On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 03:18:01 GMT, Steve White <steve@spam.me.never>
writes in response to a few reality based thoughts on the future in Iraq:
In article <437da.3649$pK4.405688@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink .net>, "Ron Morgan" <rhyzome1@earthlink.net> wrote:

<snip>
More likely, they'll be attending dedication ceremonies to the statueserected in their honor in downtown Baghdad. It'll be quite a sight: USand Iraqi flags mingled together, Iraqi women ululating on the streetsand passing out candies and sweets, representatives of the newlyliberated Republics of Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia giving speechesthanking the US and UK, a long moment of silence for all the bravesoldiers and resistance fighters, a longer raspberry for the French, bigceremony for the newly-elected president of Iraq and her cabinet.It'll be quite a day.steve

_________________________________



"But we're not planning a war on the Iraqi people, we're planning
a war on Saddam and his henchmen. The distinction is crucial."
...We aren't going to pulverize the Iraqi women and children;
we're going to go out of our way NOT to pulverize them. Our
quarrel is with Saddam." ...Lucky for the children that we aren't
aiming at them, and won't hit them." -- Dr. Steve White

"I could be wrong." --Dr. Steve White

>Subject: Re: GWB does G-d's workFrom: pb... woodlark-99@newsguy.comDate: 11/7/2003 2:06 AM Newfoundland Standard TimeMessage-id: <spbmqvclk61m9tr3j82rbhagnav2kr1pff@4ax.com>On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 03:18:01 GMT, Steve White <steve@spam.me.never>writes in response to a few reality based thoughts on the future in Iraq:In article <437da.3649$pK4.405688@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink .net>, "Ron Morgan" <rhyzome1@earthlink.net> wrote:<snip>More likely, they'll be attending dedication ceremonies to the statueserected in their honor in downtown Baghdad. It'll be quite a sight: USand Iraqi flags mingled together, Iraqi women ululating on the streetsand passing out candies and sweets, representatives of the newlyliberated Republics of Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia giving speechesthanking the US and UK, a long moment of silence for all the bravesoldiers and resistance fighters, a longer raspberry for the French, bigceremony for the newly-elected president of Iraq and her cabinet.It'll be quite a day.steve_________________________________"But we're not planning a war on the Iraqi people, we're planning a war on Saddam and his henchmen. The distinction is crucial." ...We aren't going to pulverize the Iraqi women and children; we're going to go out of our way NOT to pulverize them. Our quarrel is with Saddam." ...Lucky for the children that we aren't aiming at them, and won't hit them." -- Dr. Steve White"I could be wrong." --Dr. Steve White

They are not tossing flowers and sweets at us, they are tossing grenades. Six
more soldiers killed in another helicopter shooting, all so Cheney can filter
more contracts to Halliburton, I hope Steve is proud. Bush should be impeached,
and Steve should move to Baghdad where they can put his statue in the town
square and the pidgeons can use it for a bird potty.

Just for amusement purposes only. The only one ululating is Steves wife, when
he steps out of the shower.

chosenchildinc@aol.com (ChosenChildInc) wrote Just for amusement purposes only. The only one ululating is Steves wife, when he steps out of the shower.

Right. I had no idea that Steve was that good looking.

Rupa

In article <WSAub.1111$nm6.4323@news.indigo.ie>,


Good post, GR. Like Helen, I agree with every word. This IS some kind of
record.

Linda

In article <pyIub.1133$nm6.4200@news.indigo.ie>,
helicon <heliconSPAMDUNK@eircom.net> wrote:
With regard to dishonoring the *dead* soldiers, they even dishonoured the*living*. Jessica Lynch, comes to mind.Helen


During the war in Kosovo and Bosnia, a high ranking official of the
Clinton administration was at Dover air force base to meet the planes
bearing the coffins of the dead solders. And, these tragedies were
reported on the news.

The Bush administration has put Dover Air Base off limits to reporters. I
guess Shrub et. al. think that if the American people don't see flag
draped coffins daily, we'll forget the awful human cost of this war.
What a cheap, shabby, dishonest strategy.

Linda

In article <pyIub.1133$nm6.4200@news.indigo.ie>,
"helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote:
With regard to dishonoring the *dead* soldiers, they even dishonoured the *living*. Jessica Lynch, comes to mind.


What the BBC did to her was terrible, I'll agree.





steve

In article <lehlrvgtktdu991p4kbm1d0om4r8625g3o@4ax.com>,
GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 04:34:08 GMT, Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote: <snip>The people fighting now are the dead-enders, the losers, the ones wholived fat when Saddam was in power. They're joined by jihadis coming infrom elsewhere in the Arab world who only look to fight and debauch.They'll get what's coming to them.


Here's one of those Iraqi blogs, in a post from today:

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

=====
So I'll try to show you the naked truth about daily life in Iraq. And I
will try to show you the difference between pre. And post. Liberation
Iraq. I will put it in some form of a series, discussing one aspect of
life in each post.

Let's talk first about security and order in Iraq, as this is a major
point of concern.

Some TV channels try to show our streets like battlefields, actually
they are not. the streets are relatively safe and one can walk in the
streets with no fear greater than the one he feels if he was in any
other country. People go to work regularly, stores and restaurants are
open even to a late hour in the night. crime levels in Iraq according to
IP reports are declining and they're now much lower than they were In
April or May this year.

The main point that satisfies me is that I no longer fear the risk of
death penalty because of something I said. Do you imagine that someone
could get tortured and executed just because he laughed at a joke about
Saddam or the Baath?

Statistics from the reports of the red-cross and the IP state that
approximately 1570 Iraqis were killed in violent accidents in Baghdad
during the first 5 months following the liberation. Some would say, well
, this is sad. This is a large number of casualties. And this is true.
But if you take any 5 months during the reign of Saddam you will find
that the number will reach to an average of 30 000 kills in Baghdad
alone , I don't want to bother you with math.work but if someone thinks
that I'm lying then I can show you the whole calculation steps.

On the other side there are some bad aspects like traffic jams and a
little mess here and there, some of my fellow citizens have not yet
understood the meaning of freedom and I think they have their excuses.
And as time goes on they will understand their faults and work to fix'em.

Another issue that I want to talk about is the behavior of coalition
forces.

They have been accused by ill-treating Iraqis, unjustified arrests, and
random shooting of fire after being assaulted- by Saddam's mercenaries-.
And I tell you again, this is not true. I have seen some of these
actions and I met some American officers and inquired about the basis on
which they get people arrested, and the answers were quite convincing.

Something else that I want you to consider is that there are 18
governorates in Iraq. Violence is seen in only 5 or 6 of them while the
rest are quite peaceful places and one can spend a week there without
hearing a gun shot.

I believe that I didn't answer all your questions, but I hope I got you
closer to the truth. And the truth is :

Iraq now is a safer place than it's ever been in the last 3 decades.

=====

Now then: he's in a better position to you than you or me.

Don't believe me: believe him.



steve

In article <lehlrvgtktdu991p4kbm1d0om4r8625g3o@4ax.com>,
GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 04:34:08 GMT, Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote: <snip>The people fighting now are the dead-enders, the losers, the oneswho lived fat when Saddam was in power. They're joined by jihadiscoming in from elsewhere in the Arab world who only look to fightand debauch. They'll get what's coming to them.


And just one more Iraqi blogger of the couple dozen I've found, at:

http://messopotamian.blogspot.com/

Take a careful look at this fellow.

======
IN THE NAME OF GOD THE MOST MERCIFUL

Hi everybody,

Power has just come back. There has been a total blackout in Baghdad in
the past two days or so. The reason is not clear. The electricity
situation has improved lately, but these last two days something out of
the ordinary happened, perhaps some big sabotage. But ofcourse we do
have generators in the house and the street, otherwise life would have
been really difficult.

A friend thinks that Baghdad is part of the "Saddam" loyalist areas,
this is very far from the truth. It is the capital city with more than 5
million population. Of course you will find elements of the "enemy". But
I think most of the sabotage is done by infiltrators from other regions.
Another friend inquires about the internet. Now the internet is quite
available as well as satellite TV. This is something which was very
restricted in the "ancien regime".

Another friend asks about the engineering profession. If it wasn't for
the security situation there would have been a real boom by now, still
there is work, risky, to be sure, but many are willing to take the risk.
In the future, "Inshallah", this will be one the most active regions in
the world from the engineering point of view. I would like to talk more
about the subject in future postings "God's Willing".

You must all understand, that since the liberation, the "enemy" has been
trying desperately to prevent normalistion of the situation attacking
the very basic necessities of the people, encouraging crime and
disruption of almost everything, killing, intimidating etc.

The new policy of the coalision forces of heavy military action against
certain trargets is quite risky. Although, certainly, firmness in
dealing with the terrorists and saboteurs is required, but care must be
excercised not to hurt innocent people. For example, the house of the
new employer of my son was dammaged, because the house next door was
attacked. This man is absolutely a normal Baghdadi citizen and has no
connection whatsoever to the "enemy".

I heard another report that the house of a member of "Aldawa" party in
Baquba was also dammaged. This party participates in the Governing
Council and everybody knows where it stands regarding the Saddamists and
the like. In many ways this is quite depressingly a step backward and
rather than "showing strength" it is more like "showing weakness", I am
sorry to say. Firmeness can be excercised in different ways.

For the benefits of our Arab brothers, mainly, I was planning a long
explanation why the majoriy of the Iraqi people are not against this
action that has taken place in our country. But that will have to wait.
We have an emergency situation and more important matters have to be
addressed.

Although I am not an expert in the subject of security and counter
sabotage, yet living in this country one is bound to learn one or two
things about the subject. Quite sometime ago I wrote a letter expounding
my own personal opinion how the security issue should be tackled. I did
send the letter to one or two places, however, since now I feel I have
quite a few friends on this site I will post this letter for your
consideration in the next posting.
======


Take a moment and read. Understand these folks. Then you'll see that
they wouldn't agree with ANYTHING you wrote.



steve

In article <lehlrvgtktdu991p4kbm1d0om4r8625g3o@4ax.com>,
GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 04:34:08 GMT, Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote: <snip>The people fighting now are the dead-enders, the losers, the oneswho lived fat when Saddam was in power. They're joined by jihadiscoming in from elsewhere in the Arab world who only look to fightand debauch. They'll get what's coming to them.


Read what this Iraqi citizen wrote at this blog:

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

And then tell me you still believe everything you wrote.

======
YOU OWE US AN APOLOGY

I don't know really know why Saddam's regime lasted for over three
decades, but I am sure as an Iraqi who survived that period that
there're no legal or moral justifications for it to remain.

I was counting days and hours waiting to see an end to that regime,
just like all those who suffered the cruelty of that brutal regime.
It's been really a disgrace chasing the world, the world of the 21st.
century, reminding it how incapable it was to aid the oppressed and to
sue those who dispised all the values of humanity.

Through out these decades I lost trust in the world governments and
international committees.

Terms like (human rights, democracy and liberty..etc.) became hallow and
meaningless and those who keep repeating these words are
liars..liars..liars.

I hated the U.N. and the security council and Russia and France and
Germany and the arab nations and the islamic conference. I've hated
George Gallawy and all those marched in the millionic demonstrations
against the war.

It is I who was oppressed and I don't want any one to talk on behalf of
me, I, who was eager to see rockets falling on Saddam's nest to set me
free, and it is I who desired to die gentlemen, because it's more
merciful than humiliation as it puts an end to my suffer, while
humiliation lives with me reminding me every moment that I couldn't
defend myself against those who ill-treated me. What hurt me more and
kept my wound bleeding was that they gave Saddam a tribune so the
skinner can talk, and offered him a diplomatic representation almost
all-over the world to broadcast his filthy propaganda and sprinkle
Iraq's wealth on his supporters.

I really didn't understand those countries demands to take away our
misery. Did they really think that the sanctions were the cause?

We were not even human, Saddam wiped off our humanity, we were just
numbers and a lot of Identity cards that we had to show wherever we
went. The Baath idea was this:

YOU'RE A CITIZEN , THEN YOU'RE A SUSPECT

Believe me, we were living in the "kingdom of horror".

Please tell me how could the world that claims to be civilized let
Saddam launch chemical weapons on his own un-armed people? Shame.

Can anyone tell me why the world let Saddam remain and stood against
America's will to topple him?

Till when will the charts of human rights remain incompulsory, cancel
them, because they remind you of your big disgrace.

Keep giving time and tribunes to regimes like those in Syria, Yemen,
North Korea and Libya to justify their presence.

To me I don't recognize your committees and I have no time to listen to
that nonsense, I've got along way to walk building my country and
helping my people forget the days of abasement.

You all owe the Iraqi people an apology.

What happened in Iraq was worse than the holocaust.
======

Was it worse than the Holocaust? I'm not sure I can judge that, or him,
properly.

Who does this fellow thank in his blog? George Bush. Go figure.




steve

Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote: Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote: <snip>The people fighting now are the dead-enders, the losers, the oneswho lived fat when Saddam was in power. They're joined by jihadiscoming in from elsewhere in the Arab world who only look to fightand debauch. They'll get what's coming to them. Read what this Iraqi citizen wrote at this blog: http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/ And then tell me you still believe everything you wrote. ====== YOU OWE US AN APOLOGY I don't know really know why Saddam's regime lasted for over three decades, but I am sure as an Iraqi who survived that period that there're no legal or moral justifications for it to remain. I was counting days and hours waiting to see an end to that regime, just like all those who suffered the cruelty of that brutal regime. It's been really a disgrace chasing the world, the world of the 21st. century, reminding it how incapable it was to aid the oppressed and to sue those who dispised all the values of humanity. <snip> You all owe the Iraqi people an apology. What happened in Iraq was worse than the holocaust. ====== Was it worse than the Holocaust? I'm not sure I can judge that, or him, properly. Who does this fellow thank in his blog? George Bush. Go figure. steve

Sure. But that's one point of view. Here's another, from inside Iraq
also.

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

(Excerpt below)

Terrorism is difficult to end by force of arms. In fact, it may be
impossible. As someone (Bremer?) said: We have to be right every time,
they have only to be right once.

Furthermore, as the blog below points out, completely upsetting a
people is only a recruitment tool. I would think that Al Qaeda has
never been as strong as it is now. I've just been watching the news on
the explosions in Turkey. More dead people who had nothing to do with
any war. Al Qaeda took the "credit."

Rupa


Tuesday, November 18, 2003

Difficult Days...
They've been bombing houses in Tikrit and other areas! Unbelievable…
I'm so angry it makes me want to break something!!!! What the hell is
going on?! What do the Americans think Tikrit is?! Some sort of city
of monsters or beasts? The people there are simple people. Most of
them make a living off of their land and their livestock- the rest are
teachers, professors and merchants- they have lives and families…
Tikrit is nothing more than a bunch of low buildings and a palace that
was as inaccessible to the Tikritis as it was to everyone else!

People in Al Awja suffered as much as anyone, if not more- they
weren't all related to Saddam and even those who were, suffered under
his direct relatives. Granted, his bodyguards and others close to him
were from Tikrit, but they aren't currently in Tikrit- the majority
have struck up deals with the CPA and are bargaining for their safety
and the safety of their families with information. The people
currently in Tikrit are just ordinary people whose homes and children
are as precious to them as American homes and children are precious to
Americans! This is contemptible and everyone thinks so- Sunnis and
Shi'a alike are shaking their heads incredulously.

And NO- I'm not Tikriti- I'm not even from the 'triangle'- but I know
simple, decent people who ARE from there and just the thought that
this is being done is so outrageous it makes me want to scream. How
can that *** of a president say things are getting better in Iraq when
his troops have stooped to destroying homes?! Is that a sign that
things are getting better? When you destroy someone's home and detain
their family, why would they want to go on with life? Why wouldn't
they want to lob a bomb at some 19-year-old soldier from Missouri?!

The troops were pushing women and children shivering with fear out the
door in the middle of the night. What do you think these children
think to themselves- being dragged out of their homes, having their
possessions and houses damaged and burned?! Who do you think is
creating the 'terrorists'?!! Do you think these kids think to
themselves, "Oh well- we learned our lesson. That's that. Yay troops!"
It's like a vicious, moronic circle and people are outraged…

The troops are claiming that the attacks originate from these areas-
the people in the areas claim the attacks are coming from somewhere
else… I really am frightened of what this is going to turn into.
People seem to think that Iraq is broken into zones and areas-
ethnically and religiously divided. That's just not true- the majority
of people have relatives all over Iraq. My relatives extend from
Mosul, all the way down to Basrah- we all feel for each other and it
makes decent people crazy to see this happening.

In article <3FBD3478.2F499A8D@earthlink.net>,
Ron Morgan <rhyzome1@earthlink.net> wrote:

And there were no chants comparable to "Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh, Ho Chi Minh is going to win" in support of Saddam or Kim or Bin Laden during the mass demonstrations prior to the war or the subsequent demonstrations thereafter. That's simply a tissue of fantasy that doesn't gain veracity through repetition.


That's not true, and I have photos and video to prove it. Downloaded
from the web, these show the International A.N.S.W.E.R. crowd and their
pals with all sort of signs, banners and puppets (can't have a good
demonstration without huge puppets!) IN SUPPORT OF Saddam.

I'll be happy to burn a CD and ship it to you.

These folks aren't anti-war -- they're for the other side.





steve

In article <e5619372.0311200837.75f63986@posting.google.com>,
rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:

Was it worse than the Holocaust? I'm not sure I can judge that, or him, properly. Who does this fellow thank in his blog? George Bush. Go figure. steve Sure. But that's one point of view. Here's another, from inside Iraq also. http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/ (Excerpt below) Terrorism is difficult to end by force of arms. In fact, it may be impossible. As someone (Bremer?) said: We have to be right every time, they have only to be right once. Furthermore, as the blog below points out, completely upsetting a people is only a recruitment tool. I would think that Al Qaeda has never been as strong as it is now. I've just been watching the news on the explosions in Turkey. More dead people who had nothing to do with any war. Al Qaeda took the "credit."


I've been reading her blog as well. Interesting point of view.

What's refreshing of course is that one can HAVE different points of
view in Iraq now, something Helen, GR, etc. haven't figured out.

As to Turkey: al-Q needs to feed its fantasy ideology. The more they
martyr themselves, the more they demonstrate to God that they are worthy
of His assistance, and the more likely they make it tht He will come to
their aid and sweep away the infidels.

We're not likely to reason with such folks. There's only two solutions;
neither especially palatable, one completely unacceptable.




steve

"Linda Fortney" <lfortney@dc.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:bpftur$beu@holmes.umd.edu... In article <pyIub.1133$nm6.4200@news.indigo.ie>, helicon <heliconSPAMDUNK@eircom.net> wrote:With regard to dishonoring the *dead* soldiers, they even dishonoured the*living*. Jessica Lynch, comes to mind.Helen During the war in Kosovo and Bosnia, a high ranking official of the Clinton administration was at Dover air force base to meet the planes bearing the coffins of the dead solders. And, these tragedies were reported on the news. The Bush administration has put Dover Air Base off limits to reporters. I guess Shrub et. al. think that if the American people don't see flag draped coffins daily, we'll forget the awful human cost of this war. What a cheap, shabby, dishonest strategy.

Well here is someone who would agree with you:

Published on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 by the Los Angeles Times
Don't Deny Horrors of War
To honor soldiers' sacrifices, we must look at what we are asking them to do

by Michael Takiff

Facing the draft in 1967, Mickey Hutchins, a 20-year-old North Carolinian
whose father fought at Omaha Beach on D-day, did not burn to take up arms
against Ho Chi Minh. Still, he decided against seeking a deferment. "As a
citizen of this country," he recalled three decades later, "I had already
received a fair number of benefits. The way I looked at it, if you're going
to hang in there for the benefits you've got to hang in there for the
responsibilities as well, and military service is a responsibility of
citizenship."

Today, brave young Americans are abroad once more, undertaking the
responsibility, as Hutchins did in Vietnam, to risk life and limb in service
to their countrymen. But the rest of us - we who benefit by the courage of
our warriors - have failed in our own responsibilities of citizenship.
Though we take pride in our democracy, we have shunned authentic knowledge
of this war being waged in our names. Conspiring with our media and our
government, we have been content to turn our eyes from the carnage that is
at the heart of this war, as it is at the heart of any war. And so we have
not kept faith with this new generation of combat veterans being created on
foreign shores.

I have spent the last three years talking to and writing about U.S. war
veterans - men who fought in World War II and their sons who fought in
Vietnam. I am not a veteran, but before I embarked on this project I thought
I knew something about the subject: "War is hell."

I was wrong. That bromide, these men have taught me, does not begin to hint
at the horrors of war - horrors one who has seen cannot forget, horrors one
who has been spared cannot imagine. Among the veterans I have gotten to know
are a Vietnam infantryman who witnessed "400 or 500 human bodies in a heap,
decomposing in 120-degree sun"; a World War II seaman who observed fish
feeding on human corpses floating offshore of Tarawa and Iwo Jima and never
again ate seafood; a pilot of a light observation plane in Vietnam who, to
conduct bomb damage assessments, would "count feet or legs. Count and divide
by two."

From the beginning of the Iraq war, our news media have not shown us the
feet or legs; indeed, they have reacted with outrage when foreign news
organizations have dared to disturb their audiences with war's unpalatable
reality. During the "major combat" phase of the war, we were spoon-fed
pounding music, gaudy graphics and cheerleading commentary.

The deception has only intensified since what many still call, less
plausibly every day, the end of the war. In Baghdad, journalists are kept
away from the morgue and from hospitals, while at Ramstein in Germany and at
every military base in the U.S. they are forbidden from covering the arrival
of soldiers' bodies. The government and the media tell us next to nothing
about the wounded, and in reporting the numbers of the dead they often
include only those killed "by hostile action," as though lethal accidents ar
e not an inevitable result of war, and as though the victims of these
accidents are not just as young and just as dead and the tears of their
mothers not just as hot. And if our government keeps tabs on the number of
Iraqis killed, it doesn't let on.

We need to be apprised, in blunt words and frank pictures, of this war's
toll of human life. Identifying characteristics of the dead and maimed
should be obscured in deference to the victims and their families, and we
must shield the eyes and ears of our children. But we adults make children
of ourselves if we surrender to our leaders the knowledge essential to make
wise decisions. Delicate sensibilities offer a poor excuse for our
negligence when our charge is the lives of the men and women who defend us.

After the murder of Julius Caesar, Shakespeare's Brutus instructs his fellow
conspirators: "Stoop, Romans, stoop, and let us bathe our hands in Caesar's
blood." Thus marked, all the killers both announce their responsibility for
the act they have committed and acknowledge its abhorrent nature. Like
Caesar's assassins, our nation today sanctions a deplorable means, the
taking of human life, in pursuit of a worthy end, the overthrow of a
tyranny. Indeed, the ultimate consequence toward which our violence is aimed
is not different from that proclaimed by Brutus: "Peace, freedom and
liberty!"

