Re: terror alert red

[Bill Stewart]

At 04:00 PM 03/21/2003 +, lcs Mixmaster Remailer wrote:
Surely you don't think some press announcement by a governor is
sufficient to place millions of people under house arrest
without due process, indictment, arraignment, etc.
My memories of the 1968 riots are pretty fuzzy;
Wilmington Delaware was under National Guard occupation for
longer than any other city in a US state since the
War Between the States, but it was basically in the
black areas of downtown, and I was a kid out in the burbs.
The main effect was armed soldiers on streetcorners,
plus nighttime curfews at least at the beginning.
But this wasn't a press announcement by the governor -
this was a press announcement by the state terrorism czar
saying that if anything bad happens he'll be able to control it,
and it's the governor's job to make sure that the
State Police and National Guard don't do anything stupid like
listen to him if he decides to announce that he's in charge like Al Haig 
some day,
while letting him rattle his cage now to keep the Bush League PR Machine happy.

Re: Libertarian Party expresses "concern" over war -- but does not

[Bill Stewart]

While I wish Mike were correct that the party would get some spine
just because we tell them to, I'm not holding my breath.
I was expecting better from Geoff.
The LP's traditional heritage was pretty radical about issues
like the draft (we opposed it) and drugs (got any good pot?)
and about free markets, but too many people reacted to 9/11
by supporting intervention to not only kill Osama,
but anybody else that the Administration felt like blaming,
such as the Taliban, and there are some people in the California party
who think that invading Iraq will somehow help stop anti-US terrorism
or will kill people who supported Osama and is therefore justifiable.
At 06:10 AM 03/21/2003 -0800, Mike Rosing wrote:
I agree, and I'm including the LP on cc (which I didn't notice till
I hit "reply").  Now that congress has voted to "support the troops"
it's time for a revolution in the ballot box.  If enough of us tell
the LP to get some spine, they will!
Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike
On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Declan McCullagh wrote:

> Eric's statement was hyperbole, designed to provoke. My own view is
> that the Libertarian Party is being unfortunately wishy-washy when it
> comes to the war on Iraq.
>
> It correctly said that troops should not be blamed for politicians'
> choices, but it pointedly declined to say: "This is an unjust war. We
> oppose it. The U.S. should not be in Iraq. It is arguably an
> unconstitutional war as well. The U.S. should not be in the business
> of initiating hostilities or playing the world's peacekeeper. Period."
>
> That it chose not to do so speaks volumes about the LP's timidity.
>
> Compare to the Green Party's unabashed, unashamed, unafraid position:
> >"the Green Party of the United States reaffirmed its opposition to the
> >war and demand for the withdrawal of troops... President Bush and White
> >House officials may find themselves indicted for numerous violations
> >of U.S. and international law.  Greens and other antiwar activists are
> >organizing emergency responses to the invasion, including a recall
> >campaign..."
>
> I'm not a Green Party voter, but at least they have spine.
>
> -Declan
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 06:38:51PM -0800, Mike Rosing wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Eric Cordian wrote:
> >
> > > Libertarians are people who think the only legitimate use of state 
force
> > > is to protect them from their slaves.
> >
> > You get of the wrong side of bed this morning or what?
> >
> > > It is unlikely that people who don't oppose the death penalty, nor the
> > > "right" of parents to beat their minor children at will, will care
> > > particularly about Shrub kicking the crap out of some disarmed 
third world
> > > country to steal its oil and advance the cause of the Jews.
> >
> > Go visit the www.truthaboutwar.org site.  That's run by the Libertarians.
> > They are definitly using this as a way to get more votes.
> >
> > They are consistenly the only party clamoring to bring all US troops back
> > to US soil, and keep them there.  Hell, their platform includes
> > eliminating a standing army altogether, because that's what the
> > constitution orders!
> >
> > > It's unlikely the American cowards will sustain any casualties, 
aside from
> > > friendly fire accidents.  Iraq is disarmed, and generations behind in
> > > weaponry.  Any suggestion that the country poses a threat is merely
> > > propaganda to make our soldiers look less like pussies kicking the shit
> > > out of a one-armed man.
> >
> > That's for sure.  With a bit of luck it can be used as impeachment
> > evidence.  More like a miracle more likely.
> >
> > Patience, persistence, truth,
> > Dr. mike

Re: Libertarian Party expresses "concern" over war -- but does not

[Mike Rosing]

On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Bill Stewart wrote:

> While I wish Mike were correct that the party would get some spine
> just because we tell them to, I'm not holding my breath.
> I was expecting better from Geoff.
>
> The LP's traditional heritage was pretty radical about issues
> like the draft (we opposed it) and drugs (got any good pot?)
> and about free markets, but too many people reacted to 9/11
> by supporting intervention to not only kill Osama,
> but anybody else that the Administration felt like blaming,
> such as the Taliban, and there are some people in the California party
> who think that invading Iraq will somehow help stop anti-US terrorism
> or will kill people who supported Osama and is therefore justifiable.

Uggh.  So there are neanderthal Libertarians too.  Bummer, I was
expecting them all to have different opinions, but it's pretty
obvious that we're creating more enemies and increasing terrorism.
Oh well, I guess they all get to learn by experience.

Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike

Re: CDR: Re: Spending a billion dollars an hour produces a hell of a light show!

[Damian Gerow]

Tyler Durden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "As the Iraqis themselves said, and I paraphrase (because the quote is  not 
> handy): "If the U.S. says they know the locations of secret weapons  
> projects, of underground bunkers, etc., why don't they simply give the  
> locations to the U.N. weapons inspectors who can then go to those  sites?"
> 
> Come on now! The Iraqis should have proven that they DON'T have any nukular 
> weapons. They were unable to prove that they don't have any WMDs, so now 
> it's their fault they're getting invaded.

Prove to me that you don't have a pet alligator.  Come on, I want you to
prove it.

No, I don't think the abscence of food, a tank, dirt, and other
alligator-related paraphenalia is good enough.  You can't just say that you
don't have one, and let me in to your home.  You have /another/ home,
where you're keeping the alligator.  Actually, the very fact that your
apartment is clean means absolutely nothing.  Where is your alligator?

(Yes, I'm taking this overboard.  But it's a very similar argument to what
the U.S. pulled.)

That aside, riddle me this: If Iraq does indeed have WMDs, where are they?
Why aren't they using them?  They're about to be slaughtered by the beloved
U.S., so why aren't they defending themselves?  What do they gain by not
using the weapons they're supposedly hiding?

Re: Libertarian Party expresses "concern" over war -- but does not

[Bill Stewart]

At 11:28 AM 03/21/2003 -0500, John Kelsey wrote:
At 07:52 PM 3/20/03 -0800, Tim May wrote:
...
But the imperial power goes after the skinny kid it knows it can beat up, 
not the greater threats in the region (and in the world). Grenada, 
Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iraq again. But not North Korea, not 
China, not Saudi Arabia, not Russia, not Pakistan, and not Germany or France.
I wouldn't bet too much on us not going after North Korea sometime in the 
next year or two, if the invasion and takeover of Iraq goes well.
I'd be surprised if we invaded them -
North Korea is strategically important to the US,
because it's an excuse to keep military bases in South Korea,
nearby to China and Japan, and in spite of being in near-total collapse
for decades, it's got leaders who can be depended on to
make scary speeches and rattle sabers at us so that
our military-industrial-complex can make scary speeches and
rattle sabers back at them and everybody can stay in power.
Otherwise, there was starting to be a real risk that we'd
have to declare North Korea to be too lame a threat to
justify keeping troops over in Asia, or start shipping
lots of free Texas or California rice and Kansas wheat to them
to keep the population from starving while subsidizing farmers here.
It's possible that the place will collapse into violent disaster,
but the big risk is that if there's another bad harvest,
the governments will succeed in keeping the population of the north
from fleeing to South Korea or China before they all starve.

Spending a billion dollars an hour produces a hell of a light show!

[Tim May]

On Friday, March 21, 2003, at 10:17  AM, A.Melon wrote:
But isn't your source for this denial the same Ministry of Truth
that told us that they had documents proving that Iraq was
seeking to buy Uranium from Nigeria?
This was a crude forgery not much better than ones I have whipped up  
myself. (Hey, maybe I did...)

