatly reduced if we put our minds to it, but we 
seem to be so addicted to our current lifestyle that we would rather launch 
wars rather than face our internal issues.

Anyone guess where's Waldo (Osama) now? My guess he's on the end of a bungee 
being kicked into Iraq right now! (The other end of the bungee is in a US 
chopper!)




From: Nomen Nescio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil.  
Who's ne
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 03:10:13 +0100 (CET)

Gary Jeffers writes:

>The purpose of the coming Iraq war is to steal their oil. After we 
get
> Iraq oil, which arab country is next? If U. State can get away with the
> theft of Iraq, then why not just keep on stealing?
>
>  The beneficiaries of this war are:
>
> 1. United State:
>
> 2. Corporations, connected.
>
> 3. The ruling elite families.
>
> 4. The Zionists.

Even if all this were true, so what?  All of the groups above would
do better things with the oil.  The represent the forces of enterprise,
initiative and enlightenment in the world today.  What is the alternative?
Iraq?  Saddam Hussein?  You think the world is a better place with
someone like him controlling Iraqi oil?

He's no better than any of the groups above.  He took power by force
and rules his country with an iron fist.  See the recent elections -
100% of the vote was supposedly for Hussein!  What a joke.

How can anyone claim that the U.S. or Israel or corporations or rich
Americans are morally worse than the likes of Hussein?

A 21st century where democratic, liberal Western democracies control the
world will be far more prosperous, safe and free than one where backwards,
repressive, religious ideologies like Islam dominate.

The mere fact that you feel free to criticize the U.S., but would never
go to Iraq and criticize Hussein just proves the point.  Sure, freedom
of speech is not absolute in the U.S., and the degree of protection has
fluctuated; during WWI people were sent to jail for criticizing the draft,
but we're nowhere near that point now.

But these freedoms are non-existant in Iraq, China, and other countries
which are the real threat to peace and freedom in the coming decades.
Look at http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=3235 which describes
a case in neighboring Iran where a respected academic was sentenced
to DEATH for saying that Muslims should not blindly obey the Imams.
These are the forces which are trying to assert their dominance over
the world as we move into this new century.  We either stand by and
let it happen, condemning future generations to lives of suffering,
poverty and ignorance, or we take steps to stop it, defending Western
culture and its ideals of freedom.

That's what's really at stake here.  We're fighting over which ideology
will control the world.  And yes, oil is a potent weapon in this struggle.
Leaving those vast oil resources in the hands of conservative Muslims
would be a huge mistake from the perspective of this decades-long war.

So let's agree with Gary Jeffers: Beat State!  But the state we must
beat is the state of religious persecution and dictatorship practiced by
Hussein.  If we hold all states to the same standard instead of heaping
criticism only on one, we will see that Iraq is far more deserving of
condemnation than most.  Their government deserves to be beaten, to be
destroyed.  It would be the finest gift we could give to the Iraqi people.


_
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil. Who's ne

[Nomen Nescio]

Gary Jeffers writes:

>The purpose of the coming Iraq war is to steal their oil. After we get 
> Iraq oil, which arab country is next? If U. State can get away with the
> theft of Iraq, then why not just keep on stealing?
>
>  The beneficiaries of this war are:
>
> 1. United State:
>
> 2. Corporations, connected.
>
> 3. The ruling elite families.
>
> 4. The Zionists.

Even if all this were true, so what?  All of the groups above would
do better things with the oil.  The represent the forces of enterprise,
initiative and enlightenment in the world today.  What is the alternative?
Iraq?  Saddam Hussein?  You think the world is a better place with
someone like him controlling Iraqi oil?

He's no better than any of the groups above.  He took power by force
and rules his country with an iron fist.  See the recent elections -
100% of the vote was supposedly for Hussein!  What a joke.

How can anyone claim that the U.S. or Israel or corporations or rich
Americans are morally worse than the likes of Hussein?

A 21st century where democratic, liberal Western democracies control the
world will be far more prosperous, safe and free than one where backwards,
repressive, religious ideologies like Islam dominate.

The mere fact that you feel free to criticize the U.S., but would never
go to Iraq and criticize Hussein just proves the point.  Sure, freedom
of speech is not absolute in the U.S., and the degree of protection has
fluctuated; during WWI people were sent to jail for criticizing the draft,
but we're nowhere near that point now.

But these freedoms are non-existant in Iraq, China, and other countries
which are the real threat to peace and freedom in the coming decades.
Look at http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=3235 which describes
a case in neighboring Iran where a respected academic was sentenced
to DEATH for saying that Muslims should not blindly obey the Imams.
These are the forces which are trying to assert their dominance over
the world as we move into this new century.  We either stand by and
let it happen, condemning future generations to lives of suffering,
poverty and ignorance, or we take steps to stop it, defending Western
culture and its ideals of freedom.

That's what's really at stake here.  We're fighting over which ideology
will control the world.  And yes, oil is a potent weapon in this struggle.
Leaving those vast oil resources in the hands of conservative Muslims
would be a huge mistake from the perspective of this decades-long war.

So let's agree with Gary Jeffers: Beat State!  But the state we must
beat is the state of religious persecution and dictatorship practiced by
Hussein.  If we hold all states to the same standard instead of heaping
criticism only on one, we will see that Iraq is far more deserving of
condemnation than most.  Their government deserves to be beaten, to be
destroyed.  It would be the finest gift we could give to the Iraqi people.