A generation ago, the United States brought violence to another faraway land
in an effort to increase the world's supply of peace, freedom and liberty.
But as Americans watched the war in Vietnam go wrong, we came to disown it,
to deem that it belonged to the soldiers, not the populace - to "them," not
"us." As the troops came home, they served as convenient scapegoats,
absolving the rest of us of responsibility for the tragedy. We wanted
nothing to do with these walking reminders of our collective failure, and so
we abandoned them to deal on their own with their memories of war's horrors.

We dare not inflict such injustice on the fighters of today's war, however i
t may turn out. We dare not forget that although we delegate to our soldiers
the task of battle, this war belongs to every one of us. And so all of us
must stoop to bathe our hands in this war's blood - the blood of our
combatants, of Iraqi civilians, of humanitarian workers and yes, of Iraqi
combatants as well.

If we citizens of this democracy choose to wage war in sober knowledge of
our decision's effects, so be it. But if a war depends for its support on
the citizenry's ignorance - as the Pentagon and White House evidently
believe this one does - that war does not merit support.

Daily in Iraq, our most courageous citizens do their duty. We at home owe
them the courage to do ours.

Michael Takiff is the author of "Brave Men, Gentle Heroes: American Fathers
and Sons in World War II and Vietnam," newly released by William Morrow.


Linda

In article <BZavb.1308$nm6.4830@news.indigo.ie>,
"helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote:

A reknowned fantasist (aka a bull****ter.) He used to live in Enniskerry, about six miles from here. NOT a popular man, by all accounts. We are not impressed by 'British colonial types' lording it up around the place. After all he was as base as the next - availing of the excellent tax breaks for writers.


Typical Helen writing: she can't think of a single thing to say to
respond to Mr. Forsyth's piece, so all she can to is try to smear him
somehow. No substance from Helen, just name-calling and an effort to
sound trendy.

I wonder if her literary hero is Maureen Dowd.

On second thought, I don't wonder!




steve

"Steve White" <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message
news:steve-B2293A.12355620112003@netnews.attbi.com... In article <3FBD3478.2F499A8D@earthlink.net>, Ron Morgan <rhyzome1@earthlink.net> wrote: And there were no chants comparable to "Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh, Ho Chi Minh
is going to win" in support of Saddam or Kim or Bin Laden during the mass demonstrations prior to the war or the subsequent demonstrations thereafter. That's simply a tissue of fantasy that doesn't gain veracity through repetition. That's not true, and I have photos and video to prove it. Downloaded from the web, these show the International A.N.S.W.E.R. crowd and their pals with all sort of signs, banners and puppets (can't have a good demonstration without huge puppets!) IN SUPPORT OF Saddam. I'll be happy to burn a CD and ship it to you. These folks aren't anti-war -- they're for the other side.

<snort> - Remember the pulling down of Saddam's statue, and the milling
*millions* of cheering people? Ever see the pulled-back picture? What a
small little group it was, after all. :-(

Ever watch "Chavez - Inside the Coup"? All those people supposedly being
riddled by Chavez supporters? But we all saw the reality, didn't we? AND
heard Powell's gulp over the word *democracy*!

You fall for it every time, don't you, you true McCarthy disciple, you! LOL

Helen
steve

"Steve White" <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message
news:steve-574BB7.17212020112003@netnews.attbi.com... In article <BZavb.1308$nm6.4830@news.indigo.ie>, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote: A reknowned fantasist (aka a bull****ter.) He used to live in Enniskerry, about six miles from here. NOT a popular man, by all accounts. We are not impressed by 'British colonial types' lording it up around the place. After all he was as base as the next - availing of the excellent tax breaks for writers. Typical Helen writing: she can't think of a single thing to say to respond to Mr. Forsyth's piece, so all she can to is try to smear him somehow. No substance from Helen, just name-calling and an effort to sound trendy.

Not at all, he remains true to type. He hasn't changed one iota. Still the
ultra-right wing, pompous *** he ever was. Plus ca change, and all that
jazz.

Helen
I wonder if her literary hero is Maureen Dowd. On second thought, I don't wonder! steve

Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote I've been reading her blog as well. Interesting point of view. What's refreshing of course is that one can HAVE different points of view in Iraq now, something Helen, GR, etc. haven't figured out. As to Turkey: al-Q needs to feed its fantasy ideology. The more they martyr themselves, the more they demonstrate to God that they are worthy of His assistance, and the more likely they make it tht He will come to their aid and sweep away the infidels. We're not likely to reason with such folks. There's only two solutions; neither especially palatable, one completely unacceptable.

India has dealt with terrorism -- though not labelled as such -- ever
since the republic was founded in 1947. I don't even know all of them,
but within my memory, there were the Telengana riots in the South, the
Naxalite insurgency in Bengal, the Sikh/ Khalistan troubles in Punjab
that resulted in Indira Gandhi's death, the overflow Tamil Tiger
problem from Sri Lanka that killed Rajiv Gandhi, and of course the
ever-resurgent Hindu-Muslim problems that keep recurring from time to
time.

The only way that has ever worked there has been to deal with it on a
defensive basis, do the best they can to contain the problem and
provide security, and try to *reduce* the publicity/ noise-level/
anger-levels. Talks. Police actions. Occasional, temporary cordons and
curfews. The times when a major army action has been used worsened the
situation: It energizes the opposition, gives them a recruiting tool
and a very visible grievance. It also deepens divisions.

When I was in college, the Naxalites were chic, armed and very
dangerous. They killed people at random. Young kids built bombs in
their parents' homes. Where are the Naxalites now?

The war against terror is fought most effectively by not glamorizing
it. Once it becomes a War! it becomes attractive to young people (and
not so young people) who see it as a Cause.

They don't *look* any different from you and me. They aren't all
dark-skinned, bearded, and wearing dish-dashas. Some will be fair, and
if they weren't blond before, a packet of dye will do it. Some are
blue-eyed. Some might not even be nationals of other states: There are
second-generation and third-generation immigrants into the countries
of the West who are angry. You can't wipe them out even if you were
willing to commit genocide, which we're not.

Anger is of course one of the roots of a terror movement. But the what
fuels it is a Cause. Terror is best fought by gradually making it
difficult for the terrorists to get weapons -- and recruits. And
that's best done not by deepening divisions and bringing more
artillery to bear. You can't destroy terrorists who are quite willing
to die for their cause.

Rupa

In article <Ljfvb.1340$nm6.4938@news.indigo.ie>,
"helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote:
"Steve White" <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message news:steve-574BB7.17212020112003@netnews.attbi.com... In article <BZavb.1308$nm6.4830@news.indigo.ie>, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote: A reknowned fantasist (aka a bull****ter.) He used to live in Enniskerry, about six miles from here. NOT a popular man, by all accounts. We are not impressed by 'British colonial types' lording it up around the place. After all he was as base as the next - availing of the excellent tax breaks for writers. Typical Helen writing: she can't think of a single thing to say to respond to Mr. Forsyth's piece, so all she can to is try to smear him somehow. No substance from Helen, just name-calling and an effort to sound trendy. Not at all, he remains true to type. He hasn't changed one iota. Still the ultra-right wing, pompous *** he ever was. Plus ca change, and all that jazz.


Thank you for proving my point.

Your literary hero IS Maureen Dowd.

You can't develop a single response to what he wrote; not a jot.

Typical.

Sad.




steve

In article <Pffvb.1339$nm6.4877@news.indigo.ie>,
"helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote:

These folks aren't anti-war -- they're for the other side. <snort> - Remember the pulling down of Saddam's statue, and the milling *millions* of cheering people? Ever see the pulled-back picture? What a small little group it was, after all. :-(


About as small as the demonstrations yesterday. Your point?

Ever watch "Chavez - Inside the Coup"? All those people supposedly being riddled by Chavez supporters? But we all saw the reality, didn't we? AND heard Powell's gulp over the word *democracy*!


And now you try to change the subject.

By the way, did you hear of the Italian group that is raising money for
the Saddamites? For the men who planted the bomb that killed the Italian
police? Yep, they're raising money IN ITALY, and plan to travel to Iraq
and give it to the ones causing the trouble.

These folks aren't anti-war, they're for the other side.




steve

In article <e5619372.0311202127.35d4e5a2@posting.google.com>,
rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:

India has dealt with terrorism -- though not labelled as such -- ever since the republic was founded in 1947. I don't even know all of them, but within my memory, there were the Telengana riots in the South, the Naxalite insurgency in Bengal, the Sikh/ Khalistan troubles in Punjab that resulted in Indira Gandhi's death, the overflow Tamil Tiger problem from Sri Lanka that killed Rajiv Gandhi, and of course the ever-resurgent Hindu-Muslim problems that keep recurring from time to time. The only way that has ever worked there has been to deal with it on a defensive basis, do the best they can to contain the problem and provide security, and try to *reduce* the publicity/ noise-level/ anger-levels. Talks. Police actions. Occasional, temporary cordons and curfews. The times when a major army action has been used worsened the situation: It energizes the opposition, gives them a recruiting tool and a very visible grievance. It also deepens divisions.


I'm afraid my thoughts would be rather different, but perhaps it's my
upbringing and the culture in which I was raised.

My own thought is, if you want peace (and you have a society in which
you can believe and one that truly offers some justice and hope for your
people) you kill the ones who plant the bombs, assassinate the decent
folk and torture the innocent.

Few things are more peaceful than a dead terrorist.

The typical rejoinder to that is to say that one never runs out of
terrorists.

But one does.

When I was in college, the Naxalites were chic, armed and very dangerous. They killed people at random. Young kids built bombs in their parents' homes. Where are the Naxalites now?


You ran out of terrorists. They gave up. I suspect that in addition to
the defensive measures used, there were some other, darker methods that
depleted both the number and the will of the Naxalites to the point that
the survivors decided that revolution wasn't the best idea after all.

The war against terror is fought most effectively by not glamorizing it. Once it becomes a War! it becomes attractive to young people (and not so young people) who see it as a Cause.


War is hell, it's always hell. Young people will indeed do stupid things
(as will the old), but the war against terror is -- almost by definition
-- not glamorous. And while terrorism seems glamorous for a while, that
fades. Just about everything I've ever read about those who fought in
such things has noted that those who fought quickly found that it wasn't
glamorous at all.

Anger is of course one of the roots of a terror movement. But the what fuels it is a Cause. Terror is best fought by gradually making it difficult for the terrorists to get weapons -- and recruits. And that's best done not by deepening divisions and bringing more artillery to bear. You can't destroy terrorists who are quite willing to die for their cause.


No, but you can kill them. There are only so many who are that willing
to die for a cause. The others will decide, "hell with it, I'll go learn
about computers instead."

I don't argue against fixing whatever "root causes" might exist. If it's
poverty, fix it. If it's social injustice, fix it. Sometimes that's the
cause of the trouble and a smart society will fix these things.

But sometimes it's a simple belief held by the terrorist: that you
should die because. Because he fulfills some sort of destiny or
political ideology or religious belief, or because he's deemed you an
infidel or sub-human or somehow unworthy of your life.

The truly dedicated member of al-Qaeda sees both you and me as kaffir.
We are less than him because he is a believer and we are not. We are to
submit and convert or we are to die. That's his belief and he holds it
dearly. God has told him so. Paradise awaits. There's your root cause.

And all Helen's wishful, rotten-to-the-core socialist babble aside, that
fella has to be stopped, preferably before he kills you and definitely
before he kills me.

It's simple: he dies or we die. Choose.



steve

Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message news:<steve- Here's another Iraqi blogger from yesterday at: http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/ ====== ::Huge anti-terrorism demonstrations were held in Nassiriyah yesterday by students association condemning the attacks on the Italian force carrying signs such as 'No to terrorism. Yes to freedom and peace', and 'This cowardly act will unify us'. I have to add that there were similar demonstrations in Baghdad more than a week ago also by students against the bombings of police stations early this Ramadan. I hope the demonstrations advocates that bugged me are satisfied now. There are also preparations for anti-terror demonstrations before Id (end of Ramadan holidays).

That's an interesting blogger. I'm adding the site to my favorites.
Just a trifle bloodthirsty, though...probably justifiably. (Excerpt
below.)Incidentally, the blogger claims to be from a mixed Shi'a/
Sunni tribe, and have previous (indirect) ties to the Ba'ath regime,
which he renounces and opposes. With fury.

Rupa

"It was a very scary situation the last few days, Baghdad engulfed in
darkness, explosions heard everywhere, conflicting news about what was
exactly going on. I realize that major military operations have been
implemented again in an effort to counter the 'resistance'. I'm still
dissapointed that nobody explained the reasons behind the power
failure. It's still awful, we're now getting less than 8 hours of
power a day. I only got a grasp of the situation from the internet,
but what about the other 27 million Iraqis? How are they supposed to
find out? Most Baghdadis think its a form of mass punishment by the
CPA, and since no one bothered to explain to them the real reasons
they are not to blame for thinking so.

"Okay, the rape bit was a bit extreme and an overreaction. But I am
not going to abandon my point about the public trials and executions,
I can't see how they contradict with so-called human rights. I wasn't
saying something like: "let's gather all the Baathists in the country
and behead them on tv". I was referring to the captured regime figures
and foreign terrorists. It's very depressing not to hear anything
about what was done with them. Some of them have been detained for
seven months and I think it's now time to try them. You wouldn't
believe if I told you what rumours are going around about them. A
significant number of Iraqis believe that Abd Humood, Chemical Ali, or
Tariq Aziz are actually now in Hawaii or some private island in the
Carribean sipping champagne and laughing at the big fraud going on in
Iraq. About one third of Iraqis think that Uday and Qusay weren't
really killed in Mosul, and that the bodies displayed were really
rubber dolls with makeup. I don't blame those people for thinking that
way when we have absolutely no idea about these figures. People want
revenge, they desperately need to see justice take its course. Do you
have any idea what sadistic pleasure it would bring to Iraqis to see a
widely hated and feared regime figure like Chemical Ali for instance
sitting handcuffed in a cage in court mumbling with his eyes to the
ground? God I would pay dearly to see that! I still remember the utter
joy I experienced when I saw Taha Yassin Ramadan blindfolded and being
insulted by Kurd fighters on Al-Jazeera some months ago, and I wished
that I could have seen the same for every regime official on the day
of his capture."

"Steve White" <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message
news:steve-FAD9B7.00331121112003@netnews.attbi.com... In article <Pffvb.1339$nm6.4877@news.indigo.ie>, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote: These folks aren't anti-war -- they're for the other side. <snort> - Remember the pulling down of Saddam's statue, and the milling *millions* of cheering people? Ever see the pulled-back picture? What a small little group it was, after all. :-( About as small as the demonstrations yesterday. Your point?

No, Steve, the demonstrations yesterday were vastly different. For a start
there were tens of thousands more - some estimates were up to 200,000, which
for a *weekday* was phenomenal. Just as important, they weren't contrived to
deceive.

Here is a small excerpt from one report (Guardian Unlimited) - there are
many others elsewhere:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/antiwar/story/0,12809,1090122,00.html

And down comes the statue... but this time it's Trafalgar Square

Mass turnout of young and old watches overturn of US president's effigy

Jamie Wilson and Matthew Taylor
Friday November 21, 2003
The Guardian

At first George Bush gently rocked, then he began to sway, before finally
the figure started toppling, slowly but inexorably on to the pavement below.
The symbolic end of the five-metre (17ft) tall effigy - a riposte to the
pulling down of the statue of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad - brought the
biggest cheer of the day: louder than the boos when the seemingly never
ending procession made its way past Downing Street; bigger even than the
shouts and whistles that rang out when Britain's sixth anti-war
demonstration in a year began its snaking path through London to Trafalgar
Square.

Yesterday was by far the biggest turnout since the million-plus march in
February; along with the crowds, the anger and conviction were back with a
vengeance.

The hope of making a difference on that February day, before war had begun,
was superseded by a sense of frustration on subsequent marches.

Yesterday the demonstrators had a target, something tangible to shout at,
even if he was hidden behind an impenetrable wall of security.

By mid-morning people were coming together in Bloomsbury for the start of
the march, everyone from schoolchildren playing truant to pensioners
carrying placards reading "Go Home" and "World's Number 1 Terrorist".

Young and old, doctors, and teachers, students and the unemployed,
representing every religion and every colour. They had come on foot and on
bikes, by train and in cars.

Twenty coaches made their way down the M6 from Manchester, while at least
four more came from Exeter. All were assembling to make up the diverse mix
that in two years has seen the Stop the War Coalition become the fastest
growing political movement in Britain.

By 2.45pm, with Bloomsbury a seething mass of whistles and chanting, the
march was led off by a disabled Vietnam veteran-turned peace protester, Ron
Kovic, behind the banner "Proud of My Country, Ashamed of my President".



Ever watch "Chavez - Inside the Coup"? All those people supposedly being riddled by Chavez supporters? But we all saw the reality, didn't we? AND heard Powell's gulp over the word *democracy*! And now you try to change the subject. By the way, did you hear of the Italian group that is raising money for the Saddamites? For the men who planted the bomb that killed the Italian police? Yep, they're raising money IN ITALY, and plan to travel to Iraq and give it to the ones causing the trouble. These folks aren't anti-war, they're for the other side. steve

In article <e5619372.0311202352.480b888b@posting.google.com>,
rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:
Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message news:<steve- Here's another Iraqi blogger from yesterday at: http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/ ====== ::Huge anti-terrorism demonstrations were held in Nassiriyah ::yesterday by students association condemning the attacks on the Italian force carrying signs such as 'No to terrorism. Yes to freedom and peace', and 'This cowardly act will unify us'. I have to add that there were similar demonstrations in Baghdad more than a week ago also by students against the bombings of police stations early this Ramadan. I hope the demonstrations advocates that bugged me are satisfied now. There are also preparations for anti-terror demonstrations before Id (end of Ramadan holidays). That's an interesting blogger. I'm adding the site to my favorites. Just a trifle bloodthirsty, though...probably justifiably. (Excerpt below.)Incidentally, the blogger claims to be from a mixed Shi'a/ Sunni tribe, and have previous (indirect) ties to the Ba'ath regime, which he renounces and opposes. With fury.


Yes, he is pretty darned angry, isn't he? You should read what he says
about the UN.

Incidentially, apparently he's a dentist and a well-educated fellow. I
don't think Helen could make a "Mo-Do" style comment about him, thought
I suppose she'll try anyway.




steve
--
--
Steven White <stevewhitemd@earthlink.net>

In article <jkpvb.1506$nm6.10163@news.indigo.ie>,
"helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote:

About as small as the demonstrations yesterday. Your point? No, Steve, the demonstrations yesterday were vastly different. For a start there were tens of thousands more - some estimates were up to 200,000, which for a *weekday* was phenomenal. Just as important, they weren't contrived to deceive.


Even the BBC says that the demonstration at its peak was no more than
70,000, and the London police say it was smaller.

I saw some photos. Leaving out the schoolkids (shouldn't they be in
school?), the demonstrators were amongst the most motley group of people
I've seen since ... well, the photos of the San Francisco protest. Wotta
bunch of losers.

By the way, when they pulled down the statue of GWB, was there any
physical threat to the security of a single person?

No? Thought not.

Who organized this shindig? Why it was the Stop the War coalition, an
offshoot of the Socialist Workers Party, headed by a declared supporter
of North Korea. It's a thoroughly Stalinist party that branched off the
Communist Party when they thought the Commies were TOO SOFT.

While the war was going on the SWP explicitly called for Saddam's
victory over British and American troops. They also explicitly called on
American soliders to shoot their officers.

The SWP is a totalitarian party that opposes parliamentary democracy and
campaigns for the abolition of Israel, a course that could be
accomplished only by initiating a second Holocaust against the Jewish
people. Yes, that's right, they want all the Israelis dead, and they've
said so.

These are the people you march with, Helen. Stalinists.

If the Ku Klux Klan organized a march to benefit the local animal
welfare league, would you march and say that after all, it's all about
the puppies?

These are the people you march with, Helen. Oppressors.





steve

Steve White <stevewhitemd@earthlink.net> wrote Incidentially, apparently he's a dentist and a well-educated fellow.

I think the dentist is another guy. There's also a blog by three
doctors who are brothers. It's a good thing, I think, having so many
viewpoints coming out of Iraq. Most are from Baghdad or overseas. I'd
be interested in anyone blogging from the South or the North.

Rupa

"Steve White" <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message
news:steve-5A7DFC.00534221112003@netnews.attbi.com... In article <e5619372.0311202127.35d4e5a2@posting.google.com>, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote: India has dealt with terrorism -- though not labelled as such -- ever since the republic was founded in 1947. I don't even know all of them, but within my memory, there were the Telengana riots in the South, the Naxalite insurgency in Bengal, the Sikh/ Khalistan troubles in Punjab that resulted in Indira Gandhi's death, the overflow Tamil Tiger problem from Sri Lanka that killed Rajiv Gandhi, and of course the ever-resurgent Hindu-Muslim problems that keep recurring from time to time. The only way that has ever worked there has been to deal with it on a defensive basis, do the best they can to contain the problem and provide security, and try to *reduce* the publicity/ noise-level/ anger-levels. Talks. Police actions. Occasional, temporary cordons and curfews. The times when a major army action has been used worsened the situation: It energizes the opposition, gives them a recruiting tool and a very visible grievance. It also deepens divisions. I'm afraid my thoughts would be rather different, but perhaps it's my upbringing and the culture in which I was raised.

Yeah. You were gently reared, and daily put your hand on your heart and all
that.

If your country was invaded, your people killed and injured, your
infrastructure blasted to pieces, your army scattered to the four winds, the
invaders raiding your home, pushing the children around, insulting your
mother by rooting through her things, body-searching her, tying your
father's hands behind his back, knocking him prone and putting their big
yellow boot on his head, and all that, do you think that you might get angry
enough to find a gun and use it any time that you could?
My own thought is, if you want peace (and you have a society in which you can believe and one that truly offers some justice and hope for your people) you kill the ones who plant the bombs, assassinate the decent folk and torture the innocent.

Amazing you actually admit it. That's *exactly* what many Iraqis say you are
doing in Iraq *every day*. Don't forget: you do it all with impunity. You
seem to be answerable to no one.
Few things are more peaceful than a dead terrorist.

Kill one, and many more take his place - his sons, brothers, cousins. Even
his women-folk. When people are disenfranchised, insulted, abused, and are
angry enough and see no alternative, they are prepared to die defending what
is theirs. It is a strange concept, isn't it? Not too many hundred years
since you did it in your own country.
The typical rejoinder to that is to say that one never runs out of terrorists. But one does.

No, one does not. Particularly when it is only the enemy who calls them
terrorists. They call themselves insurgents, freedom fighters, martyrs.

<snip>
No, but you can kill them. There are only so many who are that willing to die for a cause. The others will decide, "hell with it, I'll go learn about computers instead."

Yeah. Right. How do you identify them? Do they all have a mark on their
foreheads? Or will you simply kill everyone with a darkish complexion?
I don't argue against fixing whatever "root causes" might exist. If it's poverty, fix it. If it's social injustice, fix it. Sometimes that's the cause of the trouble and a smart society will fix these things.

It is almost always because someone from outside greedily wants what doesn't
belong to them - land, oil, gold, etc.
But sometimes it's a simple belief held by the terrorist: that you should die because. Because he fulfills some sort of destiny or political ideology or religious belief, or because he's deemed you an infidel or sub-human or somehow unworthy of your life.