Probably too crude for a CIA or DIA forgery, unless the intent was to  
show how gullible the prole press is.


That the aluminum tubes
were part of a nuclear program? That the fire trucks around
missile sites were bio decontamination trucks?
Colin Powell was given a chance to produce the real "smoking guns" at  
the U.N. He failed to do so.

As the Iraqis themselves said, and I paraphrase (because the quote is  
not handy): "If the U.S. says they know the locations of secret weapons  
projects, of underground bunkers, etc., why don't they simply give the  
locations to the U.N. weapons inspectors who can then go to those  
sites?"

The U.S. had no response.

I saw a report that the nucular [SIC] weapons inspection teams were  
aided by U.S. experts from Los Alamos, Livermore, and other nuclear  
facilities. Reportedly the U.S. scientists and engineers arrrived in  
Iraq as hawks and left as doves, saying they saw a country bombed and  
sanctioned into a primitive state, with a failing technological  
infrastructure and no indications that they could develop nuclear  
weapons.


Since 93% of the
Turkish people oppose helping the US attack Iraq, is there any
possibility that the money is under table, or paid directly to
the Swiss accounts (oh! moneylaundering!) of key legislators?
I've been saying exactly this for several weeks, that it looked like  
legislators were being targeted with a "shock and awe" program.

(Cameroon diplomat: "We are shocked by the wonderful gift baskets we  
have been receiving and the many condoms and cocaine we are being  
given. Our beautiful blonde Swedish stewardesses will be awed by our  
new wealth! I will move my goats to the other bedroom to enjoy their  
shock and awe.")

To those who are being turned from doves (or, more accurately,  
isolationists/noninterventionists) to hawks (including, regrettably, a  
member of my family!), I have this to say:

* Beware being caught up in the bloodlust of televised war, with  
palaces being blown up, with office buildings burning, with  
neighborhoods blown apart. The televised images are graphic. I admit,  
I'm impressed. But, then, I was impressed with Japanese prowess at  
Pearl Harbor.

* The expenditure of trillions of dollars on fighters, bombers,  
aircraft carriers, submarines, artillery, armor, troops, and many  
forward bases in the area (including in Arab countries where the  
leaders were paid off) is why the U.S. can "spend a billion dollars an  
hour" to kick an Arab country's ass.

* And the "rebuilding" of Iraq (and Iran, and North Korea, and so on)  
is NOT a constitutional reason to tax people. This rebuilding and  
"nation building" is not what the Constitution is about.

* Related to this, the national security state, the gutting of the Bill  
of Rights, the massive budget deficit, all of these examples are  
chickens coming home to roost. Much more can be said about these  
terrible developments.

* The deeper issues are about expansionism, a doctrine of pre-emption  
against countries which have not actually threatened the U.S., and  
about precisely the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned  
about and the foreign entanglements that Washington warned us about.

I promise that my views, expressed here for weeks or months, will not  
be swayed by the apparent ease with which "spending a billion dollars  
an hour" is, not surprisingly, bombing Iraq further back into the stone  
age.

--Tim May




Long Live Falun Gong! Death to the Chinese Communist Party!
U R G E N T
Crypto transmission failed...arms shipment to Shanghai delayed...will  
re-route through Hong Kong...nerve gas (VX) to follow soonest.

Death to oppressors of Falun Gong!
2002FC
2bB,25B;bb bB+bb
bB*
B*b"bKN)C7B B1B1B.B1b!B:b	 b	KbB?B1B1C&B)N)B4bCbObB.B,C7OB6B?B)bOB5N)bB?OK
d8-e=d<
e>e(g>e=i"ed8
f6g
-f3h=.e
f/eg>e=d::f	d?!e%	geeeg+e=d9f,hi
g8f
gc...d;
e$)efe$)e8d;f;g;i=e(ed:,h/e>ed8-e=gi"e/>fe1h/ch?d9f/d8 
d8*e%=f:d<f%fif1f3=f0d8;e8-e
d;gee?d;,o<h?+e.3ee93d?!d;0h?e
(f/d8g'
d;d;,ih&
e(d8-e=f>e<gh!d8:c

Re: Spending a billion dollars an hour produces a hell of a lightshow!

[alan]

On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Tyler Durden wrote:

> "As the Iraqis themselves said, and I paraphrase (because the quote is  not 
> handy): "If the U.S. says they know the locations of secret weapons  
> projects, of underground bunkers, etc., why don't they simply give the  
> locations to the U.N. weapons inspectors who can then go to those  sites?"
> 
> Come on now! The Iraqis should have proven that they DON'T have any nukular 
> weapons. They were unable to prove that they don't have any WMDs, so now 
> it's their fault they're getting invaded.

How do you prove non-existance of an item?  (Especially when the other 
party is willing to lie and forge evidence to the contrary.)

I don't believe that there was *anything* that Iraq could have done to 
stop the invasion.  If Saddam left with all his sons, we would have gone 
in to "provide stability".  If they had bent over and lubed up, we would 
have still claimed that they were hiding something on "mobile bases" or 
had it hidden underground or some other excuse.

Because, in the end, all Bush wanted was an excuse.

But don't think it stops here.  

As it has been said before: "Rome wasn't built in a day".

Re: terror alert red

[Harmon Seaver]

On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 04:00:28PM -, lcs Mixmaster Remailer wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 08:31:59 -0600, you wrote:
> >
> >Has anyone heard any more about the announcement made by the NJ gov that if
> > we go to the next level -- red -- that everyone is confined to their houses?
> >
> 
> Nope, but it's not surprising since there was NO announcement by 
> the NJ gov that red means confinement to the house. If someone 
> want to confine NJ residents to their homes, they need a 
> conviction and sentence or a bond order from a judge that 
> specifies that, or a legal declaration of martial law followed 
> by such an order to the people.
> 
> Surely you don't think some press announcement by a governor is 
> sufficient to place millions of people under house arrest 
> without due process, indictment, arraignment, etc.


   In the US? Today? Are you kidding?


-- 
Harmon Seaver   
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com
We are now in America's Darkest Hour.
http://www.oshkoshbygosh.org

hoka hey!

Re: What shall we do with a bad government...

[Tim Meehan]

Mike Rosing said:

>Given how Vancouver is going now, that might have been a nice restful place :-)

Vancouver is nice, but the economy sucks (except if you're growing). Toronto has
an okay economy but too many yuppies and climbers (and crappy pot).  Montreal is
the best, but you're better off if you speak Freedom -- and like hash.

-Tim

http://www.salvagingelectrons.com/degaulle

Re: Libertarian Party expresses "concern" over war -- but does not

[Sunder]

On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Harmon Seaver wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 11:28:49AM -0500, John Kelsey wrote:
> > 
> > I wouldn't bet too much on us not going after North Korea sometime in the 
> > next year or two, if the invasion and takeover of Iraq goes well.
> 
>Don't be ridiculous -- that would get South Korea and Japan instantly nuked. 

At which point Shurbbya will say "See, I told you they were evil." -- we
can only hope he doesn't go after North Korea before election day.

Interesting stuff is brewing at the UN... I doubt much of anything will
come of it...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/justin/weekly/newsnat-21mar2003-138.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/justin/nat/newsnat-22mar2003-13.htm



--Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos---
 + ^ + :NSA got $20Bil/year |Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\
  \|/  :and didn't stop 9-11|share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\
<--*-->:Instead of rewarding|monitor, or under your keyboard, you   \/|\/
  /|\  :their failures, we  |don't email them, or put them on a web  \|/
 + v + :should get refunds! |site, and you must change them very often.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunder.net 

Re: What shall we do with a bad government...

[A.Melon]

On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 08:32:08 -0500, you wrote:
>
> Greetings traitors,
>
> :-).
>
>
> At 7:28 PM -0800 on 3/20/03, Tim May wrote:
>
>
> > In
> > fact, Turkey is shaking down the U.S. for $30 billion in grants and aid
> > and loan guarantees.
>
> Nope. See Below.