Because you represent *them*? The Enemy. Hit your enemy where it hurts. The
soft underbelly. If you are prepared to use yourself as the weapon, then
that makes it very difficult for The Enemy to protect himself.
The truly dedicated member of al-Qaeda sees both you and me as kaffir. We are less than him because he is a believer and we are not. We are to submit and convert or we are to die. That's his belief and he holds it dearly. God has told him so. Paradise awaits. There's your root cause.

Oh dear. I thought your president thought the very same thing - that he was
ordained by God to bring the pagans to Christ and to impose American-style
'democracy' on them?
And all Helen's wishful, rotten-to-the-core socialist babble aside,

What exactly are you talking about, Steve, dear? Funny how you always bring
me into your crappy rants.

that fella has to be stopped, preferably before he kills you and definitely before he kills me.

WHAT "fella has to be stopped", Steve? You mean Osama bin Laden? Yeah, well,
you might have thought of that before you supped with the devil.
It's simple: he dies or we die. Choose.

LOL! Talk about comic book rhetoric!

Helen

steve

"Steve White" <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message
news:steve-CDDF04.21003819112003@netnews.attbi.com... In article <pyIub.1133$nm6.4200@news.indigo.ie>, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote: With regard to dishonoring the *dead* soldiers, they even dishonoured the *living*. Jessica Lynch, comes to mind. What the BBC did to her was terrible, I'll agree.

LOL - talk about passing the buck! Did you not listen to her very own words,
Steve? She was NOT impressed with how she was used.

Helen
steve

"Steve White" <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message
news:steve-C6EDB4.21233321112003@netnews.attbi.com... In article <jkpvb.1506$nm6.10163@news.indigo.ie>, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote: About as small as the demonstrations yesterday. Your point? No, Steve, the demonstrations yesterday were vastly different. For a start there were tens of thousands more - some estimates were up to 200,000, which for a *weekday* was phenomenal. Just as important, they weren't contrived to deceive. Even the BBC says that the demonstration at its peak was no more than 70,000, and the London police say it was smaller.

The organisers said it was 200,000 and the *police* said it was 110,000. You
need to keep up, Steve.
I saw some photos. Leaving out the schoolkids (shouldn't they be in school?), the demonstrators were amongst the most motley group of people I've seen since ... well, the photos of the San Francisco protest. Wotta bunch of losers.

"Motley" is right. I'm surprised you didn't do your usual analysis and say
they were all commie-sympathisers.
By the way, when they pulled down the statue of GWB, was there any physical threat to the security of a single person? No? Thought not.

They were making a point, Steve dear, that seems to have gone flying over
your head.
Who organized this shindig? Why it was the Stop the War coalition, an offshoot of the Socialist Workers Party, headed by a declared supporter of North Korea. It's a thoroughly Stalinist party that branched off the Communist Party when they thought the Commies were TOO SOFT.

Oh - I should have read on, shouldn't I!!! You are so *predictable* in your
own inimitable McCarthy-ite way.
While the war was going on the SWP explicitly called for Saddam's victory over British and American troops. They also explicitly called on American soliders to shoot their officers.

Yeah. Right.
The SWP is a totalitarian party that opposes parliamentary democracy and campaigns for the abolition of Israel, a course that could be accomplished only by initiating a second Holocaust against the Jewish people. Yes, that's right, they want all the Israelis dead, and they've said so. These are the people you march with, Helen. Stalinists.

Get a grip.
If the Ku Klux Klan organized a march to benefit the local animal welfare league, would you march and say that after all, it's all about the puppies? These are the people you march with, Helen. Oppressors.

Listen to yourself. You are too stupid for words.

Helen steve

In article <e5619372.0311220100.7aed959c@posting.google.com>,
rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:

Incidentially, apparently he's a dentist and a well-educated fellow. I think the dentist is another guy.


Thanks for the correction.

There's also a blog by three doctors who are brothers. It's a good thing, I think, having so many viewpoints coming out of Iraq. Most are from Baghdad or overseas. I'd be interested in anyone blogging from the South or the North.


I'll keep my eyes open and forward such blogs to your attention when I
find them.




steve

In article <RmIvb.1652$nm6.10396@news.indigo.ie>,
"helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote:

I saw some photos. Leaving out the schoolkids (shouldn't they be in school?), the demonstrators were amongst the most motley group of people I've seen since ... well, the photos of the San Francisco protest. Wotta bunch of losers. "Motley" is right. I'm surprised you didn't do your usual analysis and say they were all commie-sympathisers.


The Socialist Workers Party, even more hard-core than the commies,
organized the shindig. I realize that you can't accept that and continue
to maintain a straight face with your =cough= arguments, but that
doesn't change the truth.

By the way, when they pulled down the statue of GWB, was there any physical threat to the security of a single person? No? Thought not. They were making a point, Steve dear, that seems to have gone flying over your head.


I got the point -- they're incapable of distinguishing between the
president of the United States and a brutal, national-socialist
dictator. That makes most of them willfully stupid.

And a few of them evil.

Who organized this shindig? Why it was the Stop the War coalition, an offshoot of the Socialist Workers Party, headed by a declared supporter of North Korea. It's a thoroughly Stalinist party that branched off the Communist Party when they thought the Commies were TOO SOFT. Oh - I should have read on, shouldn't I!!! You are so *predictable* in your own inimitable McCarthy-ite way.


Well then, why don't you correct the part I got wrong? Who organized the
Stop the War Coalition? If it wasn't the SWP, who was it?

Who's been providing the logistical and organizing support, not just for
this rally but the other major rallies in Europe and the US? The SWP and
it's subsidiary, International A.N.S.W.E.R.

While the war was going on the SWP explicitly called for Saddam's victory over British and American troops. They also explicitly called on American soliders to shoot their officers. Yeah. Right.


Yes, right. I have photos I downloaded from the web to prove that. Would
you like me to e-mail them to you?

The SWP is a totalitarian party that opposes parliamentary democracy and campaigns for the abolition of Israel, a course that could be accomplished only by initiating a second Holocaust against the Jewish people. Yes, that's right, they want all the Israelis dead, and they've said so. These are the people you march with, Helen. Stalinists. Get a grip.


I have, a firm one. These are the people you march with. They want the
Jews dead. They want the U.S. gone. They would do away with the gentle
democratic state called "Ireland" after they took care of the rest of
their business.

If the Ku Klux Klan organized a march to benefit the local animal welfare league, would you march and say that after all, it's all about the puppies? These are the people you march with, Helen. Oppressors. Listen to yourself. You are too stupid for words.


Why don't you explain how it is that you can march with people like the
SWP and A.N.S.W.E.R.: accept their help, their bus rides, their posters
and signs, their organizing, and yet not be seen as being part of them?

The KKK example makes the point: no matter what they might be marching
FOR, you wouldn't be caught near them.

Yet you're happy to march alongside the SWP and A.N.S.W.E.R. Explain why.




steve

"Steve White" <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message
news:steve-2718EA.15143422112003@netnews.attbi.com... In article <RmIvb.1652$nm6.10396@news.indigo.ie>, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote: I saw some photos. Leaving out the schoolkids (shouldn't they be in school?), the demonstrators were amongst the most motley group of people I've seen since ... well, the photos of the San Francisco protest. Wotta bunch of losers. "Motley" is right. I'm surprised you didn't do your usual analysis and say they were all commie-sympathisers. The Socialist Workers Party, even more hard-core than the commies, organized the shindig. I realize that you can't accept that and continue to maintain a straight face with your =cough= arguments, but that doesn't change the truth.

Socialism is so yesterday, Steve. I got the point -- they're incapable of distinguishing between the president of the United States and a brutal, national-socialist dictator. That makes most of them willfully stupid.

They should. A certain national-socialist leader was smarter and got better
looking women.

Marley

In article <6hIvb.1636$nm6.10392@news.indigo.ie>,
"helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote:

I'm afraid my thoughts would be rather different, but perhaps it's my upbringing and the culture in which I was raised. Yeah. You were gently reared, and daily put your hand on your heart and all that. If your country was invaded, your people killed and injured, your infrastructure blasted to pieces, your army scattered to the four winds, the invaders raiding your home, pushing the children around, insulting your mother by rooting through her things, body-searching her, tying your father's hands behind his back, knocking him prone and putting their big yellow boot on his head, and all that, do you think that you might get angry enough to find a gun and use it any time that you could?


And yet the large majority of Iraqis, as they themselves say, welcome
the fact that we removed Saddam.

Why is that?

Why did the Iraqi army melt away without fighting? Why did all the
soldiers toss down their rifles and go home? They're decent men. Why did
they refuse to fight for Saddam?

Maybe it was because Saddam wasn't worth dying for?

As to all the other nonsense you "cited", those things just don't happen
without a reason. As in, said people are planning to attack our troops.
You need to get your news from some other sources than the BBC.

My own thought is, if you want peace (and you have a society in which you can believe and one that truly offers some justice and hope for your people) you kill the ones who plant the bombs, assassinate the decent folk and torture the innocent. Amazing you actually admit it. That's *exactly* what many Iraqis say you are doing in Iraq *every day*.


No, that ISN'T what "many Iraqis" say we're doing; that's what a FEW
Iraqis say we're doing -- the Ba'athists, the dead-enders, the jihadis,
the ones that were big under Saddam.

It's too bad you don't get your news from other sources: you'd know that
(just as a few examples) the electricity is back on to levels better
than Saddam ever had it, that most of the country besides Baghdad now
has electricity (not under Saddam), that water is back on, schools are
re-opened, many schools have been rebuilt, and that the various grids
that are important to a modern society are coming to life.

You'd know that teachers are now getting paid better than Saddam ever
paid them, and they can now teach without having to glorify Saddam every
other sentence. You'd know that civil servants are doing their jobs.
You'd know that the Iraqi Police are evolving into a respected force
that average citizens are willing to believe in. You'd know that the oil
is coming on line and that Iraqis are benefitting from that. You'd know
that the hospitals have been cleaned out of the weapons and troops that
were housed in them and now actually take care of sick people.

You'd know that for the FIRST TIME EVER, all Iraqi children have
received basic immunization for polio -- something Saddam NEVER did.

Why, it's actually like somebody knows a thing or two about how to build
a country.

Don't forget: you do it all with impunity. You seem to be answerable to no one.


Sigh, you really don't get the basics, do you. GWB and his
administration are answerable to Americans. In 2004 we'll vote on
whether he's done a good job or not. If he wins, in 2009 he'll be out no
matter what.

But we're not answerable to those who refuse to work with us. Such as
the UN. Such as France, and Belgium. We refuse to kow-tow to folks like
you, the hand-wringers and the complainers.

Few things are more peaceful than a dead terrorist. Kill one, and many more take his place - his sons, brothers, cousins. Even his women-folk. When people are disenfranchised, insulted, abused, and are angry enough and see no alternative, they are prepared to die defending what is theirs. It is a strange concept, isn't it? Not too many hundred years since you did it in your own country.


Of course that describes something other than Iraq and the Middle East.

Who's enfranchised in the Middle East today? Of the 22 Arab states, how
many are democracies? Can you say, "none"?

Who's insulted and abused in the Middle East? How about all the Shi'a in
the Sunni states? How about all the Sunnis in the Shi'a states? How
about the Christians in all of them? How about all the people who aren't
members of the ruling party in each state?

How about the women in all of them? You might be willing to wear a burqa
(as you said before), but how many other Irish women would put up with
that? You who has waxed long on the Mageline Laundries and the need to
liberate women from that sort of oppression --

-- guess the situation the average Arab woman finds herself in.

It's worse.

How's that burqa fit, Helen?

I don't argue against fixing whatever "root causes" might exist. If it's poverty, fix it. If it's social injustice, fix it. Sometimes that's the cause of the trouble and a smart society will fix these things. It is almost always because someone from outside greedily wants what doesn't belong to them - land, oil, gold, etc.


Oh, enough about the French!

GWB said it clearly last week and you missed it as usual: 60 years of
western policy of propping up thugs, dictators and fools in the name of
"stability" has failed. It can't continue because it doesn't recognize
the legitimate aspirations of the people. It results in things like
9/11, and we don't want any more of those.

So we're acting to fix what went wrong. As usual, the pomo left will
oppose us. They'll lose.

The truly dedicated member of al-Qaeda sees both you and me as kaffir. We are less than him because he is a believer and we are not. We are to submit and convert or we are to die. That's his belief and he holds it dearly. God has told him so. Paradise awaits. There's your root cause. Oh dear. I thought your president thought the very same thing - that he was ordained by God to bring the pagans to Christ and to impose American-style 'democracy' on them?


No, that's more BBC propaganda. You really ARE gullible.

GWB, and most Americans, have this amazing ability to have their
personal faith and also live in a rational, democratic world. GWB is a
committed Christian, and yet he would NEVER force his religious beliefs
on another person. Ditto for just about every other Christian in this
country.

Please point to a single person who's been forcefully "converted" to
GWB's church.

The BBC and their comic-opera pomo beliefs can't see that, of course.

And all Helen's wishful, rotten-to-the-core socialist babble aside, What exactly are you talking about, Steve, dear? Funny how you always bring me into your crappy rants.


Easy to do, you represent so much of what is wrong.

WHAT "fella has to be stopped", Steve? You mean Osama bin Laden? Yeah, well, you might have thought of that before you supped with the devil.


That old canard again. You're persistent, I grant you that.

Remind me, Helen, who provided Osama with his money? Who provided Osama
with safe havens?

Remind me, Helen, who provided Saddam with the majority of his guns? Who
was second? Who was third?




steve

In article
<WDQvb.311704$0v4.18340631@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

The Socialist Workers Party, even more hard-core than the commies, organized the shindig. I realize that you can't accept that and continue to maintain a straight face with your =cough= arguments, but that doesn't change the truth. Socialism is so yesterday, Steve.


We're on the same page. Socialism will end up on the ash-heap of
history, but don't tell the Dummycrats until after 2004, er, 2008.

They should. A certain national-socialist leader was smarter and got better looking women.


Enlighten me, I'm missing your reference.





steve

"Steve White" <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message
news:steve-94D65C.17592322112003@netnews.attbi.com... In article <WDQvb.311704$0v4.18340631@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote: The Socialist Workers Party, even more hard-core than the commies, organized the shindig. I realize that you can't accept that and continue to maintain a straight face with your =cough= arguments, but that doesn't change the truth. Socialism is so yesterday, Steve. We're on the same page. Socialism will end up on the ash-heap of history, but don't tell the Dummycrats until after 2004, er, 2008. They should. A certain national-socialist leader was smarter and got better looking women. Enlighten me, I'm missing your reference.

The dreaded AH. You don't think Ms Braun was better looking that Laura?
And he had a whole coertie of other women who adored him. His niece Gelli
Reubel; lots of other men's wives. As Sylvia Plath wrote, every woman loves
a fascist.. Laura is getting a drubbing in England right now for being a
frump. They're comparing her wardrobe to Brenda's.

Marley steve

in article TNTvb.312705$0v4.18359890@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net,
Marley Greiner at maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net wrote on 23/11/03 1:10 am:
"Steve White" <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message news:steve-94D65C.17592322112003@netnews.attbi.com... In article <WDQvb.311704$0v4.18340631@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:> The Socialist Workers Party, even more hard-core than the commies,> organized the shindig. I realize that you can't accept that and> continue to maintain a straight face with your =cough= arguments,> but that doesn't change the truth. Socialism is so yesterday, Steve. We're on the same page. Socialism will end up on the ash-heap of history, but don't tell the Dummycrats until after 2004, er, 2008. They should. A certain national-socialist leader was smarter and got better looking women. Enlighten me, I'm missing your reference. The dreaded AH. You don't think Ms Braun was better looking that Laura? And he had a whole coertie of other women who adored him. His niece Gelli Reubel; lots of other men's wives. As Sylvia Plath wrote, every woman loves a fascist.. Laura is getting a drubbing in England right now for being a frump. They're comparing her wardrobe to Brenda's.

Brenda's been really stuck since poor old Norman passed away and now Hardy
Amies is gone too. I think she's getting her wardrobe from C&A these days
what with having to tighten the Privy Purse and make those cameo appearances
in television advertisements with John Cleese, that you were telling me
about, just for a bit of extra cash.

She's been put to dreadful expense recently, though we've all experienced it
haven't we, you meet someone on holiday and tell them they're welcome to
call round anytime, never really meaning it. Then they turn up one day, you
find they've made no arrangements for accommodation for their stay and you
have to put them up for the whole week, and there you are, several million
quid gone west.

Robin

In article
<P0Xvb.313758$0v4.18380330@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

Laura is, as it turns out, a very nice lady. She's getting beat up on just because the leftie wankers have to complain about something. But nice doesn't make style. Nancy Reagan was much more hip to fashion. Laura is a plain told dumpy frump who'd make a good wife for a college professor at Texas Tech.


She started life as a librarian, as I recall. Linda Fortney take note --
this could have been you! :-)

She might not be stylish but she doesn't pretend to be, either.




steve

In article <e5619372.0311222209.1efce32a@posting.google.com>,
rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:
Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote Killing terrorists is a necessary part of the "downplay, defuse and discuss" strategy. Let me make clear that I'm not against fixing those things that need to be fixed in a society to make it fair and just, especiallly as a part of a 3-D (cute, eh?) strategy to defeat terrorism. I think we disagree on the fundamental causes of terrorism. It does not have to be about fairness and justice. It is about *perceived* fairness and justice, or more particularly, empowerment, of a group that can clearly define themselves as insiders and some other group/s as 'outsiders.' If a group perceives that they are ill-treated and cannot be heard, they are ripe for any leader/s that tell them that they have to fight back and die if necessary.


I think we do disagree. I have no doubt that perceptions of fairness and
justice can drive a lot of this. But I also think that religious and
political ideology can be the primary driver -- these will use
perceptions of unfairness and injustice as means to their end. If there
are no perceptions, those with the ideology will create them.

So it becomes a chicken and egg issue sometimes.

The problem has never been whacking terrorists. Many whack themselves, as we have seen.


Certainly true: premiums for workers compensation insurance at Mutual of
Gaza just have to be out of sight! :-)

The problem has been a-priori identification of terrorists. Also, whacking terrorists can make the thing seem more, not less, glamorous.


Maybe: but there's nothing like a dead terrorist to convince the
neighbors that being a terrorist might not be such a good idea. That has
worked in American history for sure (e.g., suppression of the Filipino
insurrection in 1901). Note that resolving that particular problem
involved both a military and a political response: Arthur MacArthur
hammered the insurgents/terrorists, coupled with a promise of eventual
self-government in 1946 (a promise we kept). I don't doubt the need for
a political/diplomatic effort in the current WoT, but you also need to
nail those who are committed to terrorism.

Right, and to me, the key element of defeating terrorism is to *keep* that percentage small and shrink it if possible. The more the divisions are deepened, and the "us" and "them" clearly defined, the greater the percentage who would fight. But yes, terrorism is generally a minority strategy. But that's all it needs: A few violent people, and a very broad range of targets.


This gets into what Mao noted was the need for the terrorists to be fish
in a large sea. There's still a certain critical mass of terrorists
required to make substantial trouble.

Sure, and we shouldn't be blind as to think it couldn't happen again in the West. Well, I think it less likely in the West, mainly because it is unlikely that any group would feel so disempowered that it would attract terrorists. The few cases that have occurred have usually been one person or a small group, relatively easy to stop.


We saw it not too long ago with the Red Brigades and the Bade-Meinhoff
gang -- perfect example of how ideology drove the sense of
disenfranchisement rather than the other way around.

The IRA is another western terrorist group that continues to cause
trouble (and continues to train, hide weapons, build stockpiles despite
a ceasefire) even though many specific grievances in the North have been
addressed. The on-going ethnic issue (Scots versus Irish) in the North
mean that the Troubles will likely continue -- simmer for now and boil
at the next provocation.

One could look at the ETA and the Basques in the same way. Both Basque
and Northern Ireland show that underlying ethnic differences continue to
drive terrorism in Europe despite the "enlightened" social policies of
the rest of the continent. So which came first -- the grievance or the
ethnic difference? Answer: yes.

Give the average young man or woman something to look forward to in their lives and they won't turn to the promised glamour of terrorism. Unless they feel that the group they identify with is threatened, and they cannot do anything about it but kill. Many of the AQ were well-educated, reasonably prosperous men with families. They came from averagely middle-class backgrounds.


That's right, and traditionally the leaders of any movement come from
the middle -- they have enough education and enough spare time to
consider what to do. Relatively few movements are led by peasants,
though many claim to be for peasants. Education + time = a chance to
develop an ideology. Bader-Meinhoff gang members and Red Brigade members
were middle class kids who swallowed virulent Marxism and Red
revolutionary propaganda. What group did they identify with, and how was
it threatened? Certainly their families weren't threatened. This is just
another example of ideology driving the perception of grievance, not the
other way around.

... if al-Q did something that killed a lot of Americans (say, worse than WTC), there'd be a fair number of people who would be willing to nuke the most likely point of origin. And if al-Q did it a third time, the pressure to nuke something would become very strong here. The Europeans think we're nasty now -- just wait. I could see it happening. For the record, I wouldn't use a nuke under those circumstances. Neither would I. I wouldn't know *what* to nuke. You have a transnational network, with no apparent headquarters. Nuking the country/ regime that is easiest to hate is a reaction, not a solution.


I agree. These things have a way of driving themselves, of course, and
if a country had indeed become identified with sponsoring or abetting a
terrible terrorist act, the gloves would come off. It's official US
policy (as I understand from reading) that the US would indeed use a
nuke on a country if it was clear TO US (not required to be clear to
Helen!) that said country had aided a terrorist attack that involved WMD.

Yep, but there's one boundary they haven't transcended, and that's the boundary that a good number of people here would see after a second or third major attack. You mean all countries with a sizeable Muslim population? The Mid-east, Pakistan, India (which has more Muslims than many Islamic countries), the Maldives, Malaysia, and Indonesia? (I don't know if I left off any.) Maybe Europe, too. Some parts of the US?


Except that the Muslims of the Maldives, Malaysia, Europe and the US
aren't involved (99% aren't, anyway) with terrorism.





steve

"Robin" <nospam@harritt.net> wrote in message
news:BBE6ADA2.29322%nospam@harritt.net... in article TNTvb.312705$0v4.18359890@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, Marley Greiner at maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net wrote on 23/11/03 1:10 am: "Steve White" <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message news:steve-94D65C.17592322112003@netnews.attbi.com... In article <WDQvb.311704$0v4.18340631@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:>> The Socialist Workers Party, even more hard-core than the commies,>> organized the shindig. I realize that you can't accept that and>> continue to maintain a straight face with your =cough= arguments,>> but that doesn't change the truth.>> Socialism is so yesterday, Steve. We're on the same page. Socialism will end up on the ash-heap of history, but don't tell the Dummycrats until after 2004, er, 2008.> They should. A certain national-socialist leader was smarter and got> better looking women. Enlighten me, I'm missing your reference. The dreaded AH. You don't think Ms Braun was better looking that Laura? And he had a whole coertie of other women who adored him. His niece
Gelli Reubel; lots of other men's wives. As Sylvia Plath wrote, every woman
loves a fascist.. Laura is getting a drubbing in England right now for being
a frump. They're comparing her wardrobe to Brenda's. Brenda's been really stuck since poor old Norman passed away and now Hardy Amies is gone too. I think she's getting her wardrobe from C&A these days what with having to tighten the Privy Purse and make those cameo
appearances in television advertisements with John Cleese, that you were telling me about, just for a bit of extra cash.

I hope the old dear makes it on he own. How humiliating it would be to end
up on the dole at her age. She's been put to dreadful expense recently, though we've all experienced
it haven't we, you meet someone on holiday and tell them they're welcome to call round anytime, never really meaning it. Then they turn up one day,
you find they've made no arrangements for accommodation for their stay and you have to put them up for the whole week, and there you are, several million quid gone west. Robin

It's bloody awful what people do nowadays. BTW, I've been reading the flap
about the failed security at Buck and the stories that have come out about
RF. The Prince keeps a radio on the dining room table which he plays all
through breakfast; cereals are stored in Tupperware, and Brenda is a huge
fan of The Eastenders. No doubt Onslow would feel right at home. At least
there were no room-heater-with-the-frayed-cord stories such as came out
about Princess Margaret a few years ago. And I hear Ann's no housekeeper. I
have no doubt that we could be assured this state of affairs would never
occur if you'd been a allowed your rightful place in the family.

Marley

Marley

"Steve White" <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message
news:steve-36CBC4.13405523112003@netnews.attbi.com... In article <P0Xvb.313758$0v4.18380330@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote: Laura is, as it turns out, a very nice lady. She's getting beat up on just because the leftie wankers have to complain about something. But nice doesn't make style. Nancy Reagan was much more hip to fashion. Laura is a plain told dumpy frump who'd make a good wife for a college professor at Texas Tech. She started life as a librarian, as I recall. Linda Fortney take note -- this could have been you! :-) She might not be stylish but she doesn't pretend to be, either.

I wonder if she's a SF geek. I've known many librarians who are.

Marley steve

"Steve White" <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message
news:steve-129B63.15001722112003@netnews.attbi.com... In article <e5619372.0311220100.7aed959c@posting.google.com>, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote: Incidentially, apparently he's a dentist and a well-educated fellow. I think the dentist is another guy. Thanks for the correction. There's also a blog by three doctors who are brothers. It's a good thing, I think, having so many viewpoints coming out of Iraq. Most are from Baghdad or overseas. I'd be interested in anyone blogging from the South or the North. I'll keep my eyes open and forward such blogs to your attention when I find them.

I imagine there are even more viewpoints being blogged if we count the ones
in Arabic...

Ron
steve

"Steve White" <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message
news:steve-94D65C.17592322112003@netnews.attbi.com... In article <WDQvb.311704$0v4.18340631@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote: The Socialist Workers Party, even more hard-core than the commies, organized the shindig. I realize that you can't accept that and continue to maintain a straight face with your =cough= arguments, but that doesn't change the truth. Socialism is so yesterday, Steve. We're on the same page. Socialism will end up on the ash-heap of history, but don't tell the Dummycrats until after 2004, er, 2008.

It's astounding that an otherwise rational person could conflate the
Democrats, attached to the same corporate teat as the Republicans, with
socialism. But that's what a lifetime of infotainment and right wing
propaganda does to people. The Democrats are headed for the dustbin of
history; instead of forcefully standing up to Bush's astounding doctrine of
US wars of aggression whenever the intel can be cooked to fit, they kissed
his behind. Why? Because they'll be happy to wield the same grotesque
imperial power should they catch lightning in a bottle and regain the White
House. America has two right wings, one's called the Republican Party and
the other the Democrats. A duopoly that is a thoroughly owned and operated
subsidiary of corporate interests. The only difference is, when given the
chance, they redistribute and manipulate wealth to a different set of core
constituents.

Ron They should. A certain national-socialist leader was smarter and got better looking women. Enlighten me, I'm missing your reference. steve

"Steve White" <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message
news:steve-BA6339.14063023112003@netnews.attbi.com... In article <e5619372.0311222209.1efce32a@posting.google.com>, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote: Maybe: but there's nothing like a dead terrorist to convince the neighbors that being a terrorist might not be such a good idea. That has worked in American history for sure (e.g., suppression of the Filipino insurrection in 1901).

The US took over the Philipines in 1898 from the Spanish during the
Spanish/American War. The same Filipinos who fought for independence against
the Spanish fought against the US for the same reasons. If it can be
categorized as an insurrection, it was an insurrection against US
imperialist colonization. It was a campaigned marked by brutal massacres on
both sides. General William Shafter told the Chicago News that it "may be
necessary to kill half the Filipinos in order that the remaining half may
be advanced to a higher plane of life than their present semi-barbarous
state affords." Mark Twain wrote sardonically, "Shall we go on conferring
our Civilization upon the peoples that sit in darkness, or shall we give
those poor things a rest?" He was called a traitor.

After 44 US Army personnel were killed at Balangiga in 1901, General Jake
Smith earned the name "Howlin' Jake" when he instructed his men to turn the
island of Samar into a "howling wilderness", and exhorted them to "kill and
burn, kill and burn. The more you kill and burn, the more you please me."
Asked to define the age limit for killing, Smith answered everything over
ten. Several tens of thousands of Filipinos were killed in this campaign,
mostly civilians in retributive massacres.

The carnage reflected the unadulterated racism of the force that perpetrated
it. The acquisition of the colony known as the Philipines was extolled in
Congress as an expansion of "this magnificent Aryan race across the
Pacific."



Note that resolving that particular problem involved both a military and a political response: Arthur MacArthur hammered the insurgents/terrorists,

Sure, sure. Arthur MacArthur is the general who extolled the virtues of
colonial Aryan expansion to Congress. Killing terrorists to deter further
terrorism is one thing, racist wars of extermination are genocide.

coupled with a promise of eventual self-government in 1946 (a promise we kept). I don't doubt the need for a political/diplomatic effort in the current WoT, but you also need to nail those who are committed to terrorism.

Very generous of us. We granted the Vanderbilts and the Crockers fifty year
concessions to full ranges of Filipino resources ranging from timber to gold
mines, and basically sucked the country dry. We turned the Filipinos into
plantation serfs. We civilized them good workers with dum dum bullets and
battleships.







Right, and to me, the key element of defeating terrorism is to *keep* that percentage small and shrink it if possible. The more the divisions are deepened, and the "us" and "them" clearly defined, the greater the percentage who would fight. But yes, terrorism is generally a minority strategy. But that's all it needs: A few violent people, and a very broad range of targets. This gets into what Mao noted was the need for the terrorists to be fish in a large sea. There's still a certain critical mass of terrorists required to make substantial trouble. Sure, and we shouldn't be blind as to think it couldn't happen again in the West. Well, I think it less likely in the West, mainly because it is unlikely that any group would feel so disempowered that it would attract terrorists. The few cases that have occurred have usually been one person or a small group, relatively easy to stop. We saw it not too long ago with the Red Brigades and the Bade-Meinhoff gang -- perfect example of how ideology drove the sense of disenfranchisement rather than the other way around. The IRA is another western terrorist group that continues to cause trouble (and continues to train, hide weapons, build stockpiles despite a ceasefire) even though many specific grievances in the North have been addressed. The on-going ethnic issue (Scots versus Irish) in the North mean that the Troubles will likely continue -- simmer for now and boil at the next provocation. One could look at the ETA and the Basques in the same way. Both Basque and Northern Ireland show that underlying ethnic differences continue to drive terrorism in Europe despite the "enlightened" social policies of the rest of the continent. So which came first -- the grievance or the ethnic difference? Answer: yes. Give the average young man or woman something to look forward to in their lives and they won't turn to the promised glamour of terrorism. Unless they feel that the group they identify with is threatened, and they cannot do anything about it but kill. Many of the AQ were well-educated, reasonably prosperous men with families. They came from averagely middle-class backgrounds. That's right, and traditionally the leaders of any movement come from the middle -- they have enough education and enough spare time to consider what to do. Relatively few movements are led by peasants, though many claim to be for peasants. Education + time = a chance to develop an ideology. Bader-Meinhoff gang members and Red Brigade members were middle class kids who swallowed virulent Marxism and Red revolutionary propaganda. What group did they identify with, and how was it threatened? Certainly their families weren't threatened. This is just another example of ideology driving the perception of grievance, not the other way around. ... if al-Q did something that killed a lot of Americans (say, worse than WTC), there'd be a fair number of people who would be willing to nuke the most likely point of origin. And if al-Q did it a third time, the pressure to nuke something would become very strong here. The Europeans think we're nasty now -- just wait. I could see it happening. For the record, I wouldn't use a nuke under those circumstances. Neither would I. I wouldn't know *what* to nuke. You have a transnational network, with no apparent headquarters. Nuking the country/ regime that is easiest to hate is a reaction, not a solution. I agree. These things have a way of driving themselves, of course, and if a country had indeed become identified with sponsoring or abetting a terrible terrorist act, the gloves would come off. It's official US policy (as I understand from reading) that the US would indeed use a nuke on a country if it was clear TO US (not required to be clear to Helen!) that said country had aided a terrorist attack that involved WMD.

Yep, but there's one boundary they haven't transcended, and that's the boundary that a good number of people here would see after a second or third major attack. You mean all countries with a sizeable Muslim population? The Mid-east, Pakistan, India (which has more Muslims than many Islamic countries), the Maldives, Malaysia, and Indonesia? (I don't know if I left off any.) Maybe Europe, too. Some parts of the US? Except that the Muslims of the Maldives, Malaysia, Europe and the US aren't involved (99% aren't, anyway) with terrorism. steve

"Steve White" <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message
news:steve-BA6339.14063023112003@netnews.attbi.com... In article <e5619372.0311222209.1efce32a@posting.google.com>, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:
Maybe: but there's nothing like a dead terrorist to convince the neighbors that being a terrorist might not be such a good idea. That has worked in American history for sure (e.g., suppression of the Filipino insurrection in 1901). Note that resolving that particular problem involved both a military and a political response: Arthur MacArthur hammered the insurgents/terrorists, coupled with a promise of eventual self-government in 1946 (a promise we kept).

Actually the promise of independence did not come until much later than
1901, it was the Tydings-McDuffie Bill of 1934, supported by FDR, that set
up a commonwealth government with a promise of independence by 1946. Earlier
statements for independence, like the Jones Act of 1916, were stymied by US
sentiments that independence would somehow be "a betrayal of the Philippine
people", and set no date.

After fighting alongside the Americans against the Spanish, allegedly for
their freedom, the Filipino people were shocked when the US *bought* the
Philipines from Spain for 20 million clams in 1898. The "insurrection" was
against their further colonolization.


I don't doubt the need for a political/diplomatic effort in the current WoT, but you also need to nail those who are committed to terrorism.

In article <J9ewb.12799$n56.4035@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
"Ron Morgan" <rhyzome1@earthlink.net> wrote:

Actually the promise of independence did not come until much later than 1901, it was the Tydings-McDuffie Bill of 1934, supported by FDR, that set up a commonwealth government with a promise of independence by 1946. Earlier statements for independence, like the Jones Act of 1916, were stymied by US sentiments that independence would somehow be "a betrayal of the Philippine people", and set no date.


Thanks for the correction, the source I read had it differently.




steve

In article <Rhcwb.12708$n56.783@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,
"Ron Morgan" <rhyzome1@earthlink.net> wrote:

We're on the same page. Socialism will end up on the ash-heap of history, but don't tell the Dummycrats until after 2004, er, 2008. It's astounding that an otherwise rational person could conflate the Democrats, attached to the same corporate teat as the Republicans, with socialism. But that's what a lifetime of infotainment and right wing propaganda does to people.


I think it's that smug, superior attitude that causes otherwise rational
people like me to conflate correctly the Democrats with socialists.

America has two right wings, one's called the Republican Party and the other the Democrats.


That's so 1986. Now you have a center-right party, the Republicans, and
a Democratic party that's split into a center-left (getting smaller) and
a progressive-modernist left (getting larger and nuttier).




steve

In article <Qhcwb.12707$n56.4351@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
"Ron Morgan" <rhyzome1@earthlink.net> wrote:

I'll keep my eyes open and forward such blogs to your attention when I find them. I imagine there are even more viewpoints being blogged if we count the ones in Arabic...


I imagine there are, but I haven't heard of any of the usual blogging
tools being set up for Arabic. No reason why they couldn't be of course,
particularly if a blogging program handles unicode. Interesting thought.





steve

"Steve White" <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message
news:steve-ED7F1C.01502024112003@netnews.attbi.com... In article <Rhcwb.12708$n56.783@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.n et>, "Ron Morgan" <rhyzome1@earthlink.net> wrote: We're on the same page. Socialism will end up on the ash-heap of history, but don't tell the Dummycrats until after 2004, er, 2008. It's astounding that an otherwise rational person could conflate the Democrats, attached to the same corporate teat as the Republicans, with socialism. But that's what a lifetime of infotainment and right wing propaganda does to people. I think it's that smug, superior attitude that causes otherwise rational people like me to conflate correctly the Democrats with socialists. America has two right wings, one's called the Republican Party and the other the Democrats. That's so 1986. Now you have a center-right party, the Republicans, and a Democratic party that's split into a center-left (getting smaller) and a progressive-modernist left (getting larger and nuttier). steve

Boy, your definition of centerist is sure different than mine.

Marley

in article 5R8wb.102907$Ec1.4686477@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net,
Marley Greiner at maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net wrote on 23/11/03 8:34 pm:
"Robin" <nospam@harritt.net> wrote in message news:BBE6ADA2.29322%nospam@harritt.net... in article TNTvb.312705$0v4.18359890@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, Marley Greiner at maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net wrote on 23/11/03 1:10 am: "Steve White" <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message news:steve-94D65C.17592322112003@netnews.attbi.com... In article <WDQvb.311704$0v4.18340631@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:>>>> The Socialist Workers Party, even more hard-core than the commies,>>> organized the shindig. I realize that you can't accept that and continue>>> to maintain a straight face with your =cough= arguments, but that doesn't>>> change the truth.>>>>> Socialism is so yesterday, Steve.>>>> We're on the same page. Socialism will end up on the ash-heap of history,> but don't tell the Dummycrats until after 2004, er, 2008.>>>> They should. A certain national-socialist leader was smarter and got>> better looking women.>>>> Enlighten me, I'm missing your reference.>

The dreaded AH. You don't think Ms Braun was better looking that Laura? And he had a whole coertie of other women who adored him. His niece Gelli Reubel; lots of other men's wives. As Sylvia Plath wrote, every woman loves a fascist.. Laura is getting a drubbing in England right now for being a frump. They're comparing her wardrobe to Brenda's.
Brenda's been really stuck since poor old Norman passed away and now Hardy Amies is gone too. I think she's getting her wardrobe from C&A these days what with having to tighten the Privy Purse and make those cameo appearances in television advertisements with John Cleese, that you were telling me about, just for a bit of extra cash.
I hope the old dear makes it on he own. How humiliating it would be to end up on the dole at her age.


I assume she would get the basic state pension of 77 UK pounds per week and
her and Phil would probably qualify for a warden controlled old peoples
bungalow on a nice council housing estate somewhere. I understand there are
some nice places available on the Broadwater Farm estate, or they might be
able to fix her up with something in Toxteth if she prefers it up north. But
she does have that divorced son in the Navy who likes to come round and stay
when he's on leave, that could really upset things with the benefits people
if he's bringing income into the household. Though I don't know why she lets
him stay, apparently he can be really foul mouthed first thing in the
mornings, the kind of language that makes alt.adoption look like a Palace
garden party for the Archbishop of Canterbury.


She's been put to dreadful expense recently, though we've all experienced it haven't we, you meet someone on holiday and tell them they're welcome to call round anytime, never really meaning it. Then they turn up one day, you find they've made no arrangements for accommodation for their stay and you have to put them up for the whole week, and there you are, several million quid gone west.
Robin

It's bloody awful what people do nowadays. BTW, I've been reading the flap about the failed security at Buck and the stories that have come out about RF. The Prince keeps a radio on the dining room table which he plays all through breakfast; cereals are stored in Tupperware, and Brenda is a huge fan of The Eastenders.


Sounds like I'd fit in quite well. It becomes more and more obvious to me
that I have been cut off my real true family. Though I'm none too keen on
Tupperware, it always smells sweaty to me.

No doubt Onslow would feel right at home.


I think they should go on one of those reality shows with Onslow and Daisy,
they could do house-swap one, or the wife-swap one.

At least there were no room-heater-with-the-frayed-cord stories such as came out about Princess Margaret a few years ago. And I hear Ann's no housekeeper.


Oh dear, has she been having the horses in the living room again?

I have no doubt that we could be assured this state of affairs would never occur if you'd been a allowed your rightful place in the family.


Indeed not, if things were the way they ought to be, this lot would be no
more than the poor relations.

Robin

In article <BBE81E6E.294BD%nospam@harritt.net>,
Robin <nospam@harritt.net> wrote:
I think they should go on one of those reality shows with Onslow and Daisy,they could do house-swap one, or the wife-swap one.


OK, I know who Brenda is, but who are Onslow and Daisy. Enlighten me
please.


Linda

..
..
..
..
..

"Linda Fortney" <lfortney@dc.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:bptt76$866@wolfe.umd.edu... In article <BBE81E6E.294BD%nospam@harritt.net>, Robin <nospam@harritt.net> wrote:I think they should go on one of those reality shows with Onslow and
Daisy,they could do house-swap one, or the wife-swap one. OK, I know who Brenda is, but who are Onslow and Daisy. Enlighten me please. Linda

Keeking Up Appearances--one of my all-time favourite shows.

Marley . . . . .

"Robin" <nospam@harritt.net> wrote in message
news:BBE81E6E.294BD%nospam@harritt.net... in article 5R8wb.102907$Ec1.4686477@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, Marley Greiner at maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net wrote on 23/11/03 8:34 pm: "Robin" <nospam@harritt.net> wrote in message news:BBE6ADA2.29322%nospam@harritt.net... in article TNTvb.312705$0v4.18359890@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, Marley
Greiner at maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net wrote on 23/11/03 1:10 am:>> "Steve White" <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message> news:steve-94D65C.17592322112003@netnews.attbi.com... In article> <WDQvb.311704$0v4.18340631@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Marley> Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:>>>>>>> The Socialist Workers Party, even more hard-core than the commies,>>>> organized the shindig. I realize that you can't accept that and
continue>>>> to maintain a straight face with your =cough= arguments, but that
doesn't>>>> change the truth.>>>>>>> Socialism is so yesterday, Steve.>>>>>>> We're on the same page. Socialism will end up on the ash-heap of
history,>> but don't tell the Dummycrats until after 2004, er, 2008.>>>>>>> They should. A certain national-socialist leader was smarter and
got>>> better looking women.>>>>>>> Enlighten me, I'm missing your reference.>>> The dreaded AH. You don't think Ms Braun was better looking that
Laura? And> he had a whole coertie of other women who adored him. His niece Gelli> Reubel; lots of other men's wives. As Sylvia Plath wrote, every woman
loves> a fascist.. Laura is getting a drubbing in England right now for
being a> frump. They're comparing her wardrobe to Brenda's.> Brenda's been really stuck since poor old Norman passed away and now
Hardy Amies is gone too. I think she's getting her wardrobe from C&A these
days what with having to tighten the Privy Purse and make those cameo
appearances in television advertisements with John Cleese, that you were telling me about, just for a bit of extra cash. I hope the old dear makes it on he own. How humiliating it would be to
end up on the dole at her age. I assume she would get the basic state pension of 77 UK pounds per week
and her and Phil would probably qualify for a warden controlled old peoples bungalow on a nice council housing estate somewhere. I understand there
are some nice places available on the Broadwater Farm estate, or they might be able to fix her up with something in Toxteth if she prefers it up north.
But she does have that divorced son in the Navy who likes to come round and
stay when he's on leave, that could really upset things with the benefits
people if he's bringing income into the household.

Couldn't the government just take money away from him and transfer it to
them the (taxed, of course.)


Though I don't know why she lets him stay, apparently he can be really foul mouthed first thing in the mornings, the kind of language that makes alt.adoption look like a Palace garden party for the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Yes, I've been reading about that lately. I'm shocked Shocked. She's been put to dreadful expense recently, though we've all
experienced it haven't we, you meet someone on holiday and tell them they're welcome
to call round anytime, never really meaning it. Then they turn up one day, you
find they've made no arrangements for accommodation for their stay and you
have to put them up for the whole week, and there you are, several million quid
gone west. Robin It's bloody awful what people do nowadays. BTW, I've been reading the
flap about the failed security at Buck and the stories that have come out
about RF. The Prince keeps a radio on the dining room table which he plays all
through breakfast; cereals are stored in Tupperware, and Brenda is a huge fan of
The Eastenders. Sounds like I'd fit in quite well. It becomes more and more obvious to me that I have been cut off my real true family. Though I'm none too keen on Tupperware, it always smells sweaty to me.

You should sue. You deserve to be with your real family, and creating your
own with somebody else's cornflakes just doesn't cut it. No doubt Onslow would feel right at home. I think they should go on one of those reality shows with Onslow and
Daisy, they could do house-swap one, or the wife-swap one.

I like wife swap myself. Daisy could read Spinoza in or Barbara Cartland
aloud in bed to Phil--and there's always Rose for the Royal Gaze. I'm not
sure how Brenda and Olslow would hit it off, though. She just might be a
little to neat for him. At least there were no room-heater-with-the-frayed-cord stories such as
came out about Princess Margaret a few years ago. And I hear Ann's no
housekeeper. Oh dear, has she been having the horses in the living room again?

I hear she's been slumming around with PPB again. What's with that? I have no doubt that we could be assured this state of affairs would
never occur if you'd been a allowed your rightful place in the family. Indeed not, if things were the way they ought to be, this lot would be no more than the poor relations.

And they are indeed. Nothing has been same since that dreadful William and
Mary got control, thougj there was so hope with the William IV ( think I
mean IV)

Marley Robin

in article 19vwb.107446$Ec1.4809266@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net,
Marley Greiner at maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net wrote on 24/11/03 9:57 pm:
"Linda Fortney" <lfortney@dc.umd.edu> wrote in message news:bptt76$866@wolfe.umd.edu... In article <BBE81E6E.294BD%nospam@harritt.net>, Robin <nospam@harritt.net> wrote: I think they should go on one of those reality shows with Onslow and Daisy, they could do house-swap one, or the wife-swap one. OK, I know who Brenda is, but who are Onslow and Daisy. Enlighten me please. Linda Keeking Up Appearances--one of my all-time favourite shows. Marley

See (Onslow is the one top centre)

http://www.tvheaven.ca/kup.htm

Umm...strange that appears to be a Canadian hosted website.

BTW is "The Royle Family" which also features Geoffrey Hughes (Onslow) shown
on US television?

Robin

In article <xIJwb.328926$0v4.18665786@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Marley Greiner <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
They'd annoy Trotsky.