But isn't your source for this denial the same Ministry of Truth 
that told us that they had documents proving that Iraq was 
seeking to buy Uranium from Nigeria? That the aluminum tubes 
were part of a nuclear program? That the fire trucks around 
missile sites were bio decontamination trucks? Since 93% of the 
Turkish people oppose helping the US attack Iraq, is there any 
possibility that the money is under table, or paid directly to 
the Swiss accounts (oh! moneylaundering!) of key legislators? Or 
that the US might advise a few million Kurds to head north into 
Turkey to avoid airstrikes on Iraqi positions? What does our 
partner in freedom Uzbekistan say?

>
> Cheers,
> RAH

Re: Spending a billion dollars an hour produces a hell of a light show!

[Tyler Durden]

"As the Iraqis themselves said, and I paraphrase (because the quote is  not 
handy): "If the U.S. says they know the locations of secret weapons  
projects, of underground bunkers, etc., why don't they simply give the  
locations to the U.N. weapons inspectors who can then go to those  sites?"

Come on now! The Iraqis should have proven that they DON'T have any nukular 
weapons. They were unable to prove that they don't have any WMDs, so now 
it's their fault they're getting invaded.

-TD

_
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

Re: Libertarian Party expresses "concern" over war -- but does not

[Harmon Seaver]

On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 11:28:49AM -0500, John Kelsey wrote:
> At 07:52 PM 3/20/03 -0800, Tim May wrote:
> ...
> >But the imperial power goes after the skinny kid it knows it can beat up, 
> >not the greater threats in the region (and in the world). Grenada, Panama, 
> >Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iraq again. But not North Korea, not China, not 
> >Saudi Arabia, not Russia, not Pakistan, and not Germany or France.
> 
> I wouldn't bet too much on us not going after North Korea sometime in the 
> next year or two, if the invasion and takeover of Iraq goes well.

   Don't be ridiculous -- that would get South Korea and Japan instantly nuked. 


-- 
Harmon Seaver   
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com
We are now in America's Darkest Hour.
http://www.oshkoshbygosh.org

hoka hey!

Re: Spending a billion dollars an hour produces a hell of a light show!

[Bill Stewart]

At 03:10 AM 03/21/2003 -0800, alan wrote:
On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Tyler Durden wrote:

> Come on now! The Iraqis should have proven that they DON'T have any 
nukular
> weapons. They were unable to prove that they don't have any WMDs, so now
> it's their fault they're getting invaded.

How do you prove non-existance of an item?  (Especially when the other
party is willing to lie and forge evidence to the contrary.)
Traitor!  You DARE to accuse the US of forging evidence like that?!
You realize you're accusing the Pentagon bureaucrats of being
unable to keep track of the receipts for the chemical weapons we gave them
during the Iran-Iraq war, as if they were $600 hammers or something?
No duct tape for YOU!
Because, in the end, all Bush wanted was an excuse.

But don't think it stops here.
No.  It doesn't.

Re: Libertarian Party expresses "concern" over war -- but does not

[Tom Veil]

Eric Cordian wrote on March 20, 2003 at 14:35:45 -0800:

> Libertarians are people who think the only legitimate use of state force
> is to protect them from their slaves.

No libertarian will ever express support for slavery or forced servitude,
except for punishment after due process for a crime committed.

But of course, you didn't mean 'slavery' as in the case of a man being
lashed with the master's whip, you meant "slavery" as in the case of a
man who isn't making at least $18 per hour, or whatever the communists
call a "living wage" now.

--
Tom Veil

Re: Libertarian Party expresses "concern" over war -- but does not

[Eric Cordian]

Ton Veil wrote:

> No libertarian will ever express support for slavery or forced servitude,
> except for punishment after due process for a crime committed.

> But of course, you didn't mean 'slavery' as in the case of a man being
> lashed with the master's whip,

Well, we should recognize the fact that all social institutions get
upgraded with time.  Whipping ones servants is so  1800's.

> you meant "slavery" as in the case of a man who isn't making at least
> $18 per hour, or whatever the communists call a "living wage" now.

Economic slavery is so much more effective than slavery at the point of a
gun, don't you agree?  Why use chains and cages, when you can employ the
economic parasitism of fractional reserve banking.

-- 
Eric Michael Cordian 0+
O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

RE: Tragedy and Evolution

[Vincent Penquerc'h]

> It would be a pain for their families and worse for their insurers,
> certainly, but think of
> the evolutionary benefits to mankind.  You remove folks who
> *voluntarily* gave
> up moral control of their bodies to an unjust, cruel regime.  Such

I'd say such behavior is more aquired that innate.
Or I'd hope...
That said, it may have the same effect through example :>

-- 
Vincent Penquerc'h 

Re: Libertarian Party expresses "concern" over war -- but does not

[John Kelsey]

At 07:52 PM 3/20/03 -0800, Tim May wrote:
...
But the imperial power goes after the skinny kid it knows it can beat up, 
not the greater threats in the region (and in the world). Grenada, Panama, 
Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iraq again. But not North Korea, not China, not 
Saudi Arabia, not Russia, not Pakistan, and not Germany or France.
I wouldn't bet too much on us not going after North Korea sometime in the 
next year or two, if the invasion and takeover of Iraq goes well.

--John Kelsey, [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Tragedy and Evolution

[Mike Rosing]

On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Major Variola (ret) wrote:

> It would be a pain for their families and worse for their insurers,
> certainly, but think of
> the evolutionary benefits to mankind.  You remove folks who
> *voluntarily* gave
> up moral control of their bodies to an unjust, cruel regime.  Such
> eagerness to be externally programmed for violence is undesirable
> in the modern environment, although no doubt considered useful
> by those who use the mercenary moral zombies.
>
> Pruning out the manipulative programmers, those who exploit the moral
> zombies,
>  requires more effort, but at least there are fewer, and they identify
> themselves
> (in autumn in the US) nearly as easily as the zombies, and they
> congregate periodically.

Unfortunatly there seems to be an unlimited supply of both zombies and
programmers.  Until they can't afford it, they'll keep on keepin' on.
Listening to the neanderthals on radio who really support this mercenary
activity it seems like they either go out of their way to find really
stupid people, or else I need to be much more afraid of my neighbors than
I thought!

I just need to convince my wife that a high powered rifle with night scope
is essential for survival

Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike

Tragedy and Evolution: Revenge of the Nerds?

[Tyler Durden]

Variola wrote...

"It would be a pain for their families and worse for their insurers,
certainly, but think of the evolutionary benefits to mankind.  You remove 
folks who *voluntarily* gave up moral control of their bodies to an unjust, 
cruel regime.  Such eagerness to be externally programmed for violence is 
undesirable in the modern environment, although no doubt considered useful 
by those who use the mercenary moral zombies."

Well, perhaps a good point. At least a point that should be made and then 
possibly debated. The question that would seem to follow is whether this is 
true (ie, that such behavior can be weeded out), or will we be doomed to 
repeat the same mistakes over and over? Given the track record of human 
history, I would think the latter, though perhaps we are in a "modern era".

Oh, and it occurrs to me that this may be an additional reason why our 
schools suck.  Create soft, steerable minds that can be easily motivated to 
kill "them", because they are "evilbadragheads" (stop). Reward jock-creation 
and aggression through trophies and short-skirted cheerleaders.

Well, if you are correct, then such weeding out would be the ultimate 
"revenge of the nerds"!



_
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

Re: What shall we do with a bad government...

[Anonymous]

On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 01:42:16PM -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote:
> 
> 
> What bullshit. You just suck right up to those war criminals don't you?
> Do you work for them too?
> 
> 
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 11:18:09AM -0600, Keith Ray wrote:
> 

Nicely argued, Mr. Seaver.  I've never seen such a well-presented
point-by-point response to a logical argument.

Your postings here are always the height of rationality.  Keep up the fine
work.

Re: What shall we do with a bad government...

[Tim Meehan]

Bill Stewart said:

>Then there's the old "America: Love it or Leave it" line,
>from folks who got really really upset when people _did_ leave it
>to avoid Selective Slavery during the Vietnam Police Action.

Some yahoo from Kansas has been flaming me with that one, too, after I responded
to his incoherent rant about Michael Moore using WMD, or something.  I haven't
had the heart to tell him Canada hasn't been annexed (yet).