Indeed. SWPers live to argue. They'd argue with their great prophet
himself and tell him "The proper Marxist position on blank is..."
One of the Avakiandroids once assured me that "the Revolution" would starton Hague Ave. in Columbus. I'm still waiting.


ROR. I trust you're not holding your breath.


I might have told you this, but it is funny enough to bear repeating. A
wacko Maoist (is there any other kind?) told me that the Chinese sold out
to Coca Cola and we now had to look to Albania for moral leadership. This
was in the early 80's.
Ah! Permanent Revolution. How Leon of him!

ROR again. What does Leon have to say about Permanent Imperialism? Lots
and lots.
His mother, whom I admire greatly, should yank his year a few times.

I know about Irving (rotten turncoat)--tell me more about his mother.

Linda

"Linda Fortney" <lfortney@dc.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:bq071v$a41@marlowe.umd.edu... In article <xIJwb.328926$0v4.18665786@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Marley Greiner <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:They'd annoy Trotsky. Indeed. SWPers live to argue. They'd argue with their great prophet himself and tell him "The proper Marxist position on blank is..."

I was in Moscow the week staying at the Kocmos Hotel when Lev was rehabed.
It was really bizarre. His picture was on TV and in the newspapers. I
don't know much about Trotsky memorabilia, but Stalin memorabilia has only
available at premium now. I picked up a few thingsin 1991, but it's
impossible now. One thing I didn't get, but should have, was a bust of
Kirov.One of the Avakiandroids once assured me that "the Revolution" would
starton Hague Ave. in Columbus. I'm still waiting. ROR. I trust you're not holding your breath.

No, I'm not. I thought it was starting on my street. How dare they? I might have told you this, but it is funny enough to bear repeating. A wacko Maoist (is there any other kind?) told me that the Chinese sold out to Coca Cola and we now had to look to Albania for moral leadership. This was in the early 80's.

That's hilarious! I know that's the seat of all my ideas. Albania is one
of the countries I've always wanted to visit. Back in the late 1980s the
only thing you could take out of Albania without a major customs problem
were socks and clothes dryers. At least according to an article in British
Vogue, by a fellow who got a free weekend trip there. But then--not many
would want to spend more than a weekend in Albania outside of me and a few
whacked-out Maoists.Ah! Permanent Revolution. How Leon of him! ROR again. What does Leon have to say about Permanent Imperialism? Lots and lots.

That Perle and Wolfowitz have co-pted the master is so bizarre. BTW, I've
got a fellow sitting in my office right now who's grandfather was Trotsky's
train engineer during the Terror.His mother, whom I admire greatly, should yank his year a few times. I know about Irving (rotten turncoat)--tell me more about his mother.

The historian Gertrude Himmelfarb. She's taken a lot of flack from feminist
historians for being the historian of Lord Acton. Oh dear! We can't have
women historizing anything but women's and gender studies, can we?
Especially when she was out there getting tenured in a man's field before
many of them were out of knickers. She can be a crank sometimes, but I
really like her.

Marley Linda

Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote > I imagine there are, but I haven't heard of any of the usual blogging tools being set up for Arabic. No reason why they couldn't be of course, particularly if a blogging program handles unicode. Interesting thought.

I think there's one that does in Arabic and English. My computer
writes gobbledy-gook when it sees Arabic, and I can't read it anyway,
but it seems to be there.

Rupa

In article <IUPwb.111793$Ec1.4918376@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Marley Greiner <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:That Perle and Wolfowitz have co-pted the master is so bizarre. BTW, I'vegot a fellow sitting in my office right now who's grandfather was Trotsky'strain engineer during the Terror.

Do tell!The historian Gertrude Himmelfarb. She's taken a lot of flack from feministhistorians for being the historian of Lord Acton. Oh dear! We can't havewomen historizing anything but women's and gender studies, can we?Especially when she was out there getting tenured in a man's field beforemany of them were out of knickers. She can be a crank sometimes, but Ireally like her.Marley


Now Marley, she does good work on the Victorians, and I applaud her for
taking on the deconstructionism which I consider to be errant nonsense.
However, all this ranting about America going to hell in a handbasket and
it's all the fault of the sixties is muddleheaded, simplistic and
reactionary. She's seeing the 50's and earlier periods through deeply
rose colored glasses, and ignoring the fact that the good old days were
terrible for a majority of the population.

Linda

P.S. Steve, the article in the Weekly Standard about the connections
between Iraq and Bin Laden has been proven to be a total crock of boef
merde. Editor and Publisher did a nice piece on it. Apparently the
conservative press hasn't bothered to retract any of the stories.
Go to the Democratic Underground site and look at the current list of
Conservative Idiots of the Week. The link to the Editor and Publisher
story is there.

"Linda Fortney" <lfortney@dc.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:bq0p62$s77@marlowe.umd.edu... In article <IUPwb.111793$Ec1.4918376@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Marley Greiner <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:That Perle and Wolfowitz have co-pted the master is so bizarre. BTW,
I'vegot a fellow sitting in my office right now who's grandfather was
Trotsky'strain engineer during the Terror. Do tell!

He's adopted and this is his bfather's father. It explains a lot! If I
were him I'd be researaching it.The historian Gertrude Himmelfarb. She's taken a lot of flack from
feministhistorians for being the historian of Lord Acton. Oh dear! We can't
havewomen historizing anything but women's and gender studies, can we?Especially when she was out there getting tenured in a man's field beforemany of them were out of knickers. She can be a crank sometimes, but Ireally like her.Marley Now Marley, she does good work on the Victorians, and I applaud her for taking on the deconstructionism which I consider to be errant nonsense.

Yeah. While I find some of this stuff very helpful, it's not something to
devote your life to. I don't understand why these people can't write in
plain English, but then if they did, what fun would it be. It's all an
exclusive little country club for the vague and obscure snobs. Ever try to
read Judith Butler?


However, all this ranting about America going to hell in a handbasket and it's all the fault of the sixties is muddleheaded, simplistic and reactionary.

I think's it's gone to hell in a handbasket, but not because of the '60s. I
blame the 80s--if one must blame something. I love the '50s. That's where
the real meat is, and the 60s were just sort of the natural conclusion of
it. , I prefer 1919-1924 myself. The country never recovered from that one.


She's seeing the 50's and earlier periods through deeply rose colored glasses, and ignoring the fact that the good old days were terrible for a majority of the population.

As well it should be. People nened to learn that misery, desire, and death
are the wages of birth. The idea that one is supposed to be "happy" is
absurd. Linda P.S. Steve, the article in the Weekly Standard about the connections between Iraq and Bin Laden has been proven to be a total crock of boef merde. Editor and Publisher did a nice piece on it. Apparently the conservative press hasn't bothered to retract any of the stories. Go to the Democratic Underground site and look at the current list of Conservative Idiots of the Week. The link to the Editor and Publisher story is there.

Well, I hardly think that Steve will go to DU. It's a cesspool of
socialism. The Weekly Standard likes me. They named my letter to them as
the second best letter of the week back in January and titled it" Mothers
who wish they'd aborted." after I went after Terry Eastland.

Marley

In article
<IUPwb.111793$Ec1.4918376@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

I might have told you this, but it is funny enough to bear repeating. A wacko Maoist (is there any other kind?) told me that the Chinese sold out to Coca Cola and we now had to look to Albania for moral leadership. This was in the early 80's. That's hilarious! I know that's the seat of all my ideas. Albania is one of the countries I've always wanted to visit. Back in the late 1980s the only thing you could take out of Albania without a major customs problem were socks and clothes dryers. At least according to an article in British Vogue, by a fellow who got a free weekend trip there. But then--not many would want to spend more than a weekend in Albania outside of me and a few whacked-out Maoists.


You should read P. J. O'Rourke's description of his visit to Albania, in
"All the Troubles in the World."




steve

In article <steve-167993.20394425112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote:In article <bpvobp$2j7@marlowe.umd.edu>, lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote:
Hmmm, thought they broke with the Trotsters long time ago. I'll have tolook that up.

AFAIK, SWPs are still Trots. If they have turned Stalinist, the epic
battle between the Stalinists and the foot washing Trots must have been
something to see. I have sat in meetings with SWP clowns, and worse.You have my sympathies. Research project, right? :-)

Actually, it was a movement to keep the state ofr NC from building a
freeway right through the middle of the oldest black middle class
neighborhood in Durham. I was with a sane left organization called The
People's Alliance. The local Maoist loons got wind of this project, took
over all the meetings and bored/terrified everyone with the class
struggle, smash the state rhetoric. The movement died and the freeway ent
through.
Trust me the Maoists are even more annoying.I wouldn't dare argue with you on that one!

Do ytou remember the Communist group which organized Death to the Klan
rallies in N.C. and dared the KKK to come and fight them? The KKK showed
up and killed and wounded people. Same bunch of crazed Maoists.
It's tried and true, because it works. Particularly in leftist circles.That's part of how the Bolshies grabbed power in the October Revolution.The SWP has similar dreams -- read their stuff.

Trust me, I have dealt with these people and we in the People's Alliance
finally figured out ways to outfox them.
To the contrary: those who have marched in A.N.S.W.E.R. sponsoredparades, marches, rallies, etc who didn't renounce them are eithersupporters, or (even worse) moochers -- they let others do the hardwork. The moochers weren't willing to roll up their sleeves and do arally that would exclude the nasties, they just went along with the flow.

This is guilt by association and I think it is a specious argument. The
left is really good at splitting itself up because some don't think that
group X is pure enough for them. Why have two rallies when a show of
force in one is more effective, even if it was organized by A.N.S.W.E.R.
Fact is, there are plenty of thoughtful, intelligent people who wereagainst the war. Few of them were at these SWP-sponsored rallies. Quitehonestly these rallies looked like, for the most part, dingbats onparade.


Well, you're entitled to your opinion.


The reverse analogy would be to infer that every conservative is like that idiot legislator in Texas who screeched that free education was like free groceries and was an idea from Moscow and the jaws of Hell.But you saw precious few conservatives standing with him.
Actually it was a her.


William Kristol was on the Diane Rehm (sp?) show last night, defending the Project for the New American Century, the think tank of neo con hawks who articulated the latter day Wilsonian policy that America's job was to make the world safe for democracy, particularly in the Arab world.Remind me why this is a bad idea?
Because no one elected us the world's policeman.

Because we can't afford to fight every tin horn dictator in the world.

Because democracy imposed from above will never work.

Because if the nations of the world think the Americans are going to
descend from the mountaintop and run foreign countries, they will arm
themselves with the only weapons the US is like to pay attention to,
nuclear arms. More nuclear proliferation, now there's a nice thought.

And above all, arrogantly declaring that the world will run itself
according to the lights of the neo-cons only pisses the rest of the world,
including our allies off.
wants to expand the military and liberate opressed people everywhere, including China. One can only hope that saner heads will prevail.I'll have a talk with him and remind him, one enemy at a time :-)

Oh yeah, I can just picture the American invasion of China.

And, Kristol never served in the military. I guess he had other priorities like the rest of the Chicken Hawks.Please don't force me into a comment about Howard Dean's bad back, theone that let him ski and haul cement but not fight in Vietnam.


Howard Dean isn't slavering to send other people's kids to fight for his
personal ideology.

Linda

"Linda Fortney" <lfortney@dc.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:bq152f$6nm@tracy.umd.edu... In article <steve-167993.20394425112003@netnews.attbi.com>, Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote:In article <bpvobp$2j7@marlowe.umd.edu>, lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote:
Trust me the Maoists are even more annoying.

Tell me about it. I owed some Maoists a favor back in the 1970s and agreed
to attempt some kind of rally in WDC and rode up on a bus with them, all the
way from Kent State and back. Yeech! I embroidered all the way up there,
while the rest of them--seriously--read the Little Red Book or slept. It
was so embarassing. I mean, I'm a Wob, for pete's sake. What was I
thinking?
It's tried and true, because it works. Particularly in leftist circles.That's part of how the Bolshies grabbed power in the October Revolution.The SWP has similar dreams -- read their stuff.

Their writing is unreadable. Trust me, I have dealt with these people and we in the People's Alliance finally figured out ways to outfox them.To the contrary: those who have marched in A.N.S.W.E.R. sponsoredparades, marches, rallies, etc who didn't renounce them are eithersupporters, or (even worse) moochers -- they let others do the hardwork. The moochers weren't willing to roll up their sleeves and do arally that would exclude the nasties, they just went along with the flow. This is guilt by association and I think it is a specious argument. The left is really good at splitting itself up because some don't think that group X is pure enough for them. Why have two rallies when a show of force in one is more effective, even if it was organized by A.N.S.W.E.R.

I guess each organization should just throw it's own demo to remain
untainted from the rest. Of course simultaneous organizations in different
parts of town throws off the cops. Now I kinda like that idea. Let's get
57 difference groups in 57 different locations at the same time. That could
get fun. When I went to NYC for the Walsh Show taping there wre 2 demos
happening at the same time One in the 50s and the other in Lower Manhattan.
The NYPD could seemed to have a bit of a time containing them. I went to
the die-in at Rockefeller Center, but it was breaking up just as I got
there. The horse patrol, though stayed through lunch.
The reverse analogy would be to infer that every conservative is like that idiot legislator in Texas who screeched that free education was like free groceries and was an idea from Moscow and the jaws of Hell.But you saw precious few conservatives standing with him. Actually it was a her.

There are lots of people who believe that. I remember hearing that
yabbering when in Georgia 1967-68. There were huge debates in the letters
to the editor over the socialism of public schools. It' still goes on. The
motive has tilted (but only a little) from race to G-d. Public schools are
a commie plot to teach atheism. Why do you think home schooling is so
popular with the fundies? William Kristol was on the Diane Rehm (sp?) show last night, defending the Project for the New American Century, the think tank of neo con hawks who articulated the latter day Wilsonian policy that America's job was to make the world safe for democracy, particularly in the Arab world.Remind me why this is a bad idea? Because no one elected us the world's policeman. Because we can't afford to fight every tin horn dictator in the world. Because democracy imposed from above will never work. Because if the nations of the world think the Americans are going to descend from the mountaintop and run foreign countries, they will arm themselves with the only weapons the US is like to pay attention to, nuclear arms. More nuclear proliferation, now there's a nice thought. And above all, arrogantly declaring that the world will run itself according to the lights of the neo-cons only pisses the rest of the world, including our allies off.

Thank you Linda. And let's not foget that Wilson was a nasty little
ellitist pretentious mama's boy whom TR hated. That this man has gone down
in history as at last semi-great is a mystery to me. Good grief. Warren G.
Hardingn was better.
..
Marley

In article <bq152f$6nm@tracy.umd.edu>,
lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote:

Actually, it was a movement to keep the state ofr NC from building a freeway right through the middle of the oldest black middle class neighborhood in Durham. I was with a sane left organization called The People's Alliance. The local Maoist loons got wind of this project, took over all the meetings and bored/terrified everyone with the class struggle, smash the state rhetoric. The movement died and the freeway ent through.


I've driven that freeway. The Dan Ryan expressway in Chicago took out a
big chunk of Bronzeville, the middle-class black neighborhood of the
1930's. Same in lots of other cities. One of those, dare I say, liberal
urban renewal schemes married to pork-belly politics and big-city
machine crookery.

Do you remember the Communist group which organized Death to the Klan rallies in N.C. and dared the KKK to come and fight them? The KKK showed up and killed and wounded people. Same bunch of crazed Maoists.


Yep, I remember that. My thought at the time was that as long as no
innocents were hurt, the KKK and SWP were welcome to fight to a bloody
draw.

Trust me, I have dealt with these people and we in the People's Alliance finally figured out ways to outfox them.


Please do more of it.

This is guilt by association and I think it is a specious argument. The left is really good at splitting itself up because some don't think that group X is pure enough for them. Why have two rallies when a show of force in one is more effective, even if it was organized by A.N.S.W.E.R.


Because then you're tarred with their brush.

I'll give you the same challenge I gave to Helen (before she ran off to
lick her wounds ;-) --

If the KKK sponsored a rally for the local animal welfare league, would
you march (instead of organizing your own march), saying that after all
it's all about the puppies?

William Kristol was on the Diane Rehm (sp?) show last night, defending the Project for the New American Century, the think tank of neo con hawks who articulated the latter day Wilsonian policy that America's job was to make the world safe for democracy, particularly in the Arab world.Remind me why this is a bad idea?
Because no one elected us the world's policeman.


Sure, and we're not.

Because we can't afford to fight every tin horn dictator in the world.


But we can afford (and need to afford) to take down the ones that can be
a threat to us.

Because democracy imposed from above will never work.


We're not going to impose democracy. That's the beauty of it! We're
going to remove the thugs and hang around for a while, confident that --
kept safe from thugs and with some gentle nudging -- people will
organize democracy for themselves.

It's WORKING in Iraq. The local councils, school boards, etc are
flourishing. Baghdad now has over 230 newspapers (prior to the war only
a few, biggest ones owned by Uday). Iraqis aren't stupid; they can look
around and see that in general, the most prosperous states, the ones
that can in fact determine their own destiny, are democratic republics.

It's NOT working in Afghanistan. Why? Sadly, the Loya Jirga left the
warlords in charge, and they are doing what they normally do -- lord.
Given our goals for that country -- nail al-Q and prevent A-land from
being used as a terror base -- we went along. It's a shame.

Because if the nations of the world think the Americans are going to descend from the mountaintop and run foreign countries, they will arm themselves with the only weapons the US is like to pay attention to, nuclear arms. More nuclear proliferation, now there's a nice thought.


Except that thought predates Bush's doctrine. Saddam was interested in
nukes from the 1970's -- remember Osirak? North Korea started working on
their nukes a couple decades back, and accelerated that work while
Clinton was still president (breaking the deal they signed with him).
The black turbans in Iran have been working on nukes since shortly after
removing the Shah. These are long time-frame projects, you don't make a
nuke in a year.

These jokers are going to develop nukes regardless of American
diplomatic strategy. They've been doing so since Reagan.

And above all, arrogantly declaring that the world will run itself according to the lights of the neo-cons only pisses the rest of the world, including our allies off.


Some of our allies. Eastern Europeans by and large get it. But then,
they remember the Soviets. They like democracy a whole lot better.

To be frank: I don't care if the French and Belgians are pissed. First,
they aren't really our friends. And second, their agenda is to impose a
"counter-weight" to the US in the world, run by the French of course.
That counter-weight is socialist, beaurocratic, statist and centralist.
Yeeeck. Why should we cooperate with that.

Please don't force me into a comment about Howard Dean's bad back,the one that let him ski and haul cement but not fight in Vietnam. Howard Dean isn't slavering to send other people's kids to fight for his personal ideology.


No, but he'll make it more likely that other people's kids will have to
fight.




steve

In article
<YoVwb.113000$Ec1.4951232@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
And let's not foget that Wilson was a nasty little ellitist pretentious mama's boy whom TR hated. That this man has gone down in history as at last semi-great is a mystery to me. Good grief. Warren G. Hardingn was better.


No argument from me.




steve

"Steve White" <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message
news:steve-5DEB37.01145726112003@netnews.attbi.com... In article <YoVwb.113000$Ec1.4951232@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote: And let's not foget that Wilson was a nasty little ellitist pretentious mama's boy whom TR hated. That this man has gone down in history as at last semi-great is a mystery to me. Good grief. Warren G. Hardingn was better. No argument from me. steve

I notice I didn't proofread, but you got the point. See, we can agree!

Marley

Apropos of nothing but the title of this thread:

Yesterday, I was reading an engineer's report on his inspection of a property
involved in a construction dispute. My brain was on holiday a bit in advance
and I simply couldn't remember what the acronym GWB stood for. At last, it
struck me: gypsum wall board.

J.

In article <steve-40FF6A.01125826112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote:In article <bq152f$6nm@tracy.umd.edu>, lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote:I've driven that freeway. The Dan Ryan expressway in Chicago took out abig chunk of Bronzeville, the middle-class black neighborhood of the1930's. Same in lots of other cities. One of those, dare I say, liberalurban renewal schemes married to pork-belly politics and big-citymachine crookery.


The situation re the Durham freeway was the mirror image. The racist,
right wing Republican government of Durham was gung ho for this freeway
because it would be good for business.
Yep, I remember that. My thought at the time was that as long as noinnocents were hurt, the KKK and SWP were welcome to fight to a bloodydraw.

You've got to learn to keep leftest groups straight. SWP is Trotskyite.
The group in this instance, The Communist Workers Party, were Maoists.
Maoists are close to Stalinists. Trotskyites hate Maoists and Stalinists.
I'll give you the same challenge I gave to Helen (before she ran off tolick her wounds ;-) --

IMHO Helen found the constant barrage of ad hominem attacks and name
calling too childish and boring to deal with.

If the KKK sponsored a rally for the local animal welfare league, wouldyou march (instead of organizing your own march), saying that after allit's all about the puppies?

No, I wouldn't attend a KKK sponsored anything. I disagree vehemently
with your lumping the KKK with the SWP though. In your particular world
view they are equivalent. They aren't in mine.

Because no one elected us the world's policeman.Sure, and we're not.

We're sure as hell acting like it.
Because we can't afford to fight every tin horn dictator in the world.But we can afford (and need to afford) to take down the ones that can bea threat to us.


How, pray tell was Iraq a threat to us? They had no WMD, and they did not
sponsor el_Q. Psst, that article in the Weekly Standard linking Saddam
with Bin Laden was a total fabrication, according to _Editor and
Publisher_. See the Democratic Underground's current list of Conservative
Idiots for a link to the _Editor and Publisher_ story.

Because democracy imposed from above will never work.We're not going to impose democracy. That's the beauty of it! We'regoing to remove the thugs and hang around for a while, confident that --kept safe from thugs and with some gentle nudging -- people willorganize democracy for themselves.

This is overly optimistic. Today's Washington Post has an article about
the Iraqi governing council protesting that the impositions from above do
not take into consideration the fact that Iraq is a Muslim country.

Once again, as in the Cold War, the US is attempting to remake the world
in our image. It didn't work in Vietnam, and it won't work now. Bush et.
al. want to arrange Iraq's oil production in a capitalist mode. Some high
ups in Iraq want to socialize it and distribute the profits to benefit the
people. Nay nay, say the Bushies, Iraq must be remade in our Republican
image.
It's WORKING in Iraq. The local councils, school boards, etc areflourishing. Baghdad now has over 230 newspapers (prior to the war onlya few, biggest ones owned by Uday). Iraqis aren't stupid; they can lookaround and see that in general, the most prosperous states, the onesthat can in fact determine their own destiny, are democratic republics.

Tell that to the US soldiers and Iraqi civilians who are dying daily in
this embryonic democracy.
nuclear arms. More nuclear proliferation, now there's a nice thought.Except that thought predates Bush's doctrine. Saddam was interested innukes from the 1970's -- remember Osirak? North Korea started working ontheir nukes a couple decades back, and accelerated that work whileClinton was still president (breaking the deal they signed with him).The black turbans in Iran have been working on nukes since shortly afterremoving the Shah. These are long time-frame projects, you don't make anuke in a year.