-Tim

http://www.salvagingelectrons.com/degaulle

Re: What shall we do with a bad government...

[Tim Meehan]

Mike Rosing said:

>Given how Vancouver is going now, that might have been a nice restful place :-)

Vancouver is nice, but the economy sucks (except if you're growing). Toronto has
an okay economy but too many yuppies and climbers (and crappy pot).  Montreal is
the best, but you're better off if you speak Freedom -- and like hash.

-Tim

http://www.salvagingelectrons.com/degaulle

Re: What shall we do with a bad government...

[Bill Stewart]

At 01:50 PM 03/20/2003 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote:
   The other one we hear is "You should be ashamed" which brings a chorus of
"No, we're proud" or "Have you forgotten about Sept. 11th?" We did have some
older fellow stopped at the redlight ranting about us needing to go back to
Russia, which was pretty amusing. Amazing how red in the face some of those
people get.
Then there's the old "America: Love it or Leave it" line,
from folks who got really really upset when people _did_ leave it
to avoid Selective Slavery during the Vietnam Police Action.

Re: The Mechanics of Skyscraper Collapse

[Bill Stewart]

At 02:04 PM 03/20/2003 -0500, Steve Thompson wrote:
This seems reasonable.  As a large structure topples,
the sheer stress across the long axis of the building
will inexorably increase as the upper floors retard
the downward progression of the lower floors (caused
of course by gravity).  I suspect that a large
structure such as a WTC tower would cant no more than
a few degrees before loading stresses opposite to the
design of the compression structure caused a series of
gross structural failures -- which would allow the
building to fall mostly `in place'.
If the collapse starts from the upper floors,
as this one did, then perhaps the upper floors are retarding
the downward collapse, but when the damage starts on the bottom,
the upper floors aren't retarding anything - they're adding weight.
The weight might be somewhat balanced, so I'm not sure that it's
not self-aligning, but that probably also depends a lot on
how the lower floors are attached together and to the ground,
and how centralized the columns are that support the upper floors.

Re: What shall we do with a bad government...

[Harmon Seaver]

On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 05:41:08PM -0600, Anonymous wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 01:42:16PM -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > What bullshit. You just suck right up to those war criminals don't you?
> > Do you work for them too?
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 11:18:09AM -0600, Keith Ray wrote:
> > 
> 
> Nicely argued, Mr. Seaver.  I've never seen such a well-presented
> point-by-point response to a logical argument.

   I could care less about making a "nice argument" or "point-by-point
response" to total bullshit. The concept that there is any shred of legality in
this defies all rationality. The idea that the UN can't change course when it's
members decide to, that one or two nations can take it upon themselves to attack
another nation when the majority of other nations object is ludicrous. 
   What the previous poster was saying was typical lawyerspeak legalmumbojumbo,
i.e., bullshit. 

> 
> Your postings here are always the height of rationality.  Keep up the fine
> work.

Intuition beats rationality any day of the week. Rationality is typified by
the grey flannel suit and the grey flannel mind. I prefer the Zen Lunatic school
of thought.


-- 
Harmon Seaver   
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com
We are now in America's Darkest Hour.
http://www.oshkoshbygosh.org

hoka hey!

Re: terror alert red

[lcs Mixmaster Remailer]

On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 08:31:59 -0600, you wrote:
>
>Has anyone heard any more about the announcement made by the NJ gov that if
> we go to the next level -- red -- that everyone is confined to their houses?
>

Nope, but it's not surprising since there was NO announcement by 
the NJ gov that red means confinement to the house. If someone 
want to confine NJ residents to their homes, they need a 
conviction and sentence or a bond order from a judge that 
specifies that, or a legal declaration of martial law followed 
by such an order to the people.

Surely you don't think some press announcement by a governor is 
sufficient to place millions of people under house arrest 
without due process, indictment, arraignment, etc.

Tragedy and Evolution

[Major Variola (ret)]

At 09:24 AM 3/21/03 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote:
>>May thousands of AmeriKKKan troops die painfully, along with their
>>handlers on the East Coast, as a deterrent to future illegal wars of
>>aggression.
>
>This was the part I had to think about the most. Right now, my feeling
is
>that it would be a tragedy for a large mass of nearly-lumpen soldiers,
>"educated" by the US school system, to have to take the brunt of
>responsibility for this.

It would be a pain for their families and worse for their insurers,
certainly, but think of
the evolutionary benefits to mankind.  You remove folks who
*voluntarily* gave
up moral control of their bodies to an unjust, cruel regime.  Such
eagerness to be externally programmed for violence is undesirable
in the modern environment, although no doubt considered useful
by those who use the mercenary moral zombies.

Pruning out the manipulative programmers, those who exploit the moral
zombies,
 requires more effort, but at least there are fewer, and they identify
themselves
(in autumn in the US) nearly as easily as the zombies, and they
congregate periodically.

Nice comic-commentray on DieselSweeties yesterday

[Sunder]

http://www.dieselsweeties.com/archive.php?s=644


--Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos---
 + ^ + :NSA got $20Bil/year |Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\
  \|/  :and didn't stop 9-11|share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\
<--*-->:Instead of rewarding|monitor, or under your keyboard, you   \/|\/
  /|\  :their failures, we  |don't email them, or put them on a web  \|/
 + v + :should get refunds! |site, and you must change them very often.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunder.net 

RE: What shall we do with a bad government...

[Vincent Penquerc'h]

> Tim - I don't think the cowboy (aka Shrubya) knows enough economics to
> realize that, in the long term, income and expenditure must 
> be in some kind
> of rough balance.  He's always been able to lean on daddy's money.

I'm wondering whether the successive US administrations are not
increasingly planning to live off the world, by way of their economic
debt. Buy with monkey money, never reimburse. Effectively taxing the
other economies for their expenses.
Though economies might be already too linked together for this to
work fine, as damage to one part of the world's economy will reflect
on others, including the US. Hmm, I think I'll do some googling now...

-- 
Vincent Penquerc'h 

Re: Libertarian Party expresses "concern" over war -- but does not

[Mike Rosing]

On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Eric Cordian wrote:

> Libertarians are people who think the only legitimate use of state force
> is to protect them from their slaves.

You get of the wrong side of bed this morning or what?

> It is unlikely that people who don't oppose the death penalty, nor the
> "right" of parents to beat their minor children at will, will care
> particularly about Shrub kicking the crap out of some disarmed third world
> country to steal its oil and advance the cause of the Jews.

Go visit the www.truthaboutwar.org site.  That's run by the Libertarians.
They are definitly using this as a way to get more votes.

They are consistenly the only party clamoring to bring all US troops back
to US soil, and keep them there.  Hell, their platform includes
eliminating a standing army altogether, because that's what the
constitution orders!

> It's unlikely the American cowards will sustain any casualties, aside from
> friendly fire accidents.  Iraq is disarmed, and generations behind in
> weaponry.  Any suggestion that the country poses a threat is merely
> propaganda to make our soldiers look less like pussies kicking the shit
> out of a one-armed man.

That's for sure.  With a bit of luck it can be used as impeachment
evidence.  More like a miracle more likely.

Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike

Re: What shall we do with a bad government...

[John Kelsey]

At 03:49 AM 3/20/03 +0100, Thomas Shaddack wrote:
...
While over 70% of local citizens are against it (caveat: I am not closely
familiar with the polling method, but no one of my local friends is
supporting Shrubya's pet war).
Your sample is probably seriously biased, though.  My friends and family 
run about 98% antiwar, but several different polls seem to indicate over 
half the American people support it.  There's no paradox there; my family 
and friends aren't a representative sample of the American people.  This is 
like that famous quote about "Nixon can't have won--nobody I know voted for 
him" by some New York Times columnist.  (That's from memory, so I'm 
probably missing some essential facts...but then, the NYT does that 
occasionally, too.)

--John Kelsey, [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Libertarian Party expresses "concern" over war -- but does not

[Bill Frantz]

At 7:52 PM -0800 3/20/03, Tim May wrote:But the imperial power goes after
the skinny kid it knows it can beat
>up, not the greater threats in the region (and in the world). Grenada,
>Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iraq again. But not North Korea, not
>China, not Saudi Arabia, not Russia, not Pakistan, and not Germany or
>France.

One view of the war in Iraq is that it is to assure an oil supply so we can
take on Saudi Arabia, home of three quarters of the 911 hijackers.

Cheers - Bill


-
Bill Frantz   | Due process for all| Periwinkle -- Consulting
(408)356-8506 | used to be the | 16345 Englewood Ave.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | American way.  | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

Re: What shall we do with a bad government...

[Mike Rosing]

On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Tim Meehan wrote:

> Bill Stewart said:
>
> >Then there's the old "America: Love it or Leave it" line,
> >from folks who got really really upset when people _did_ leave it
> >to avoid Selective Slavery during the Vietnam Police Action.
>
> Some yahoo from Kansas has been flaming me with that one, too, after I responded
> to his incoherent rant about Michael Moore using WMD, or something.  I haven't
> had the heart to tell him Canada hasn't been annexed (yet).

My favorite reply from that era was "Vietnam: love it or leave it!"

At least I lucked out.  They ended the draft 2 months before my
18th birthday.  My parents told me many years later that they were ready
to ship me to Canada.  Given how Vancouver is going now, that might have
been a nice restful place :-)

Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike

Re: terror alert black

[Tyler Durden]

From: Thomas Shaddack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Tyler Durden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: terror alert black
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 17:26:15 +0100 (CET)
> I've heard that for terror alert black we're all supposed to down a few 
100
> milligrams of  valium, and stay in our beds, butts-up.

That's terror alert Brown.

I stand corrected

_
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

"BlackNet abuzz over Iraq showdown"

[Declan McCullagh]

Mildly amusing because of the name, if nothing else:

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030318-071102-9001r

-Declan

Re: Journalists, Diplomats, Others Urged to Evacuate City

[Bill Stewart]

At 09:57 AM 03/20/2003 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote:
Good work, Shaddack. Gold star and smiley face.

My father has mentioned the Texas City incident a few times while growing 
up (he grew up in Galveston). He remembers that it basically dissappeared 
in a giant fireball, and there was never an explanation.
My first experience with earthquake-like events was in about 1970,
when there was an explosion at some duPont fertilizer or chemical plant in 
New Jersey.
Across the river in Delaware, we heard and felt it, and the building I was 
in rocked a bit.

Google isn't helping me remember exactly when or what it was :-)

Re: The Mechanics of Skyscraper Collapse

[Tyler Durden]

And of course, we captured a set of skyscraper collapses towards the end of 
our documentary "Fight Club". What suprised us was that the documentary 
continued to show on cable even several months after September 11th.

-TD

_
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

Re: Fwd: Informer alert: War begins in Iraq

[Tyler Durden]

I've been thinking about this post, and though I agreed with the general 
gist of it, there were some points I thought worth mentioning...



May thousands of AmeriKKKan troops die painfully, along with their
handlers on the East Coast, as a deterrent to future illegal wars of
aggression.
This was the part I had to think about the most. Right now, my feeling is 
that it would be a tragedy for a large mass of nearly-lumpen soldiers, 
"educated" by the US school system, to have to take the brunt of 
responsibility for this. And, if Iraq used some "Weapons of Mass 
Destruction" (read cheap-n-easy playing field levelers), Bush and the 
Republican Agit-prop machine would basically say, "See? They had all this 
stuff all along and that's why we launched this war. And now, that's why 
everyone needs to support it." And I bet this would work.



May the world recognize that the UN can perform no other function than to
crawl on its hands and knees to kiss AmeriKKKa's ass, and cease to take it
seriously.
Hey--I thought the UN did OK this time around. In the end, the UN is 
starting to look like a very fancy and expensive debating society, and 
that's of some kind of value somewhere, I think.

May the anti-war movement paralyze AmeriKKKa with demonstrations and work
stoppages, and cause consequences of significance to the economy and
standard of living of the world's war-monger.
This would be the most effective means possible right now, as far as I'm 
concerned. And the only thing to possibly cause the bloated leach of the 
military industrial complex to drop off its host for a little while ("Man, 
some wierd taste in this blood...I'm full anyway...")

May the AmeriKKKan people cease to send their tax dollars to the Racist
Apartheid Zionist Entity, where they are spent to kill Palestinian
children with AmeriKKKan weapons, and run over peace activists multiple
times with AmeriKKKan bulldozers, and then attack and teargas the memorial
service.
After looking at US foreign policy, particularly since WWII, I have slowly 
been drawn to the conclusion that racism is a consistent and underlying 
theme. "These muslims don't want peace and freedom, and they'll choke us to 
death with their oil supplies if we let them. That's just their nature." 
Something like thatI like to simplify things for effect.



May Ariel Sharon and George W. Bush be forced to face their victims in an
international court of law, and be tried and sentenced appropriately.


They'd be at the end of a long line, with Henry Kissinger in the front.

_
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

Re: What shall we do with a bad government...

[R. A. Hettinga]

Greetings traitors, 

:-).


At 7:28 PM -0800 on 3/20/03, Tim May wrote:


> In 
> fact, Turkey is shaking down the U.S. for $30 billion in grants and aid 
> and loan guarantees.

Nope. See Below.

Cheers,
RAH



--- begin forwarded text


Status: RO
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 23:32:42 -0500
To: "Philodox Clips" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "R. A. Hettinga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: U.S. Takes Back Turkey Aid Package
Sender: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

I guess this pretty much says we're going to go to war quite soon.

Cheers,
RAH
---



washingtonpost .com 

U.S. Takes Back Turkey Aid Package 

By JENNIFER LOVEN 
The Associated Press 
Saturday, March 15, 2003; 4:27 PM 

As U.S. hopes dwindled of going through Turkey for an attack on Iraq, the Bush 
administration took back its offer to give $15 billion in aid to Turkey in exchange 
for military cooperation, officials said Saturday. 

U.S. commanders have been eager to use the NATO ally to open a northern front in any 
invasion of Iraq. Staging in Turkey would allow more U.S. troops and heavier equipment 
to push toward Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit. 

The two countries had negotiated a package of U.S. grants and loans aimed at boosting 
Turkey's ailing economy, which is expected to suffer even more if there is war. 

Earlier this month, Turkey's parliament - mindful of polls showing a vast majority of 
the public opposed war - rejected a government motion to authorize the deployment of 
62,000 American troops on Turkish soil. 

Turkey has since delayed a final decision, and the new prime minister, Recep Tayyip 
Erdogan, said Saturday a second vote was at least another week off. 

Now, the $15 billion is off the table, said two senior U.S. officials, speaking on 
condition of anonymity. 

Nonetheless, Pentagon officials said Saturday there are no immediate plans to move any 
more U.S. military forces or equipment away from Turkey. 

Meanwhile, the White House's special envoy to the Iraqi opposition was in Ankara 
holding talks at the Turkish Foreign Ministry. Zalmay Khalilzad's primary mission 
during the Friday meeting was to persuade Turkey not to send its troops into northern 
Iraq, as the United States had agreed to allow as part of the negotiated aid package, 
one of the officials said. 

Khalilzad warned that such intervention would be a "tragedy" for U.S.-Turkish 
relations, another official said. 

Turkey already has thousands of troops in Kurdish areas of northern Iraq and has said 
it plans to send more in the event of a U.S.-led invasion. Turkey worries that the 
political aspirations of its own sizable Kurdish minority would be boosted if Iraqi 
Kurds win more independence. 

But the United States, which insists it wants Iraq's current territorial boundaries to 
remain intact, hopes to keep violence from flaring in the volatile region now 
controlled by two autonomous Kurdish factions. 

U.S. military commanders and White House officials repeatedly have said they have 
other plans that, although costlier and riskier, allow for operating in northern Iraq 
without sending troops in from Turkey. 

But Pentagon officials said about three dozen ships with equipment for the Army's 4th 
Infantry Division will remain for now off Turkey's coast, where they have been for 
weeks. Other troops and equipment are still surging into Kuwait and the 4th Infantry's 
troops are still at their home base of Fort Hood, Texas, the officials said. 