And, given the Bush doctrine that the US is allowed to invade anyone it
damn well pleases, countries such as Iran and N. Korea are going to
accelerate their nuclear weapons programs as a means of defending
themselves.
To be frank: I don't care if the French and Belgians are pissed. First,they aren't really our friends. And second, their agenda is to impose a"counter-weight" to the US in the world, run by the French of course.That counter-weight is socialist, beaurocratic, statist and centralist.Yeeeck. Why should we cooperate with that.


Like it or not, the United States of Europe will be an effective
counterweight to American bullying. In my mind, it would be a better idea
to cooperate with the E.U. than antagonizing them.
No, but he'll make it more likely that other people's kids will have tofight.

Why? Because he won't declare war to do a one upmanship on his father?



Again, I think the invasion of Iraq was a very bad idea for a number of
reasons, the worst was the fact that it is creating a fertile ground for
terrorists to propagandize and organize. Bush is making the world more
unsafe.

Linda
..
..
..
..
..
..
...
..
..
..
..
...
...
..
..
..
..
..
..

"Linda Fortney" <lfortney@dc.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:bqb7n0$7ov@holmes.umd.edu... In article <steve-40FF6A.01125826112003@netnews.attbi.com>, Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote:In article <bq152f$6nm@tracy.umd.edu>, lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote:I've driven that freeway. The Dan Ryan expressway in Chicago took out abig chunk of Bronzeville, the middle-class black neighborhood of the1930's. Same in lots of other cities. One of those, dare I say, liberalurban renewal schemes married to pork-belly politics and big-citymachine crookery. The situation re the Durham freeway was the mirror image. The racist, right wing Republican government of Durham was gung ho for this freeway because it would be good for business.Yep, I remember that. My thought at the time was that as long as noinnocents were hurt, the KKK and SWP were welcome to fight to a bloodydraw. You've got to learn to keep leftest groups straight. SWP is Trotskyite. The group in this instance, The Communist Workers Party, were Maoists. Maoists are close to Stalinists. Trotskyites hate Maoists and Stalinists.

Funny that, over here - in Ireland, the UK, and most of the rest of Europe -
there is far less emphasis on those dated doctrines, than on ordinary civil
and human rights.

We see far fewer Reds Under the Beds than Steve does, and are generally able
to tolerate people with political opinions of differing hues, without
branding them as commies, or whatever. To be a socialist is not considered
anything out of the ordinary, as it is seen to be by Steve - far from it.
I'll give you the same challenge I gave to Helen (before she ran off tolick her wounds ;-) -- IMHO Helen found the constant barrage of ad hominem attacks and name calling too childish and boring to deal with.

Thank you, Linda. Steve really flatters himself (once again) if he thinks
that he has the ability to wound me. LOL

His arguments are generally so trite, shallow and banal (excuse the
tautology - I can't emphasise it enough! LOL) that they cannot be taken
seriously. He cuts and copies from questionable sources (viz. Julie
Burchill, encyclopaedias, etc.) to impress us with his wide-ranging
erudition, when all it does is confirm his essentially lazy attitudes to any
sort of informed research. His opinions are inflexible, and not in the least
bit influenced by reality or by imagination. He will be the Last Great
Defender of the Indefensible, IMHO.

Helen

If the KKK sponsored a rally for the local animal welfare league, wouldyou march (instead of organizing your own march), saying that after allit's all about the puppies? No, I wouldn't attend a KKK sponsored anything. I disagree vehemently with your lumping the KKK with the SWP though. In your particular world view they are equivalent. They aren't in mine. Because no one elected us the world's policeman.Sure, and we're not. We're sure as hell acting like it. Because we can't afford to fight every tin horn dictator in the world.But we can afford (and need to afford) to take down the ones that can bea threat to us. How, pray tell was Iraq a threat to us? They had no WMD, and they did not sponsor el_Q. Psst, that article in the Weekly Standard linking Saddam with Bin Laden was a total fabrication, according to _Editor and Publisher_. See the Democratic Underground's current list of Conservative Idiots for a link to the _Editor and Publisher_ story. Because democracy imposed from above will never work.We're not going to impose democracy. That's the beauty of it! We'regoing to remove the thugs and hang around for a while, confident that --kept safe from thugs and with some gentle nudging -- people willorganize democracy for themselves. This is overly optimistic. Today's Washington Post has an article about the Iraqi governing council protesting that the impositions from above do not take into consideration the fact that Iraq is a Muslim country. Once again, as in the Cold War, the US is attempting to remake the world in our image. It didn't work in Vietnam, and it won't work now. Bush et. al. want to arrange Iraq's oil production in a capitalist mode. Some high ups in Iraq want to socialize it and distribute the profits to benefit the people. Nay nay, say the Bushies, Iraq must be remade in our Republican image.It's WORKING in Iraq. The local councils, school boards, etc areflourishing. Baghdad now has over 230 newspapers (prior to the war onlya few, biggest ones owned by Uday). Iraqis aren't stupid; they can lookaround and see that in general, the most prosperous states, the onesthat can in fact determine their own destiny, are democratic republics. Tell that to the US soldiers and Iraqi civilians who are dying daily in this embryonic democracy. nuclear arms. More nuclear proliferation, now there's a nice thought.Except that thought predates Bush's doctrine. Saddam was interested innukes from the 1970's -- remember Osirak? North Korea started working ontheir nukes a couple decades back, and accelerated that work whileClinton was still president (breaking the deal they signed with him).The black turbans in Iran have been working on nukes since shortly afterremoving the Shah. These are long time-frame projects, you don't make anuke in a year. And, given the Bush doctrine that the US is allowed to invade anyone it damn well pleases, countries such as Iran and N. Korea are going to accelerate their nuclear weapons programs as a means of defending themselves.To be frank: I don't care if the French and Belgians are pissed. First,they aren't really our friends. And second, their agenda is to impose a"counter-weight" to the US in the world, run by the French of course.That counter-weight is socialist, beaurocratic, statist and centralist.Yeeeck. Why should we cooperate with that. Like it or not, the United States of Europe will be an effective counterweight to American bullying. In my mind, it would be a better idea to cooperate with the E.U. than antagonizing them.No, but he'll make it more likely that other people's kids will have tofight. Why? Because he won't declare war to do a one upmanship on his father? Again, I think the invasion of Iraq was a very bad idea for a number of reasons, the worst was the fact that it is creating a fertile ground for terrorists to propagandize and organize. Bush is making the world more unsafe. Linda . . . . . . .. . . . . .. .. . . . . . .

In article <pBcyb.2755$nm6.17224@news.indigo.ie>,
"helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote:
He cuts and copies from questionable sources (viz. Julie Burchill, encyclopaedias, etc.) to impress us with his wide-ranging erudition, when all it does is confirm his essentially lazy attitudes to any sort of informed research.


Encyclopedias are questionable? Well, that's a new one on me.

Tell me Helen, what did I get wrong in explaining the population of
Northern Ireland? I =know= you saw my last response on that, so explain
to me how the Encyclopedia Britannica got it wrong. [1]

Oh, and Julie Burchill -- I gather you're not too happy with her this
week given her recent article in the Guardian.

But as to your complaint about me, I return to you -- you're so rigid
that you dismiss everything that doesn't fit in the round hole in your
memory. And heaven forbid that someone quotes a source (e.g., Ms.
Burchill) who's persona non grata in your ideology (having been PNG'd by
daring to express an unapproved opinion).

Quite simply, Helen, you're a parrot: you repeat whatever your
ideological betters tell you. Don't let the facts get in the way, just
repeat it all again, louder.

As to the cut and paste jibe, that is simply hilarious given the mass
screeds you lifted in the pre-war debate. Thanks for the laugh!

His opinions are inflexible,


Another phrase for that is "carefully considered, tested in the real
world and deeply held."



steve


[1] After the election results in N Ireland this week, I won't be
surprised at all to find out in the near future that the IRA has been
holding back on the weapons turn-in process. Just a prediction.

"Steve White" <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message
news:steve-EDBCB2.00355830112003@netnews.attbi.com... In article <bqb7n0$7ov@holmes.umd.edu>, lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote: The situation re the Durham freeway was the mirror image. The racist, right wing Republican government of Durham was gung ho for this freeway because it would be good for business. How does being for a freeway make one racist and right wing?

Well, I doubt it they'd been gung ho to run through a neighbor of white
affluents. You've got to learn to keep leftest groups straight. SWP is Trotskyite. The group in this instance, The Communist Workers Party, were Maoists. Maoists are close to Stalinists. Trotskyites hate Maoists and Stalinists. It's an easy mistake to make. They seem to be very similar in their worship of terror, oppression and belief that they know what's best for the masses, whether the masses agree or not.

Trots worship terror? You need to get out more.They probably actualy know
what's better for the masses since the masses prefer to sit at home and
watch UPN. IMHO Helen found the constant barrage of ad hominem attacks and name calling too childish and boring to deal with. Oh please, as if she wasn't handing it right back (and more) both in the past and recently. Helen's no shrinking violet.If the KKK sponsored a rally for the local animal welfare league, wouldyou march (instead of organizing your own march), saying that after allit's all about the puppies? No, I wouldn't attend a KKK sponsored anything. Good. Neither would I. Nor would I attend anything sponsored by the SWP, or the CWP, or any other group of leftist thugs no matter how noble the stated reason for the march might be.

I don't consider SWP or CWP leftiest at all. They all worsip the state. I disagree vehemently with your lumping the KKK with the SWP though. In your particular world view they are equivalent. They aren't in mine. Sure they're equivalent. They use the same methods and want the same things. Oh, to be sure their specific words may be different, they may say that their ideologies are different, but in the end it's all about power and their willingness to use terror and oppression to get it. How, pray tell was Iraq a threat to us? They had no WMD, ...When was
the last time you heard of an SWP terrorists.

We're not going to impose democracy. That's the beauty of it! We'regoing to remove the thugs and hang around for a while, confidentthat -- kept safe from thugs and with some gentle nudging -- peoplewill organize democracy for themselves.

How about imposing democracy in the US first. That would be a revolutionary
thought. The US was never a democracy and never will be. It's a Republic.
The founding brothers were terrified of democracy. This is overly optimistic. Today's Washington Post has an article about the Iraqi governing council protesting that the impositions from above do not take into consideration the fact that Iraq is a Muslim country. Lots of Muslims want democracy. You only need to look around our own country to see that. The IGC is a joke and one of Bremer's biggest mistakes -- a collection of exiles, has-beens and neverwuzzers. One builds democracy from the bottom up and it's going to take time. But I've little doubt, based on what I've been reading, that the average Kurd and Shi'a want it.

Youu're going down with the ship, Steve! Once again, as in the Cold War, the US is attempting to remake the world in our image. It didn't work in Vietnam, ... You have to let go of Vietnam, Linda, it was 30 years ago! The hard left tries to force every US action through the strainer of Vietnam. Won't work.

History doesn't count? Chessh, Steve. I clearly remember back in the 1950s
being taught in school that "democracy" isn't for everyone. Actually, it's
for nobody. Would you actually want to live in a country where the people
rule? You're in the univeresity. Rememmber rule by consensus back in the
1980s. What a friggin' nightmare. ... and it won't work now. Bush et. al. want to arrange Iraq's oil production in a capitalist mode. Some high ups in Iraq want to socialize it and distribute the profits to benefit the people. Nay nay, say the Bushies, Iraq must be remade in our Republican image. That's hyperbole, of course. We're not looking to make Iraq into a Republican image, we're looking for a democratic Iraq that is Muslim and yet respectful of its people.

Proive it.It's WORKING in Iraq. The local councils, school boards, etc areflourishing. Baghdad now has over 230 newspapers (prior to the waronly a few, biggest ones owned by Uday). Iraqis aren't stupid; theycan look around and see that in general, the most prosperous states,the ones that can in fact determine their own destiny, aredemocratic republics.

Propserous for who and for what end. To buy producs people don't need? Tell that to the US soldiers and Iraqi civilians who are dying daily in this embryonic democracy.


And, given the Bush doctrine that the US is allowed to invade anyone it damn well pleases, countries such as Iran and N. Korea are going to accelerate their nuclear weapons programs as a means of defending themselves. Kimmie and the mullahs are worried, no doubt.

Sure we will. I can't wait for the Bush doctrine to be localized. I think
I'll shoot my neighbors because they might walk through my yard.

But you mis-stated the Bush doctrine: we won't invade anyone we damn well please, but we will deal with any country that we perceive is going to be a great threat to us. That might mean invasion, it might not. Please note we haven't invaded either Iran or N Korea. Why? Different situation, different tactics.

Because we can't beat the **** out of them. We're too busy beating the ****
out of the little guy and making him an object lesson.To be frank: I don't care if the French and Belgians are pissed.First, they aren't really our friends. And second, their agenda isto impose a "counter-weight" to the US in the world, run by theFrench of course. That counter-weight is socialist, beaurocratic,statist and centralist. Yeeeck. Why should we cooperate with that. Like it or not, the United States of Europe will be an effective counterweight to American bullying. In my mind, it would be a better idea to cooperate with the E.U. than antagonizing them. Except that their idea of "cooperation" is that we peasants here in the USA do as we're told by the smarter folks in Europe. The Euro elites have always seen us as peasants, as wayward Euros. They think our two peoples are the same, and that they're just further evolved. They get impatient because we're not moving down the same road fast enough.

What else would you call USians. They are hardly high intellectuals or
holders of good taste. The US has junked up the world with snake oil and
white trash. They're wrong -- we're not the same. I'll say it again, Linda: most of our ancestors came here to get away from their ancestors.

Mine didn't. They came here to make money in 1680. Again, I think the invasion of Iraq was a very bad idea for a number of reasons, the worst was the fact that it is creating a fertile ground for terrorists to propagandize and organize. Bush is making the world more unsafe. We'll have to disagree; I think Bush is making the world safer by dealing with Islamist terrorism now. Imagine how safe the world will be if we back down and al-Q, and others, start staging some really horrible attacks.

Imagine how safe the world would be if we actually looked for al-Q.

Marley Fun as always debating this with you! steve

"Steve White" <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message
news:steve-022D21.00445630112003@netnews.attbi.com... In article <pBcyb.2755$nm6.17224@news.indigo.ie>, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote: He cuts and copies from questionable sources (viz. Julie Burchill, encyclopaedias, etc.) to impress us with his wide-ranging erudition, when all it does is confirm his essentially lazy attitudes to any sort of informed research. Encyclopedias are questionable? Well, that's a new one on me. Tell me Helen, what did I get wrong in explaining the population of Northern Ireland? I =know= you saw my last response on that, so explain to me how the Encyclopedia Britannica got it wrong. [1] Oh, and Julie Burchill -- I gather you're not too happy with her this week given her recent article in the Guardian.

She's a floozie. Would you listen to...say...the wise political commentary
of J-Lo if she agreed with you?

BTW, have you checked out what real conservatiave have to say about Bush?
Your liberal bias keeps showing, Steve.

Marley

In article
<CUlyb.361371$0v4.19212252@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

Oh, and Julie Burchill -- I gather you're not too happy with her this week given her recent article in the Guardian. She's a floozie. Would you listen to...say...the wise political commentary of J-Lo if she agreed with you?


Burchill isn't J-Lo.

But your argument plays nicely when it comes to Sean Penn, Baba
Striesand, Alec Baldwin, etc., and so I think I'll borrow it. For
appropriate occasions :-)

BTW, have you checked out what real conservatiave have to say about Bush? Your liberal bias keeps showing, Steve.


They're focused on domestic policy (for the most part) and I agree with
some of what they're saying. But they're wrong on foreign policy, and
Bush & Co. got it right.

I'm liberal, all right, in the classic definition of the word, not the
pomo crap that's out there today.




steve

"Steve White" <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message
news:steve-89033A.15583530112003@netnews.attbi.com... In article <CUlyb.361371$0v4.19212252@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote: Oh, and Julie Burchill -- I gather you're not too happy with her this week given her recent article in the Guardian. She's a floozie. Would you listen to...say...the wise political commentary of J-Lo if she agreed with you? Burchill isn't J-Lo. But your argument plays nicely when it comes to Sean Penn, Baba Striesand, Alec Baldwin, etc., and so I think I'll borrow it. For appropriate occasions :-)

I dont' know why anybody would listen to them either, except I';ve had a
strong lust for Sean Penn since he was Spiccoli (and being friends with
Bukowski helps.) He also grew up in a political famiy, unlike the other
two. BTW, have you checked out what real conservatiave have to say about Bush? Your liberal bias keeps showing, Steve. They're focused on domestic policy (for the most part) and I agree with some of what they're saying. But they're wrong on foreign policy, and Bush & Co. got it right.

I don't know about that. I don't see people like Pat Buchan or Lew Rockwell
doing a lot of domestic policy these days, and on the libertarian end, I've
not see Justin Raimondo say much domestically. I'm liberal, all right, in the classic definition of the word, not the pomo crap that's out there today.

And that's why I'm a classical conservative. Give me Randolph Bourne and
Ludwig von Misses any day. And I"m partial to the Anglo-Catholic thing much
of the time.

Marley steve

In article <bqb7n0$7ov@holmes.umd.edu>,
lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote:

You've got to learn to keep leftest groups straight. SWP is Trotskyite. The group in this instance, The Communist Workers Party, were Maoists. Maoists are close to Stalinists. Trotskyites hate Maoists and Stalinists.


Linda and Marley,

In followup to this, apparently I'm not the only one who can't keep
things straight. The Guardian today:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/antiwar/story/0,12809,1096872,00.html

Key grafs:

"The peace movement could be destroyed by the takeover of the Campaign
for Nuclear Disarmament and the Stop the War coalition by Trotskyist
groups and the Communist party, according to allegations circulated by a
leading campaigner. ...

"It has been well known that the anti-war groups have always been
heavily influenced by the far left, but the internal divisions have
reached a startling degree of animosity. ...

"He claims CND officer positions are "now dominated by people associated
with these two political groups, although in practice the groups act as
one". The new leadership were so polarised from the membership that the
campaign could no longer function as a forum for debate."


This was denounced by the CND/STC chair Kate Hudson, herself a longtime
Communist, according to the Guardian. Whoda thunk?




steve
--
--
Steven White <stevewhitemd@earthlink.net>

In article <steve-EDBCB2.00355830112003@netnews.attbi.com>,
Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote:In article <bqb7n0$7ov@holmes.umd.edu>, lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote:How does being for a freeway make one racist and right wing?

DOuble standard, Steve. The Dan Ryan Expressway was a result of evil
liberals forcing urban renewal. I merely pointed out that the situation
in Durham was the mirror image. The fact that the county and state built
a freeway through a middle class black community was not racist and right
wing. The selection of the placement of this freeway came from racist
right wingers. Pot=kettle. You've got to learn to keep leftest groups straight. SWP is Trotskyite. The group in this instance, The Communist Workers Party, were Maoists. Maoists are close to Stalinists. Trotskyites hate Maoists and Stalinists.It's an easy mistake to make. They seem to be very similar in theirworship of terror, oppression and belief that they know what's best forthe masses, whether the masses agree or not.

The American SWP is a bunch of boring, harmless ideologues. They have
never burned a cross on anyone's lawn or lynched anyone. They are not
the equivalent of the Klan. Nor are they the anti-Christ because they
read Marx and Trotsky. Declaring that anyone who participated in an
A.N.S>W.E.R. run anti-war rally by definition is tarred with some kind of
black totalitarian brush is a specious argument, and nonsensical.
Liberals and other leftists do not have to organize their opposition to an
unjust war so it appears simon pure to right wing ideologues.
In other
words, continue blathering about the evils of A.N.S.W.E.R. all you want; I
do not accept the notion that anyone who attends an event organized by
them is some kind of Commie fellow traveller.
Good. Neither would I. Nor would I attend anything sponsored by the SWP,or the CWP, or any other group of leftist thugs no matter how noble thestated reason for the march might be.

See above. I disagree vehemently with your lumping the KKK with the SWP though. In your particular world view they are equivalent. They aren't in mine.Sure they're equivalent. They use the same methods and want the samethings. Oh, to be sure their specific words may be different, they maysay that their ideologies are different, but in the end it's all aboutpower and their willingness to use terror and oppression to get it.

Boef Merde. If you are going to do a McCarthyite redux and claim that
the SWP was funded by Moscow gold, I will ask you to think a little more
clearly. The SWPs are Trotskyites. They wanted nothing to do with Stalin
or his successors. Lumping all far left groups together is simple minded
and incorrect. Please give me one instance of the SWP using terror or
oppression to get anything. Again, the Commie loons who got involved in a
shoot out with the Klan in Greensboro NC were the Communist Workers Party,
a bunch of Maoists, not Trotskyites.

Or is your beef with them that they dare oppose Bush's war? News flash,
we're still allowed dissent in this country. How, pray tell was Iraq a threat to us? They had no WMD, ...Bill and Hillary thought they did.

So friggin what. The salient point is they had no WMD.
I don't fault GWB for thinking Saddam had WMD. Everyone thought so too.Where did it all go, and why can't we find it now? Beats me, but we'llfigure it out.


Shrub misused intelligence reports, cherry picking evidence that supported
his pre-conceptions and supressing anything didn't so he could get us
involved in a war to make the world safe for Haliburton.
... and they did not sponsor el_Q. Psst, that article in the Weekly Standard linking Saddam with Bin Laden was a total fabrication, according to _Editor and Publisher_. See the Democratic Underground's current list of Conservative Idiots for a link to the _Editor and Publisher_ story.Umm, if you're getting your news from the DU, you're in a heap oftrouble.


I'm not getting my news from the DU, I am getting it from _Editor and
Publisher_. Please note, the DU cites its sources and gives links so
readers can read the full article. Like it or not, DU discovered a
fabrication and publicized it. Do tell, is _Editor and PUblisher_ a
soulesss minion of the DU?

Also, if you're getting your news from _The Weekly Standard_, you're in
trouble.
That article in the WS is not a total fabrication at all, it's very wellsourced.


It's crap. Read the Editor and Publisher story. I only mentioned the DU
to give you a link to get to Editor and Publisher.
You have to let go of Vietnam, Linda, it was 30 years ago! The hard lefttries to force every US action through the strainer of Vietnam. Won'twork.

It is not just Vietnam it is the whole damn Cold War, an attempt to make
the world over in our image. Since the Communists are no longer our enemy
the justification for current US imperialism is bringing democracy to the
world along with out of control free market capitalism.
Except that their idea of "cooperation" is that we peasants here in theUSA do as we're told by the smarter folks in Europe. The Euro eliteshave always seen us as peasants, as wayward Euros. They think our twopeoples are the same, and that they're just further evolved. They getimpatient because we're not moving down the same road fast enough.


And the US sees Europe as "cheese eating surrender monkeys."




They're wrong -- we're not the same. I'll say it again, Linda: most ofour ancestors came here to get away from their ancestors.


Ye olde "City Upon a Hill" America is morally superior to the whole damn
world argument. Bush's preemptive war has scared the hell out of a lot of
people, and has driven our former allies to work harder to develop a
counter-balance to American power. You might think that the world's only
super power is so moral and ethical that it won't become a bully. In my
opinion, the power of the US desperately needs a counterbalance.
We'll have to disagree; I think Bush is making the world safer bydealing with Islamist terrorism now. Imagine how safe the world will beif we back down and al-Q, and others, start staging some really horribleattacks.