It was not decided whether the U.S. aircraft carriers Theodore Roosevelt and Harry S. 
Truman would stay in the eastern Mediterranean or follow the other ships in their 
battle groups, armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles, that already relocated to the Red 
Sea. 

Staying in the Mediterranean mean the carriers' planes might have to fly over Turkey 
to strike targets in northern Iraq. Turkey has not granted the United States the 
rights to fly warplanes or cruise missiles over Turkey to attack Iraq. 

The U.S. aid package was withdrawn because it was linked to a certain time frame, said 
one official. It was not clear if the package could be renegotiated if Turkey were to 
later approve a U.S. troop deployment. 

Meanwhile, U.S. forces continued upgrading some Turkish military bases, under a 
previous agreement that was meant to pave the way for American use of those bases. 
Workers continued unloading gear for that purpose at Turkish ports Saturday, but not 
the tanks, helicopters and other U.S. weaponry waiting in ships offshore. 


-- 
-
R. A. Hettinga 
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation 
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'

--- end forwarded text



-- 
-
R. A. Het

Re: Libertarian Party expresses "concern" over war -- but does not

[Mike Rosing]

On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Bill Frantz wrote:

> One view of the war in Iraq is that it is to assure an oil supply so we can
> take on Saudi Arabia, home of three quarters of the 911 hijackers.

Makes sense, use Saudia Arabia as a land base to take over Iraq, then
use Iraq as a land base to take over Saudia Arabia.  Then watch all US
skyscrapers fall from angry Colombians.  Makes a lot of sense to W I'm
sure.

Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike

Re: Fwd: Informer alert: War begins in Iraq

[Harmon Seaver]

On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 12:40:52PM +, Ken Brown wrote:
> Harmon Seaver wrote:
> 
> >What sort of dictatorship is this where the people own automatic weapons
> > freely? Shades of Switzerland!
> 
> Soviet Armenia?
> 
> When they fell out with the Azeris they got their scratch army together
> in /days/
> 
> According to the Russian news they used "hunting rifles".
> 
> I'd been reading enough of the gun-wanking propaganda from the US on
> lists like this to think that people in places like Armenia didn't have
> guns.   Turns out that in some rural parts of USSR quite a lot of people
> had them and of course it all made  no difference to anything political
> whatever as long as the Soviets were willing to control the place. As
> soon as it became obvious that no Russians intended to die to keep
> Armenia in the Union, things changed.

   Well, yes, of course people most places have hunting weapons, even in
oppressive states like Nazi Germany and the USSR -- even in England, I believe
-- but everything I've read so far about Iraq is talking about AK-47s.
Supposedly hundreds of thousands of civilians at the very least own them, and,
according to varied news items, they are either issued by the gov't or people
just buy them on the open market.
   The open weapons markets of Pakistan and Afgahnistan have been world
reknowned for ages, but I was very surprised to learn this about Iraq. Lebanon
had no control over weapons, of course, but I wonder if the whole Middle East
isn't just flowing with Kalashnikovs with little real restrictions. Perhaps most
of the world is -- only the fascist police states of the 1st World being
anti-gun. 
   BTW, here's a neat little accessory for your Kalashnikov:
http://www.audiobooksforfree.com/kalashnikov/Ak-mp3.asp



-- 
Harmon Seaver   
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com
We are now in America's Darkest Hour.
http://www.oshkoshbygosh.org

hoka hey!

Re: What shall we do with a bad government...

[Bill Frantz]

At 7:28 PM -0800 3/20/03, Tim May wrote:
>Shrubya doesn't care, as he just raises taxes. (Or he squawks and
>whines as Congress raises taxes, same difference.)

Tim - I don't think the cowboy (aka Shrubya) knows enough economics to
realize that, in the long term, income and expenditure must be in some kind
of rough balance.  He's always been able to lean on daddy's money.

Cheers - Bill


-
Bill Frantz   | Due process for all| Periwinkle -- Consulting
(408)356-8506 | used to be the | 16345 Englewood Ave.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | American way.  | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

Re: Journalists, Diplomats, Others Urged to Evacuate City

[Ken Brown]

John Kelsey wrote:
> 
> At 07:42 AM 3/20/03 -0800, James A. Donald wrote:
> ...
> >The story you are telling is part of a big commie lie -- that
> >the US aided the bigoted Taliban against the elightened
> >communists who created a constitutional democracy where every
> >man and every women have a vote, and universal education and
> >health care were guaranteed, etc.
> 
> I guess the particular Commie lie I'd always heard along these lines was
> more like "the US aided a  lot of crazed, bloodthirsty bandit chieftains
> who were nominally anti-communist, and deeply anti-invading-Russians, some
> of whom later wound up being Taliban bandit chieftains." 

US originally helped the kind of people who later became the "Northern
Alliance" - a rather odd mixture of unreconstructed Stalinists,
"liberals" in the European sense of the word, separationists, local
bandit chiefs, drug growers, pro-Iranian Shiite Islamists and who knows
what else.  The Taliban formed later, in Pakistan, and was at least at
first indirectly funded by the US through Pakistan and through material
inherited from some other groups - and of course later by various Arabs
(who may or may not have thought of themselves as "Al Qaida" before the
US pinned the name on them while looking for a New Enemy for the New
World Order). But there certainly was some assistance from the US to the
Taliban. US They didn't buy those 500 Stingers in Kmart (though some of
them might have later turned up for sale in Peshawar or wherever it is
they sell such things)

Re: What shall we do with a bad government...

[Harmon Seaver]

On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 03:23:19PM -0800, Bill Stewart wrote:
> At 01:50 PM 03/20/2003 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote:
> >   The other one we hear is "You should be ashamed" which brings a chorus 
> >   of
> >"No, we're proud" or "Have you forgotten about Sept. 11th?" We did have 
> >some
> >older fellow stopped at the redlight ranting about us needing to go back to
> >Russia, which was pretty amusing. Amazing how red in the face some of those
> >people get.
> 
> Then there's the old "America: Love it or Leave it" line,
> from folks who got really really upset when people _did_ leave it
> to avoid Selective Slavery during the Vietnam Police Action.
> 

"If you don't love it,
leave it,
let this song I'm a singin'
be a warning.
If you're running down my country, hoss,
you're walking on the fightin' side of me."

   Ah yes, I remember it all too well. Funny thing, out there today we mostly
just got a lot of people driving by shaking their heads. One guy rolled down his
window and stuck his head out and opened his mouth but nothing came out. He even
came by a second time, still couldn't get it out. Then we had a counter
demonstrator who had a sign that said "My Bush knows best" and the dialogue with
her was hilarious. 


-- 
Harmon Seaver   
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com
We are now in America's Darkest Hour.
http://www.oshkoshbygosh.org

hoka hey!

Re: Libertarian Party expresses "concern" over war -- but does not

[Mike Rosing]

I agree, and I'm including the LP on cc (which I didn't notice till
I hit "reply").  Now that congress has voted to "support the troops"
it's time for a revolution in the ballot box.  If enough of us tell
the LP to get some spine, they will!

Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike

On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Declan McCullagh wrote:

> Eric's statement was hyperbole, designed to provoke. My own view is
> that the Libertarian Party is being unfortunately wishy-washy when it
> comes to the war on Iraq.
>
> It correctly said that troops should not be blamed for politicians'
> choices, but it pointedly declined to say: "This is an unjust war. We
> oppose it. The U.S. should not be in Iraq. It is arguably an
> unconstitutional war as well. The U.S. should not be in the business
> of initiating hostilities or playing the world's peacekeeper. Period."
>
> That it chose not to do so speaks volumes about the LP's timidity.
>
> Compare to the Green Party's unabashed, unashamed, unafraid position:
> >"the Green Party of the United States reaffirmed its opposition to the
> >war and demand for the withdrawal of troops... President Bush and White
> >House officials may find themselves indicted for numerous violations
> >of U.S. and international law.  Greens and other antiwar activists are
> >organizing emergency responses to the invasion, including a recall
> >campaign..."
>
> I'm not a Green Party voter, but at least they have spine.
>
> -Declan
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 06:38:51PM -0800, Mike Rosing wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Eric Cordian wrote:
> >
> > > Libertarians are people who think the only legitimate use of state force
> > > is to protect them from their slaves.
> >
> > You get of the wrong side of bed this morning or what?
> >
> > > It is unlikely that people who don't oppose the death penalty, nor the
> > > "right" of parents to beat their minor children at will, will care
> > > particularly about Shrub kicking the crap out of some disarmed third world
> > > country to steal its oil and advance the cause of the Jews.
> >
> > Go visit the www.truthaboutwar.org site.  That's run by the Libertarians.
> > They are definitly using this as a way to get more votes.
> >
> > They are consistenly the only party clamoring to bring all US troops back
> > to US soil, and keep them there.  Hell, their platform includes
> > eliminating a standing army altogether, because that's what the
> > constitution orders!
> >
> > > It's unlikely the American cowards will sustain any casualties, aside from
> > > friendly fire accidents.  Iraq is disarmed, and generations behind in
> > > weaponry.  Any suggestion that the country poses a threat is merely
> > > propaganda to make our soldiers look less like pussies kicking the shit
> > > out of a one-armed man.
> >
> > That's for sure.  With a bit of luck it can be used as impeachment
> > evidence.  More like a miracle more likely.
> >
> > Patience, persistence, truth,
> > Dr. mike
>

Re: Fwd: Informer alert: War begins in Iraq

[Ken Brown]

Harmon Seaver wrote:

>What sort of dictatorship is this where the people own automatic weapons
> freely? Shades of Switzerland!

Soviet Armenia?

When they fell out with the Azeris they got their scratch army together
in /days/

According to the Russian news they used "hunting rifles".

I'd been reading enough of the gun-wanking propaganda from the US on
lists like this to think that people in places like Armenia didn't have
guns.   Turns out that in some rural parts of USSR quite a lot of people
had them and of course it all made  no difference to anything political
whatever as long as the Soviets were willing to control the place. As
soon as it became obvious that no Russians intended to die to keep
Armenia in the Union, things changed.

Re: Libertarian Party expresses "concern" over war -- but does not

[Tim May]

On Thursday, March 20, 2003, at 07:32  PM, Declan McCullagh wrote:

Eric's statement was hyperbole, designed to provoke. My own view is
that the Libertarian Party is being unfortunately wishy-washy when it
comes to the war on Iraq.
It correctly said that troops should not be blamed for politicians'
choices, but it pointedly declined to say: "This is an unjust war. We
oppose it. The U.S. should not be in Iraq. It is arguably an
unconstitutional war as well. The U.S. should not be in the business
of initiating hostilities or playing the world's peacekeeper. Period."
That it chose not to do so speaks volumes about the LP's timidity.

Compare to the Green Party's unabashed, unashamed, unafraid position:
"the Green Party of the United States reaffirmed its opposition to the
war and demand for the withdrawal of troops... President Bush and 
White
House officials may find themselves indicted for numerous violations
of U.S. and international law.  Greens and other antiwar activists are
organizing emergency responses to the invasion, including a recall
campaign..."
I'm not a Green Party voter, but at least they have spine.

Given that their platform, and Ralph Nader, calls for 90% tax rates for 
those with "excessive" wealth or income, they're far more statist than 
anyone else out there.

If the Greens were to ever to win control of the government, Washington 
would need nuking even more than it does now.

As for the LP, I gave up on it many years ago. Going to one State 
Convention was enough. (Of course, people are basically interested in 
using government to help them out, so statism tends to expand. This is 
why there is virtually no chance that the LP will ever win a major 
popular election. Hence the importance of changing the underlying 
technology, rather than using the political process.)

As for this drumbeat of "support the troops even if one opposes the 
war" nonsense, I say this is bullshit.

In any case, magical thinking is for christers and other superstitious 
persons: what one thinks of the war or the troops is not causally 
related to what happens to them.

I hope the war degenerates into a clusterfuck. This is not "causing" 
the deaths of thousands or tens of thousands, just noting that if the 
U.S. secures a quick and crushing victory over the one-armed cripple 
(to paraphrase Eric Cordian), this will likely cause more adventurism 
and imperialism. And if the U.S. suffers heavy losses--though not 
defeat--it may cause Americans to think twice about trying to be the 
world's imperial power and beat cop all rolled into one.

(The possibility of actual military defeat of the U.S. side I do not 
consider plausible.)

The larger issue is the end of "principle," on either side. Congress is 
sitting this one out, with even the Democrats debating the role of 
insulating plastic washers in interstate electricity transmission 
instead of considering the very serious issues involved in 
pre-emptively starting a war. (Senator Byrd being a lone exception.)

And those who point to the heavy role of pro-Israeli war hawks in the 
Shrubya White House are deemed "anti-Semites."

Israel has Weapons of Mass Destruction and is in deep violation of many 
U.N resolutions...so why are they not taken out by some imperial power? 
And our strongest "allies" in the region are satrapies more repressive 
than Iraq...look to Saudi Arabia and compare it to life in Baghdad.

But the imperial power goes after the skinny kid it knows it can beat 
up, not the greater threats in the region (and in the world). Grenada, 
Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iraq again. But not North Korea, not 
China, not Saudi Arabia, not Russia, not Pakistan, and not Germany or 
France.

--Tim May

Re: Libertarian Party expresses "concern" over war -- but does not

[Declan McCullagh]

On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 07:52:30PM -0800, Tim May wrote:
> Given that their platform, and Ralph Nader, calls for 90% tax rates for 
> those with "excessive" wealth or income, they're far more statist than 
> anyone else out there.

Yep -- their platform is extreme. Like I said, I'm not a GP voter.

> As for the LP, I gave up on it many years ago. Going to one State 
> Convention was enough. (Of course, people are basically interested in 
> using government to help them out, so statism tends to expand. This is 
> why there is virtually no chance that the LP will ever win a major 
> popular election. Hence the importance of changing the underlying 
> technology, rather than using the political process.)

Agreed, of course. The LP is marginal both because of its views (how
many people would really feel comfortable getting rid of all taxes,
which I recall is in the platform) and because of the wacky
personalities of many of the people who are active in it. And, yes,
there are plenty of decent, honorable people involved too.

At best the LP and small-L libertarian think tanks like
Cato/CEI/Reason/PRI/etc. can fight defensive battles.

-Declan

Re: What shall we do with a bad government...

[Mike Rosing]

On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Tim Meehan wrote:

> Vancouver is nice, but the economy sucks (except if you're growing). Toronto has
> an okay economy but too many yuppies and climbers (and crappy pot).  Montreal is
> the best, but you're better off if you speak Freedom -- and like hash.

Yeah, I can speak Freedom enough to ask for hash.  but I like
the mountains of Vancouver.  I guess I better learn to grow!

Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike

Re: Journalists, Diplomats, Others Urged to Evacuate City

[John Kelsey]

At 07:42 AM 3/20/03 -0800, James A. Donald wrote:
...
The story you are telling is part of a big commie lie -- that
the US aided the bigoted Taliban against the elightened
communists who created a constitutional democracy where every
man and every women have a vote, and universal education and
health care were guaranteed, etc.
I guess the particular Commie lie I'd always heard along these lines was 
more like "the US aided a  lot of crazed, bloodthirsty bandit chieftains 
who were nominally anti-communist, and deeply anti-invading-Russians, some 
of whom later wound up being Taliban bandit chieftains."  I haven't dug 
into this story to see if it's true, but I certainly don't recall ever 
being exposed to the idea that the invading Russians and their allies were 
anything but brutal and nasty.  We have a long history of holding our noses 
and handing weapons to objectionable folks who seem likely to help us fight 
our fights or accomplish our objectives.  Surely it's not too hard to think 
of current examples

--digsig
 James A. Donald
--John Kelsey, [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Journalists, Diplomats, Others Urged to Evacuate City

[John Kelsey]

At 02:03 PM 3/20/03 +, Ken Brown wrote:
Of all the places in the world you ought not to go if you want to not be
shot at, a war with 8 sides (Residual Lebanese govt. vs Palestinians vs.
Israel vs Islamist Shia militias vs. non-Islamist Shia militias vs.
Sunni militias  vs Maronite militias  vs Druze - with interference from
Iran & Syria)   at least 3 of whom hate /all/ the others, and /all/ of
whom have a history of shooting at each other, is hardly at the top of
the list.
If you go to where the vultures and the jackals are disputing over a
corpse that isn't actually dead, you have yourself to blame if you get
bitten.
So, I don't suppose you've heard about our more recent forays into the 
Balkans, Somalia, and Afghanistan

--John Kelsey, [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: When is iraq expected to fall.