I hope I am wrong, but IMO this situation in Iraq is going to create more
and more violent terrorists.
Fun as always debating this with you!

Indeed. Just wish I had more time.



Linda

..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..

In article <bqgaqk$o5s@holmes.umd.edu>,
lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote:

It's an easy mistake to make. They seem to be very similar in theirworship of terror, oppression and belief that they know what's bestfor the masses, whether the masses agree or not. The American SWP is a bunch of boring, harmless ideologues. They have never burned a cross on anyone's lawn or lynched anyone.


I'll grant you that the SWP is more toothless than the others.

Nor are they the anti-Christ because they read Marx and Trotsky.


I read Marx though I never got to Trotsky (obviously). Reading Marx
doesn't make one the anti-Christ. Becoming a communist thug who uses
mass terror and oppression to implement the dictatorship of the
proletariat does.

Declaring that anyone who participated in an A.N.S>W.E.R. run anti-war rally by definition is tarred with some kind of black totalitarian brush is a specious argument, and nonsensical.


I disagree. The A.N.S.W.E.R. people are despicable. They aren't
anti-war, they're for the other side, and they've made that quite clear.

Liberals and other leftists do not have to organize their opposition to an unjust war so it appears simon pure to right wing ideologues.


No, but you will be known by the company you keep. Again, the KKK
example -- even if one's motives for the puppies are sincere, attending
a Klan rally for the animal welfare league causes one to rub shoulders
with despicable, odious people. One shouldn't do that. Ask Trent Lott
for details.

In other words, continue blathering about the evils of A.N.S.W.E.R. all you want; I do not accept the notion that anyone who attends an event organized by them is some kind of Commie fellow traveller.


The other alternative I offered was that these folks are naive. I sure
saw a lot of that in those parades.

Or is your beef with them that they dare oppose Bush's war? News flash, we're still allowed dissent in this country.


Sure, and I respect all the good people who disagree. No problem. I have
disagreements with Bush (not over Iraq).

I have a major problem with A.N.S.W.E.R. and the CWP. If they ever got
in charge, both you and I would be up against the wall.

How, pray tell was Iraq a threat to us? They had no WMD, ...Bill and Hillary thought they did. So friggin what. The salient point is they had no WMD.


No, that's not the salient point. The point is that 1) Saddam certainly
said he had them 2) he wouldn't cooperate with the UN 3) he had links
with various terror organizations, and --

-- here it comes --

4) the risk to the US of doing nothing and later being proven wrong,
after 9/11, was greater than the risk of removing him. Because the next
time wouldn't be 3,000 dead, but perhaps 300,000 dead.

After all, the anti-war folks lambast the administration for NOT seeing
the intelligence siganls that pointed to 9/11. Now they lambast the
administration FOR seeing intel signals that point to a dangerous
Saddam. And imagine what the left would say if we had another 9/11 and
Bush hadn't acted to prevent it because of imperfect intelligence.

I don't fault GWB for thinking Saddam had WMD. Everyone thought sotoo. Where did it all go, and why can't we find it now? Beats me,but we'll figure it out. Shrub misused intelligence reports, cherry picking evidence that supported his pre-conceptions and supressing anything didn't so he could get us involved in a war to make the world safe for Haliburton.


Saying that the world was to be made safe for Haliburton is a specious,
nonsensical argument. If it was all about oil, we would have cut a deal
with Saddam. It would have been easy. Cheney could have done it over
breakfast and a tortured Kurd.

But don't take my word for it, take the word of this Iraqi blogger:

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2003_12_01_iraqthemodel_archive.html#107
029644415164610

He makes it really clear: Iraq is a poor country, up to its ears in
debt, up past its ears in needs. If we invaded for oil or profit, good
luck 'cause it ain't there and won't ever be. As he says himself:

"The war was never for oil itself, the aims of the war were freeing the
Iraqi people, destroying Saddam's WMD's, fighting international
terrorism and the spread of freedom and democracy in the M.E."

You have to let go of Vietnam, Linda, it was 30 years ago! The hard lefttries to force every US action through the strainer of Vietnam. Won'twork. It is not just Vietnam it is the whole damn Cold War, an attempt to make the world over in our image.


The Cold War was about staving off the commie hordes! Get yer fears
straight :-)

And the US sees Europe as "cheese eating surrender monkeys."


No, we see the French as cheese eating surrender monkeys. The Brits are
great. The Germans, no problem, we'll work out our disagreements. Sure.
Poles, Czechs, Dutch, Danes, Italians and Spanish? Stand-up, great
people. Belgium? The mini-me of France.

Ye olde "City Upon a Hill" America is morally superior to the whole damn world argument. Bush's preemptive war has scared the hell out of a lot of people, and has driven our former allies to work harder to develop a counter-balance to American power. You might think that the world's only super power is so moral and ethical that it won't become a bully. In my opinion, the power of the US desperately needs a counterbalance.


I do think America is special, and that's one of the root arguments in
this country today, isn't it? The Red states versus the Blue, um,
precincts really defaults on that argument.

Are we morally superior to the world? We are to a large bunch of it.
We've managed to eliminate in our country tribal and internecine wars,
slavery, blood feuds, honor killings, female genital mutilation, binding
of womens' feet, arranged marriages, religious wars, state religion,
titles and honorifics, and a few other things I'm forgetting at the
moment.

Yes, the Aussies, Japanese, Singaporians, Europeans, and New Zealanders
are right with us. And we could argue with them about points of
contention such as the death penalty or abortion access.

But your choice: America or Zimbabwe?

Fun as always debating this with you! Indeed. Just wish I had more time.


Ditto. If only work and life wouldn't interfere. If that were the case,
though, we'd probably be French. Ugh.




steve
--
--
Steven White <stevewhitemd@earthlink.net>

"Steve White" <stevewhitemd@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:stevewhitemd-28189E.18451301122003@news.uchicago.edu... In article <bqgaqk$o5s@holmes.umd.edu>, lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote:It's an easy mistake to make. They seem to be very similar in theirworship of terror, oppression and belief that they know what's bestfor the masses, whether the masses agree or not. The American SWP is a bunch of boring, harmless ideologues. They have never burned a cross on anyone's lawn or lynched anyone. I'll grant you that the SWP is more toothless than the others. Nor are they the anti-Christ because they read Marx and Trotsky. I read Marx though I never got to Trotsky (obviously).

Hey, Che never read Das Capital, though he carried it with him in Bolivia.
You know. One of those things you intend to do some day. Trotsky is very
accessible and readable. I read Trotsky's History of the Russian Revlution
v. 1 on my honeymoon. and could hardly put it down. It's on my list of top
10 influential books I've read. I attmpted to read Marx in grad school. In
fact, there was this awful 1300 page book of collected writings I was
suppose to read for the History of Technology. (just try reading Marx and
Weber back to back!) It was simplly unbearable, though I think I did read
his essay on the US Civil War and the 13th Bourmiere (sp?) Lenin is even
worse. Try reading Lenin for fun. If he were writing today you could ask
if he learned to write from a computer manual. His reponse to infantilsim
(aka anarchism) is awful. Of course, he wrote most of his stuff while he
was having a good time in exile in Sibeeria, hanging from his trapeze in the
trees every morning. It shows. I am proud to say, though, that Comrade
llich slept in my apartment in St. Petersburg (writhe around the corner
from Rasputin's flat) which is on the informal Lenin walking tour.
Reading Marx
doesn't make one the anti-Christ. Becoming a communist thug who uses mass terror and oppression to implement the dictatorship of the proletariat does.

The SWP uses mass terror and oppression? I thought they sat around in
reading circles and complained about their mothers. That's been my
experience. Declaring that anyone who participated in an A.N.S>W.E.R. run anti-war rally by definition is tarred with some kind of black totalitarian brush is a specious argument, and nonsensical. I disagree. The A.N.S.W.E.R. people are despicable. They aren't anti-war, they're for the other side, and they've made that quite clear.

What other side? Liberals and other leftists do not have to organize their opposition to an unjust war so it appears simon pure to right wing ideologues. No, but you will be known by the company you keep

And who has heard of ANSWER outside of you and nutjobs?

.. Again, the KKK example -- even if one's motives for the puppies are sincere, attending a Klan rally for the animal welfare league causes one to rub shoulders with despicable, odious people. One shouldn't do that. Ask Trent Lott for details. In other words, continue blathering about the evils of A.N.S.W.E.R. all you want; I do not accept the notion that anyone who attends an event organized by them is some kind of Commie fellow traveller. The other alternative I offered was that these folks are naive. I sure saw a lot of that in those parades.

Anybody who voted for Bush is naive. Or is your beef with them that they dare oppose Bush's war? News flash, we're still allowed dissent in this country. Sure, and I respect all the good people who disagree. No problem. I have disagreements with Bush (not over Iraq).

You will. Wait a few years when he tries to draft your daughter to go
"fight" in Dagestan. I have a major problem with A.N.S.W.E.R. and the CWP. If they ever got in charge, both you and I would be up against the wall.

Well, neither will ever get in charge so it's a pointless statement.> How, pray tell was Iraq a threat to us? They had no WMD, ...Bill and Hillary thought they did. So friggin what. The salient point is they had no WMD.

And Bill and Hillary belong to the same stupid Democratic party that can't
even front decent candidates in local elections. They're just part of the
Democratic wing of the War Party. No, that's not the salient point. The point is that 1) Saddam certainly said he had them 2) he wouldn't cooperate with the UN 3) he had links with various terror organizations, and -- -- here it comes -- 4) the risk to the US of doing nothing and later being proven wrong, after 9/11, was greater than the risk of removing him. Because the next time wouldn't be 3,000 dead, but perhaps 300,000 dead.

So. After all, the anti-war folks lambast the administration for NOT seeing the intelligence siganls that pointed to 9/11. Now they lambast the administration FOR seeing intel signals that point to a dangerous Saddam. And imagine what the left would say if we had another 9/11 and Bush hadn't acted to prevent it because of imperfect intelligence.

Oh, you mean by chasing down Saddam and forgetting about the Q?I don't fault GWB for thinking Saddam had WMD. Everyone thought sotoo. Where did it all go, and why can't we find it now? Beats me,but we'll figure it out. Shrub misused intelligence reports, cherry picking evidence that supported his pre-conceptions and supressing anything didn't so he could get us involved in a war to make the world safe for Haliburton. Saying that the world was to be made safe for Haliburton is a specious, nonsensical argument. If it was all about oil, we would have cut a deal with Saddam. It would have been easy. Cheney could have done it over breakfast and a tortured Kurd.

How about making tahe world safe for Israel? But don't take my word for it, take the word of this Iraqi blogger: http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2003_12_01_iraqthemodel_archive.html#107 029644415164610 He makes it really clear: Iraq is a poor country, up to its ears in debt, up past its ears in needs. If we invaded for oil or profit, good luck 'cause it ain't there and won't ever be. As he says himself: "The war was never for oil itself, the aims of the war were freeing the Iraqi people, destroying Saddam's WMD's, fighting international terrorism and the spread of freedom and democracy in the M.E."

The war was the launch for the imperial state.You have to let go of Vietnam, Linda, it was 30 years ago! The hard
lefttries to force every US action through the strainer of Vietnam. Won'twork. It is not just Vietnam it is the whole damn Cold War, an attempt to make the world over in our image. The Cold War was about staving off the commie hordes! Get yer fears straight :-)

That's a joke, Steve, and you know it. Historically, the US was opposed to
Lenin and the 2nd Russian Revolutin because it cut off markets. It was all
about economics. And the US sees Europe as "cheese eating surrender monkeys." No, we see the French as cheese eating surrender monkeys. The Brits are great. The Germans, no problem, we'll work out our disagreements. Sure. Poles, Czechs, Dutch, Danes, Italians and Spanish? Stand-up, great people. Belgium? The mini-me of France.

Perhaps if the US had been over-run by foreign invaderse for centuries,
you'd have a different view of things. As I stated her a long time ago, the
US needs a good land war at home to bring things into perspective. Ye olde "City Upon a Hill" America is morally superior to the whole
damn world argument. Bush's preemptive war has scared the hell out of a lot
of people, and has driven our former allies to work harder to develop a counter-balance to American power. You might think that the world's
only super power is so moral and ethical that it won't become a bully. In my opinion, the power of the US desperately needs a counterbalance. I do think America is special, and that's one of the root arguments in this country today, isn't it? The Red states versus the Blue, um, precincts really defaults on that argument.

What's so special about it. It stopped being "special" around the time of
Lincoln. Are we morally superior to the world? We are to a large bunch of it.

To whom?
We've managed to eliminate in our country tribal and internecine wars, slavery, blood feuds, honor killings, female genital mutilation, binding of womens' feet, arranged marriages, religious wars, state religion, titles and honorifics, and a few other things I'm forgetting at the moment.

Most of those were never part of the US scene. Mao ended foot binding, btw.
If yuou don't think religious wars are being held in this country, then you
haven't read the far Biblical American writrings of anti-abort shooters and
bombers. Yes, the Aussies, Japanese, Singaporians, Europeans, and New Zealanders are right with us. And we could argue with them about points of contention such as the death penalty or abortion access. But your choice: America or Zimbabwe?

That's ridiculous. Try; Finland--the ideal country.Fun as always debating this with you! Indeed. Just wish I had more time. Ditto. If only work and life wouldn't interfere. If that were the case, though, we'd probably be French. Ugh.

But everybody gets a paid 1-month vacation.

Marley steve -- -- Steven White <stevewhitemd@earthlink.net>

In article <stevewhitemd-28189E.18451301122003@news.uchicago.edu>,
Steve White <stevewhitemd@earthlink.net> wrote: Declaring that anyone who participated in an A.N.S>W.E.R. run anti-war rally by definition is tarred with some kind of black totalitarian brush is a specious argument, and nonsensical.I disagree. The A.N.S.W.E.R. people are despicable. They aren'tanti-war, they're for the other side, and they've made that quite clear.


Fine, disagree. It's a free country. I think the argument is irrational.No, but you will be known by the company you keep.

As will the right. By association any conservative is as willing to tromp
on civil liberties as John Ashcroft. Interesting that on All things
Considered last night, they interviewed former retired military high ups
in the Judge Advocate Corps who are most disturbed by Ashcroft's handling
of the POWs in Guantanimo.
Sure, and I respect all the good people who disagree. No problem. I havedisagreements with Bush (not over Iraq).

I'd be interested in hearing what your disagreements with him are.
-- here it comes --4) the risk to the US of doing nothing and later being proven wrong,after 9/11, was greater than the risk of removing him. Because the nexttime wouldn't be 3,000 dead, but perhaps 300,000 dead.


Here comes another salient point.

By invading a Muslim country that was absolutely NO DANGER to us, Bush has
made the liklihood of terroist attacks against US citizens far more
likely.

After all, the anti-war folks lambast the administration for NOT seeingthe intelligence siganls that pointed to 9/11. Now they lambast theadministration FOR seeing intel signals that point to a dangerousSaddam. And imagine what the left would say if we had another 9/11 andBush hadn't acted to prevent it because of imperfect intelligence.

Bush wanted a war with Iraq, and used 9/11 as a pretense for the invasion.
Again, secular Iraq was the antithesis of Al-Q and there was no love lost
between them. Iraq had no WMD, as the UN would have discovered if Bush
had let them complete their inspections. What was the big hurry.

BTW, did you ever read that _Editor and Publisher_ article about the
Weekly Standard article about links between Saddam and Bin Laden being a
total crock. Just because mention of it appreared on D.U. doesn't make
Editor and Publisher a commie publication.
I don't fault GWB for thinking Saddam had WMD. Everyone thought sotoo. Where did it all go, and why can't we find it now? Beats me,but we'll figure it out.

I do fault him. He had access to the best and most current intelligence
and chose to ignore what didn't suit his plans to invade Iraq. As to why
we can't find it now, because there were none. If Hussein had had
powerful weapons he would have used them during the war. Sheesh.
Saying that the world was to be made safe for Haliburton is a specious,nonsensical argument. If it was all about oil, we would have cut a dealwith Saddam. It would have been easy. Cheney could have done it overbreakfast and a tortured Kurd.


But Haliburton wouldn't have gotten those non-competitive and highly
lucrative contracts for the rebuilding of what we destroyed if Cheney made
a deal with Saddam.

I keep on wondering, why Iraq with no ties to terrorism and not Saudi
Arabia with its many links to Bin Laden? It's a rhetorical question--Bush
and Cheney would never touch totalitarian Saudi Arabia because it would
tick off too many oil executives.
He makes it really clear: Iraq is a poor country, up to its ears indebt, up past its ears in needs. If we invaded for oil or profit, goodluck 'cause it ain't there and won't ever be. As he says himself:


Oh cripes, you yourself admitted it was for the oil a few months ago. I
am not going to a Jackie and Google search it because of a lack of time,
but my memory is very clear on the point.
The Cold War was about staving off the commie hordes! Get yer fearsstraight :-)

It wasn't merely about staving of the commies, it was about remaking the
world in our image.
No, we see the French as cheese eating surrender monkeys. The Brits aregreat. The Germans, no problem, we'll work out our disagreements. Sure.Poles, Czechs, Dutch, Danes, Italians and Spanish? Stand-up, greatpeople. Belgium? The mini-me of France.
Why did the French surrender to the Germans in World War II? I looked at
the same Keegan book you did, and your interpretation was too simplistic
and biased to prove your argument. The French had lost too many men
during World War I to be willing to fight another round of trench warfare.
So they developed a technological solution, the Maginot Line. Anyone who
could look at a map and who has 20 20 hindsight can see the major flaws in
that plan. But the French are guilty as trying to prevent WWII by
preventing WWI. Nothing unusual in that--the Americans and Brits did the
same thing.
I do think America is special, and that's one of the root arguments inthis country today, isn't it? The Red states versus the Blue, um,precincts really defaults on that argument.

America is different from Europe, but not special.

Are we morally superior to the world? We are to a large bunch of it.We've managed to eliminate in our country tribal and internecine wars,


We fought a really big one 1861-1865, if other countries are in a
different state of development it is an accident of history, not
a result of American moral superiority.

slavery,

Interesting historical tidbit, the Czar freed the serfs the same year as
the Emancipation Proc. I guess this puts the US and Russia on the same
moral footing


blood feuds, honor killings, female genital mutilation, bindingof womens' feet, arranged marriages,

Specious arguments. Blood feuds etc. were never a part of the European
cultures that established American customs and laws.

religious wars, state religion,titles and honorifics, and a few other things I'm forgetting at themoment.

Re Religious Wars, yeah it was swell being a Quaker or a Catholic in Mass.
in the 17th century etc. etc.

As for titles and honorifics, another accident of history, the American
Consitution is a product of the Enlightenment. Had it been written a
century earlier, we'd have titles out the wazoo. What we do have is
entitlements out the wazoo for the rich and powerful. Then that has gets,
and we have a winner take all society. All of those cheese eating
surrender monkeys in France and Belgium have access to decent health care,
along with other benefits such as guaranteed vactions that make them, in
terms of fairer treatment for all morally superior to the U.S.
Yes, the Aussies, Japanese, Singaporians, Europeans, and New Zealandersare right with us. And we could argue with them about points ofcontention such as the death penalty or abortion access.

Yeah, if we are so superior why are we the only major Western country that
still commits the barbarism of Capital Punishment?

LInda


PS You might respond to this, but I won't be able to get back to you any
time soon. Since I am a female, I am automatically entered in the great
American female Christmas competition. Most US females ask one another:
"What have you gotten done?" in December, and my answer has to be precious
little. I am fervently hoping for a snow day tomorrow.

"Steve White" <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message
news:steve-F448B7.22534004122003@netnews.attbi.com... In article <bqo690$spi@holmes.umd.edu>, lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote:
<snip>
By invading a Muslim country that was absolutely NO DANGER to us, Bush has made the liklihood of terroist attacks against US citizens far more likely. Except Saddam was a threat -- not tomorrow, but it was there. That was the point. We couldn't wait for the CIA to deliver the perfect intel report -- "Yes, Mr. President, that anthrax that killed the half-million people in Pittsburgh came from a terrorist group that is linked, we think, to Saddam. We're pretty sure. Sorta."

How sure? Like your certainty about WMD in Iraq? (No sign of them YET,
Steve!)

Official: CIA uses anthrax, but no link to letters

From David Ensor
CNN Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON (CNN) --The CIA uses anthrax in its bio-warfare program but the
bacteria did not make it into tainted letters sent to two U.S. senators and
several news organizations, an agency official said Sunday.

The confirmation that the CIA has anthrax comes less than a week after the
U.S. Army admitted it has produced small amounts of the potentially deadly
bacteria for years.

But, just as Army officials denied any connection to the anthrax letters, a
CIA official said the anthrax detected in letters sent earlier this fall
"absolutely did not" come from CIA labs.

The Washington Post reported Sunday that the FBI is focusing its anthrax
investigation on a contractor who worked with the CIA. The newspaper said
the contractor may be the source of the "Ames strain" of anthrax found in
letters sent to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, Vermont Sen. Patrick
Leahy, NBC News' anchor Tom Brokaw and several other news organizations. But
the CIA official, while confirming the agency has small amounts of the Ames
strain for testing purposes, told CNN "we did not grow, create or produce"
the anthrax in the letters, and "we are not the source of this material."

Meanwhile, experts continued Sunday to fumigate the Hart Senate Office
building, closed since aides in Daschle's office opened a letter filled with
anthrax spores on October 17.

"This was very serious anthrax, very highly milled and very dangerous,"
House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt said Sunday. "This certainly has been
a tougher decontamination job than anybody expected."

The FBI is looking for someone or some group who began sending anthrax-laced
letters through the mail in mid-September. Five people have died in recent
months of inhalation anthrax, including three postal or mail-room employees.

<snip>

You need to look closer to home. The greatest threat to the US is your
corrupt, covetous, self-serving administration wreaking havoc around the
world.

Helen

I feel your pain :-) steve

In article <iT_zb.3347$nm6.18229@news.indigo.ie>,
"helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote:
Except Saddam was a threat -- not tomorrow, but it was there. That was the point. We couldn't wait for the CIA to deliver the perfect intel report -- "Yes, Mr. President, that anthrax that killed the half-million people in Pittsburgh came from a terrorist group that is linked, we think, to Saddam. We're pretty sure. Sorta." How sure? Like your certainty about WMD in Iraq? (No sign of them YET, Steve!)


We'll figure it out. Might be buried in the Bekaa. In the meantime, you
make the point nicely -- intel is never 100% sure about anything.
Sometimes leaders have to make decisions with imperfect information at
hand. If GWB can't allow a situation where he DOESN'T act and as a
result a million Americans die.

Official: CIA uses anthrax, but no link to letters


Of course the CIA has had anthrax; it's used for testing new bio-defense
equipment and systems. It's rather complex, you wouldn't understand.

The greatest threat to the US is your corrupt, covetous, self-serving administration wreaking havoc around the world.