[James A. Donald]

--
On 19 Mar 2003 at 22:55, Sarad AV wrote:
> how long does US analysts expect iraq to be completely 
> occupied by US and allied troops?

No definite plans, but Rumsfeld is thinking of an occupation 
force of 75 000 for several years.  Some want the kind of 
occupation where any time any Iraqi utters a racist slur, the 
marines take him away for sensitivity training, which would 
require about 200 000, whereas Rumsfeld has in mind an 
occupation more like Afghanistan, where so long as the rivers 
run with water, not blood, we pat ourselves on the back and 
count it a job well done.

Of course, all this assumes the war goes smoothly -- with a 
kill ratio of a thousand to one.   There is widespread failure 
to appreciate how remarkable such kill ratios are.  If it is 
merely one hundred to one, the war will be perceived as a 
defeat, and if it is merely ten to one, it actually will be a 
defeat. 

--digsig
 James A. Donald
 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
 pXZ8V7ZVSnZEJTIAOWVcd7RvKnGDxic8agd6TY6o
 453h7nDyLl5QIvUPrVvYm1kEJJ/vJpfXSwkzd8wbm

Re: Libertarian Party expresses "concern" over war -- but does not

[Eric Cordian]

Declan writes:

> Eric's statement was hyperbole, designed to provoke. My own view is
> that the Libertarian Party is being unfortunately wishy-washy when it
> comes to the war on Iraq.

We've had this discussion many times before on this list.

People who know nothing about Libertarians see a word which appears to
share the first few letters with "Liberty", and leap to the obvious but
incorrect conclusion.

Not only are real Libertarians not cuddly and likable, they are not even
liked by other Libertarians.

> It correctly said that troops should not be blamed for politicians'
> choices, but it pointedly declined to say: "This is an unjust war.

Libertarians and Unitarians have a lot in common.  There are plenty of
jokes about the moral wishy-washiness of Unitarians, such as the one about
them living by "The Ten Suggestions," or the one about a Unitarian hate
crime consisting of burning a question mark on someone's lawn.

Almost all of them apply equally well to Libertarians.

-- 
Eric Michael Cordian 0+
O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

Re: What shall we do with a bad government...

[Tim May]

On Thursday, March 20, 2003, at 03:23  PM, Bill Stewart wrote:

At 01:50 PM 03/20/2003 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote:
   The other one we hear is "You should be ashamed" which brings a 
chorus of
"No, we're proud" or "Have you forgotten about Sept. 11th?" We did 
have some
older fellow stopped at the redlight ranting about us needing to go 
back to
Russia, which was pretty amusing. Amazing how red in the face some of 
those
people get.
Then there's the old "America: Love it or Leave it" line,
from folks who got really really upset when people _did_ leave it
to avoid Selective Slavery during the Vietnam Police Action.
Not only were people prosecuted for attempting to leave these 
beknighted states, but look into what happens if one tries to get his 
_money_ out.

The American Empire now treats attempts to transfer money out exactly 
the same way the Soviets treated money transfers.

In any case, the whole notion that unconstitutional measures are best 
dealt with be fleeing one's property is absurd. Those who violate the 
Constitution should be the ones fleeing, ahead of a firing squad.

But most of the world is corrupt. The 40 nations in the "Axis of Greed" 
are not supported by their citizens, in nearly all cases (as our 
subscribers from Europe have noted). The leaders and politicians of 
these nations are being bribed by U.S. taxpayer money. Witness Turkey, 
which is a direct neighbor of Iraq and thus presumably has the most to 
fear if Iraq is in fact a threat. But not only is Turkey not _sending 
troops_, it is not even _paying_ the Hessians, er, the Americans. In 
fact, Turkey is shaking down the U.S. for $30 billion in grants and aid 
and loan guarantees. A big chunk of this is presumably going into 
private bank accounts, just as with the billions in tax transfers to 
Egypt and the Zionist Entity and Jordan.

Shrubya doesn't care, as he just raises taxes. (Or he squawks and 
whines as Congress raises taxes, same difference.)

$100 billion to "rebuild and nation-build Iraq" is $1000 per average 
taxpayer (or about zero for most of the basic brown types and about 
$10,000 for the upper 10% of taxpayers). Throw in $30 billion for 
Turkey, countless billions for the Zionist Entity, Jordan, Syria, etc., 
and the pricetag for this Splendid Little War is going to be 
back-breaking for our already-overtaxed economy.

Shrubya sez: "We gonna open a can of nucular whoop-ass on them bad 
boys!"

Illiteracy meets mendacity.

--Tim May

Re: Libertarian Party expresses "concern" over war -- but does not

[Declan McCullagh]

Eric's statement was hyperbole, designed to provoke. My own view is
that the Libertarian Party is being unfortunately wishy-washy when it
comes to the war on Iraq.

It correctly said that troops should not be blamed for politicians'
choices, but it pointedly declined to say: "This is an unjust war. We
oppose it. The U.S. should not be in Iraq. It is arguably an
unconstitutional war as well. The U.S. should not be in the business
of initiating hostilities or playing the world's peacekeeper. Period."

That it chose not to do so speaks volumes about the LP's timidity.

Compare to the Green Party's unabashed, unashamed, unafraid position:
>"the Green Party of the United States reaffirmed its opposition to the
>war and demand for the withdrawal of troops... President Bush and White
>House officials may find themselves indicted for numerous violations
>of U.S. and international law.  Greens and other antiwar activists are
>organizing emergency responses to the invasion, including a recall
>campaign..."

I'm not a Green Party voter, but at least they have spine.

-Declan


On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 06:38:51PM -0800, Mike Rosing wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Eric Cordian wrote:
> 
> > Libertarians are people who think the only legitimate use of state force
> > is to protect them from their slaves.
> 
> You get of the wrong side of bed this morning or what?
> 
> > It is unlikely that people who don't oppose the death penalty, nor the
> > "right" of parents to beat their minor children at will, will care
> > particularly about Shrub kicking the crap out of some disarmed third world
> > country to steal its oil and advance the cause of the Jews.
> 
> Go visit the www.truthaboutwar.org site.  That's run by the Libertarians.
> They are definitly using this as a way to get more votes.
> 
> They are consistenly the only party clamoring to bring all US troops back
> to US soil, and keep them there.  Hell, their platform includes
> eliminating a standing army altogether, because that's what the
> constitution orders!
> 
> > It's unlikely the American cowards will sustain any casualties, aside from
> > friendly fire accidents.  Iraq is disarmed, and generations behind in
> > weaponry.  Any suggestion that the country poses a threat is merely
> > propaganda to make our soldiers look less like pussies kicking the shit
> > out of a one-armed man.
> 
> That's for sure.  With a bit of luck it can be used as impeachment
> evidence.  More like a miracle more likely.
> 
> Patience, persistence, truth,
> Dr. mike

Re: Journalists, Diplomats, Others Urged to Evacuate City

[James A. Donald]

--
> > The Taliban did not exist back then.  The guys the US aided 
> > were for the most part, the guys that are running
> > Afghanistan now.   The major recipients of US aid, for
> > example "the lion of Afghanistan" were the people the
> > Taliban murdered.

On 20 Mar 2003 at 8:16, Mike Rosing wrote:
> The "Talib's" have been around for more than a century.  The
> British fought them in the late 1800's in their first try to
> conquer Afghanistan.

The British did not fight Sunni islamic fundamentalists.  The
Taliban belongs to a sect that has never had a large following
in Afghanistan, which is part of the reason why they drove out
much of the Afghan population. 

--digsig
 James A. Donald
 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
 53Wyhn5mvmbLsfCa8xeusjGGTFC0Ynkauohr4Uov
 4nszIWnEYzkvcoHX0K/dqcsoCOCdvV1NwFasx3H/G