Biggest threat to us are the evil people who want to kill us. And no,
it's not our fault, it's theirs.

Biggest threat to you is that we're right -- your shackled, thread-bare
ideology can't take being wrong but so many times :-)




steve


PS: what's the ethnic origin of the Prots in Northern Ireland?

"Steve White" <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message
news:steve-44991A.00453606122003@netnews.attbi.com... In article <iT_zb.3347$nm6.18229@news.indigo.ie>, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote: Except Saddam was a threat -- not tomorrow, but it was there. That was the point. We couldn't wait for the CIA to deliver the perfect intel report -- "Yes, Mr. President, that anthrax that killed the half-million people in Pittsburgh came from a terrorist group that is linked, we think, to Saddam. We're pretty sure. Sorta." How sure? Like your certainty about WMD in Iraq? (No sign of them YET, Steve!) We'll figure it out. Might be buried in the Bekaa. In the meantime, you make the point nicely -- intel is never 100% sure about anything.

LOL - you don't say!
Sometimes leaders have to make decisions with imperfect information at hand.

How many *ooooops moments* has he had so far?


If GWB can't allow a situation where he DOESN'T act and as a result a million Americans die.

Yeah yeah yeah. How's that stockpile of nuclear armaments growing, Steve?
Let's hope the wind is blowing *away* from the US when he plays with his
toys. (Hint: remember Chernobyl, Steve? There were caesium deposits here in
Ireland after that little blow - imagine THAT!)
Official: CIA uses anthrax, but no link to letters Of course the CIA has had anthrax; it's used for testing new bio-defense equipment and systems. It's rather complex, you wouldn't understand.

Oh but I *do* understand -your anthrax attacks came from within, with "made
in the USA" stamped on every grain. (Just like the plastic turkey at
Thanksgiving, held aloft by The Big Chief Turkey <G>)
The greatest threat to the US is your corrupt, covetous, self-serving administration wreaking havoc around the world. Biggest threat to us are the evil people who want to kill us. And no, it's not our fault, it's theirs.

The excuse of bullies, everywhere.
Biggest threat to you is that we're right -- your shackled, thread-bare ideology can't take being wrong but so many times :-)

Your leaders are very slow learners, though, making devastating mistakes
everywhere they go, lying through their teeth to justify the unjustifiable.
Oh I forgot. They really are Crusaders, aren't they? - with God on their
side.

steve PS: what's the ethnic origin of the Prots in Northern Ireland?

What are "Prots", Steve? Do you mean *Protestants*, by any chance? Some
Northern Irish Protestants had ancestors who were 'planted' in the North by
the English Establishment - from Scotland and from the Isle of Man, to oust
the native population. (As many Scots originated in *Ireland* in the first
instance, then I suppose that ethnically they were mostly the same 'breed' -
Irish/Celts so they could be said to have been coming home.)

Most Protestants in the North - particularly in the Church of Ireland, for
example, would refer to themselves as Northern *Irish*. Many originated in
the South. Some Presbyterians would have strong links with Scotland, and
there is a very strong anti-Catholic bias in parts of Glasgow so they feel
that they are amongst their own there when they visit. They mutually massage
each other's bigotries on special occasions, like the Twelfth of July, for
example.

However you don't seem to know very much about Northern Irish history and
you keep asking me the same nonsensical questions, which you could easily
answer yourself if you weren't so lazy. You might broaden your mind a
little, by reading the attached, easily understood piece (if you can rouse
yourself from your usual torpor.) It's not a definitive history lesson -
just a taste:

http://www.fuhrerb.com/liz/situatio.htm%20

Helen

In article <jJmAb.3490$nm6.18453@news.indigo.ie>,
"helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote:

We'll figure it out. Might be buried in the Bekaa. In the meantime, you make the point nicely -- intel is never 100% sure about anything. LOL - you don't say! Sometimes leaders have to make decisions with imperfect information at hand. How many *ooooops moments* has he had so far?


I'll let a Democratic Senator from Indiana, Even Bayh, answer you, his
answer is better than anything I can do:

"Even if there's only a 10 percent chance that Saddam Hussein and Osama
bin Laden would cooperate, the question is whether that's an acceptable
level of risk. My answer to that would be an unequivocal 'no.' We need
to be much more pro-active on eliminating threats before they're
imminent."

Asked about the growing evidence of a relationship between Iraq and al
Qaeda, Bayh said: "The relationship seemed to have its roots in mutual
exploitation. Saddam Hussein used terrorism for his own ends, and Osama
bin Laden used a nation-state for the things that only a nation-state
can provide. Some of the intelligence is strong, and some of it is
murky. But that's the nature of intelligence on a relationship like
this--lots of it is going to be speculation and conjecture. Following
9/11, we await certainty at our peril."


Given 9/11 and what could happen next time, we're not going to wait for
perfect intel before we act. We're Americans, not Europeans.

How's that stockpile of nuclear armaments growing, Steve?


The ones that we're decommissioning, you mean? We have far fewer of
these weapons now compared to twenty years ago.

... remember Chernobyl, Steve? There were caesium deposits here in Ireland after that little blow - imagine THAT!)


I believe it. It's "cesium", by the way.

Oh but I *do* understand -your anthrax attacks came from within, with "made in the USA" stamped on every grain.


Maybe; no one knows for sure, not the FBI, and not the outside experts
(some of whom are European) who've been called in.

Your leaders are very slow learners, though, making devastating mistakes everywhere they go, lying through their teeth to justify the unjustifiable.


Yas, yas, so much better just to let the "Troubles" fester, eh?

PS: what's the ethnic origin of the Prots in Northern Ireland? What are "Prots", Steve? Do you mean *Protestants*, by any chance?


As an Irishwoman you would know the term better than I. Or at least
should.

Some Northern Irish Protestants had ancestors who were 'planted' in the North by the English Establishment - from Scotland and from the Isle of Man, to oust the native population.


Change "some" to "many" and we're in violent agreement :-)

Most Protestants in the North - particularly in the Church of Ireland, for example, would refer to themselves as Northern *Irish*.


I refer to myself as an American, though my ancestry is northern
European.

Some Presbyterians would have strong links with Scotland, and there is a very strong anti-Catholic bias in parts of Glasgow so they feel that they are amongst their own there when they visit. They mutually massage each other's bigotries on special occasions, like the Twelfth of July, for example.


Much as the IRA massages its bigotries when amongst their cousins to the
south.




steve

"Steve White" <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message
news:steve-4D203E.13421006122003@netnews.attbi.com... In article <jJmAb.3490$nm6.18453@news.indigo.ie>, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote:
<snip>
Given 9/11 and what could happen next time, we're not going to wait for perfect intel before we act. We're Americans, not Europeans.

<snort> - before you get too uppitty, just remember that it's not good to
forget your roots.
How's that stockpile of nuclear armaments growing, Steve? The ones that we're decommissioning, you mean? We have far fewer of these weapons now compared to twenty years ago.

Yeah? - whatever you say, you seem to 'know' so much about these matters.
... remember Chernobyl, Steve? There were caesium deposits here in Ireland after that little blow - imagine THAT!) I believe it. It's "cesium", by the way.

It may be "cesium" in the US spelling, but it's caesium here. "A soft,
silvery reactive metallic chemical element (atomic number 55; symbol Cs)
Discovered spectroscopically by Robert Bunsen and Gustav Kirchhoff in 1860,
caesium is a member of the alkali-metal group. A specified transition of the
caesium-133 atom is used in defining the second as a unit of time."
Oh but I *do* understand -your anthrax attacks came from within, with "made in the USA" stamped on every grain. Maybe; no one knows for sure, not the FBI, and not the outside experts (some of whom are European) who've been called in. Your leaders are very slow learners, though, making devastating mistakes everywhere they go, lying through their teeth to justify the unjustifiable. Yas, yas, so much better just to let the "Troubles" fester, eh?

What language are you speaking now, Steve?
PS: what's the ethnic origin of the Prots in Northern Ireland? What are "Prots", Steve? Do you mean *Protestants*, by any chance? As an Irishwoman you would know the term better than I. Or at least should.

I have NEVER heard Protestants (of any persuasion) referred to as Prots.
Some Northern Irish Protestants had ancestors who were 'planted' in the North by the English Establishment - from Scotland and from the Isle of Man, to oust the native population. Change "some" to "many" and we're in violent agreement :-) Most Protestants in the North - particularly in the Church of Ireland, for example, would refer to themselves as Northern *Irish*. I refer to myself as an American, though my ancestry is northern European. Some Presbyterians would have strong links with Scotland, and there is a very strong anti-Catholic bias in parts of Glasgow so they feel that they are amongst their own there when they visit. They mutually massage each other's bigotries on special occasions, like the Twelfth of July, for example. Much as the IRA massages its bigotries when amongst their cousins to the south.

You haven't a CLUE. Not a single *notion* of the truth. "Cousins in the
south"? You might try educating yourself instead of spouting tripe. Do you
not have some lending libraries near where you live?

Helen
steve

"helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote

(Just like the plastic turkey at Thanksgiving, held aloft by The Big Chief Turkey <G>)

It was a real turkey! It just wasn't the turkey that was eaten. *That*
turkey was canned first.

Rupa

"Steve White" <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message
news:steve-4D203E.13421006122003@netnews.attbi.com... In article <jJmAb.3490$nm6.18453@news.indigo.ie>, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote:
Given 9/11 and what could happen next time, we're not going to wait for perfect intel before we act. We're Americans, not Europeans.

That's something to crow about.l Most 'mericans can't even read a phonebook
without assistance.

Oh but I *do* understand -your anthrax attacks came from within, with "made in the USA" stamped on every grain. Maybe; no one knows for sure, not the FBI, and not the outside experts (some of whom are European) who've been called in.

Well foreign "distribution" is pretty much a dead letter (sorry!) Most Protestants in the North - particularly in the Church of Ireland, for example, would refer to themselves as Northern *Irish*. I refer to myself as an American, though my ancestry is northern European.



You define yourself through geographical location, Steve. Some of us prefer
ethnicity, though of course that can be pretty mixed.

Marley

"Rupa Bose" <rkbose@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:e5619372.0312061333.2252347e@posting.google.c om... "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote (Just like the plastic turkey at Thanksgiving, held aloft by The Big Chief Turkey <G>) It was a real turkey! It just wasn't the turkey that was eaten. *That* turkey was canned first.

So Big Chief Turkey got to eat the real turkey, while everyone else got to
eat the 'plastic' turkey*? How nice.

*Meat in cans is referred to here as 'plastic meat' as it's usually
reconstituted, bearing only a passing, cosmetic resemblance to the real
thing.

Helen

Rupa

"helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message news:<8JtAb.3532$nm6.18778@news.indigo.ie>... "Rupa Bose" <rkbose@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message news:e5619372.0312061333.2252347e@posting.google.c om... "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote (Just like the plastic turkey at Thanksgiving, held aloft by The Big Chief Turkey <G>) It was a real turkey! It just wasn't the turkey that was eaten. *That* turkey was canned first. So Big Chief Turkey got to eat the real turkey, while everyone else got to eat the 'plastic' turkey*? How nice. *Meat in cans is referred to here as 'plastic meat' as it's usually reconstituted, bearing only a passing, cosmetic resemblance to the real thing.

To be fair, I think he ate what everyone else ate. The Turkey with the
Posthumous Photo Op was just window-dressing. It was probably trashed
afterward...

On the matter of cans, I think it really makes little difference
whether or not you can turkey. It wins no points for flavor either
way....

....and I heard that the purveyor of the feast was Halliburton.

Rupa

Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote:
How many *ooooops moments* has he had so far? I'll let a Democratic Senator from Indiana, Even Bayh, answer you, his answer is better than anything I can do: "Even if there's only a 10 percent chance that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden would cooperate, the question is whether that's an acceptable level of risk. My answer to that would be an unequivocal 'no.' We need to be much more pro-active on eliminating threats before they're imminent."

OTOH, if the response itself raises the level of risk -- as some
people believe the Iraq invasion does -- then Mr Bayh may be more
patriotic than sensible in his argument.

If there's a 10% chance that SH and AQ will get together, and kill,
say, 20,000 people (I take the number quite randomly from the number
of people killed in the great Gujarat earthquake some years ago);

And an Iraq invasion will cost, let us say, 2,000 (US + allies) lives
by the time the engagement is over, and it has a 40% chance of
worsening terrorism and resulting in a loss of say 200 USan lives;

Then by a simple calculation, the war should not have been chosen.
This is without accounting for Iraqi lives, and $ amounts. Asked about the growing evidence of a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, Bayh said: "The relationship seemed to have its roots in mutual exploitation. Saddam Hussein used terrorism for his own ends, and Osama bin Laden used a nation-state for the things that only a nation-state can provide.

Where did Bayh get this? It sounds like saying a firetruck is like a
rose because they're both red. All SOBs aren't automatically friends
with each other.
Given 9/11 and what could happen next time, we're not going to wait for perfect intel before we act.

Actually, I was reading an essay in a compilation of the Best Science
Essays of 2003 that suggested that our own response to 9/11 was an
irrational over-reaction, and thus the cost to us, in $, lives, and
fear, was far higher than if we had reacted rationally.

Sort of like an auto-immune disorder triggered by a foreign intrusion.

Whether it's justifiable or not, the truth is that the costs of the
knock-on effects of 9/11 are already much larger than the original
event. In dollars; not, fortunately, in lives. But if we stay in Iraq
a few more years, as I fear we must, they may well be higher.

Massive, visible, aggressive actions are not only expensive,
distracting, and scary, but by by their sheer visibility provide the
bad guys with a recruiting tool. Low-key action is an option, and may
be a better option.

When the IRA blew up a hotel in Brighton (?) and nearly took Thatcher
with it, the Brits didn't carpet bomb Ireland. Though they could have
done.

Rupa

On 7 Dec 2003 01:12:24 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) writes:
Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote: How many *ooooops moments* has he had so far? I'll let a Democratic Senator from Indiana, Even Bayh, answer you, his answer is better than anything I can do: "Even if there's only a 10 percent chance that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden would cooperate, the question is whether that's an acceptable level of risk. My answer to that would be an unequivocal 'no.' We need to be much more pro-active on eliminating threats before they're imminent."OTOH, if the response itself raises the level of risk -- as somepeople believe the Iraq invasion does -- then Mr Bayh may be morepatriotic than sensible in his argument.If there's a 10% chance that SH and AQ will get together, and kill,say, 20,000 people (I take the number quite randomly from the numberof people killed in the great Gujarat earthquake some years ago);And an Iraq invasion will cost, let us say, 2,000 (US + allies) livesby the time the engagement is over, and it has a 40% chance ofworsening terrorism and resulting in a loss of say 200 USan lives;Then by a simple calculation, the war should not have been chosen.This is without accounting for Iraqi lives, and $ amounts. Asked about the growing evidence of a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, Bayh said: "The relationship seemed to have its roots in mutual exploitation. Saddam Hussein used terrorism for his own ends, and Osama bin Laden used a nation-state for the things that only a nation-state can provide.Where did Bayh get this? It sounds like saying a firetruck is like arose because they're both red. All SOBs aren't automatically friendswith each other. Given 9/11 and what could happen next time, we're not going to wait for perfect intel before we act.Actually, I was reading an essay in a compilation of the Best ScienceEssays of 2003 that suggested that our own response to 9/11 was anirrational over-reaction, and thus the cost to us, in $, lives, andfear, was far higher than if we had reacted rationally.Sort of like an auto-immune disorder triggered by a foreign intrusion.Whether it's justifiable or not, the truth is that the costs of theknock-on effects of 9/11 are already much larger than the originalevent. In dollars; not, fortunately, in lives. But if we stay in Iraqa few more years, as I fear we must, they may well be higher.Massive, visible, aggressive actions are not only expensive,distracting, and scary, but by by their sheer visibility provide thebad guys with a recruiting tool. Low-key action is an option, and maybe a better option.When the IRA blew up a hotel in Brighton (?) and nearly took Thatcherwith it, the Brits didn't carpet bomb Ireland. Though they could havedone.Rupa

Once again I'd like to nominate Rupa for "alt.a Best Denizen of the
Decade Award" -- most likely to succeed in all she does and, happily,
the one person I know who seems to have avoided the trap of arrogant
'know-it-all' behavior which strikes all of us here...some more frequently
and odiously than others...on many occasions. ;-)

pb...

"The reason dogs have so many friends is because they wag their tails
and not their tongues." --unknown

"Rupa Bose" <rkbose@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:e5619372.0312070054.3aee1c55@posting.google.c om... "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:<8JtAb.3532$nm6.18778@news.indigo.ie>... "Rupa Bose" <rkbose@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message news:e5619372.0312061333.2252347e@posting.google.c om... "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote (Just like the plastic turkey at > Thanksgiving, held aloft by The Big Chief Turkey <G>) It was a real turkey! It just wasn't the turkey that was eaten. *That* turkey was canned first. So Big Chief Turkey got to eat the real turkey, while everyone else got
to eat the 'plastic' turkey*? How nice. *Meat in cans is referred to here as 'plastic meat' as it's usually reconstituted, bearing only a passing, cosmetic resemblance to the real thing. To be fair, I think he ate what everyone else ate. The Turkey with the Posthumous Photo Op was just window-dressing. It was probably trashed afterward...

Tsk tsk tsk. I can hardly believe that they would have transported a real
turkey to Iraq to flaunt in front of everyone's eyes, only to dump it in the
trashcan. It looked like one of those wonderfully realistically looking
mock-ups that the Japanese are so good at putting in the windows of their
snack-bars. Mind you, the photo itself looked like a mock-up, too. Remember
that fake backdrop he used another time - a big sheet with stacks of 'boxes'
with "made in the US", or whatever on them?
On the matter of cans, I think it really makes little difference whether or not you can turkey. It wins no points for flavor either way....

Home was never like this...?! <g>
...and I heard that the purveyor of the feast was Halliburton.

Well now, fancy that. Who knew? <eg>

Helen
Rupa

"helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:9IHAb.3591$nm6.18924@news.indigo.ie... "Rupa Bose" <rkbose@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message news:e5619372.0312070054.3aee1c55@posting.google.c om... "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote in message news:<8JtAb.3532$nm6.18778@news.indigo.ie>... "Rupa Bose" <rkbose@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message news:e5619372.0312061333.2252347e@posting.google.c om... > "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote > > (Just like the plastic turkey at > > Thanksgiving, held aloft by The Big Chief Turkey <G>) > > It was a real turkey! It just wasn't the turkey that was eaten.
*That* > turkey was canned first. So Big Chief Turkey got to eat the real turkey, while everyone else
got to eat the 'plastic' turkey*? How nice. *Meat in cans is referred to here as 'plastic meat' as it's usually reconstituted, bearing only a passing, cosmetic resemblance to the
real thing. To be fair, I think he ate what everyone else ate. The Turkey with the Posthumous Photo Op was just window-dressing. It was probably trashed afterward... Tsk tsk tsk. I can hardly believe that they would have transported a real turkey to Iraq to flaunt in front of everyone's eyes, only to dump it in
the trashcan. It looked like one of those wonderfully realistically looking mock-ups that the Japanese are so good at putting in the windows of their snack-bars. Mind you, the photo itself looked like a mock-up, too.
Remember that fake backdrop he used another time - a big sheet with stacks of
'boxes' with "made in the US", or whatever on them?

Reminds me of when I lived in Albany, GA. The local TV station had a kid's
show every afternoon staring Jerry NeSmith as a circus ringmaster. The show
was sponsored by Col. Sanders or some local chicken restaurant and every day
he'd hold up this big platter of fried chicken and the little kids in the
audience would jump and grab at it, but they they were never allowed to eat
it. It became a huge joke.

Marley On the matter of cans, I think it really makes little difference whether or not you can turkey. It wins no points for flavor either way.... Home was never like this...?! <g> ...and I heard that the purveyor of the feast was Halliburton. Well now, fancy that. Who knew? <eg> Helen Rupa

"Rupa Bose" <rkbose@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:e5619372.0312070112.65886b55@posting.google.c om... Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote: When the IRA blew up a hotel in Brighton (?) and nearly took Thatcher with it, the Brits didn't carpet bomb Ireland. Though they could have done.

They didn't have to, they had been waging a war of attrition since 1968,
taking out people every day through their 'shoot to kill' policies, and
their collusion with loyalist gangs of murderers. (A lot of this is coming
out now, to their great embarrassment.)

The British army incursions across the border into the Republic were
highlighted by the worst atrocity of all, the Dublin-Monaghan bombings, on
May 17 1974 (ten years before Brighton) which killed 33 and injured/maimed
more than 250 others.

One of my brothers escaped injury - or death - because he had just cycled
around a corner when one of the bombs blew up. His decision to call by a
particular shop to buy some marzipan sweets that our mother was fond of,
meant that he went away from the bomb instead of towards it.

Helen
Rupa

In article <e5619372.0312070112.65886b55@posting.google.com>,
rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:

"Even if there's only a 10 percent chance that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden would cooperate, the question is whether that's an acceptable level of risk. My answer to that would be an unequivocal 'no.' We need to be much more pro-active on eliminating threats before they're imminent." OTOH, if the response itself raises the level of risk -- as some people believe the Iraq invasion does -- then Mr Bayh may be more patriotic than sensible in his argument. If there's a 10% chance that SH and AQ will get together, and kill, say, 20,000 people (I take the number quite randomly from the number of people killed in the great Gujarat earthquake some years ago); And an Iraq invasion will cost, let us say, 2,000 (US + allies) lives by the time the engagement is over, and it has a 40% chance of worsening terrorism and resulting in a loss of say 200 USan lives; Then by a simple calculation, the war should not have been chosen. This is without accounting for Iraqi lives, and $ amounts.


Except, of course, our lives are more valuable to us. Despite the
inroads of the pomo left in our country, shrugging our shoulders and
accepting the loss of our citizens (like some Europeans would do) is not
acceptable. Because of that we're not going to make that calculation.

Terrorists don't stage attacks just once. They can kill us today.
Tomorrow. Next week. Next month. They'll keep doing it, and if we don't
stop them at some point they'll just do it again.

Terrorists are kind of funny that way.

And that's why calculations like yours don't work.

Please recall the problem with danegeld -- as the saying goes, after a
while, how do you get rid of the Dane?

Where did Bayh get this? It sounds like saying a firetruck is like a rose because they're both red. All SOBs aren't automatically friends with each other.


Increasing amounts of evidence that Saddam and al-Q were chummy on
certain matters, even if Linda doesn't like the report in the Weekly
Standard. Again, there's no evidence Saddam knew in advance of 9/11.

Actually, I was reading an essay in a compilation of the Best Science Essays of 2003 that suggested that our own response to 9/11 was an irrational over-reaction, and thus the cost to us, in $, lives, and fear, was far higher than if we had reacted rationally.


Ah yes, the rational response would be to ask "why do they hate us?"
Then contemplate that, and talk, and talk, and talk some more, beat our
chests, hang our heads, talk some more, throw up our hands and pull away
from the world, talk some more, have a memorial service, and talk about
it some.

Our response might not have been "rational" in the way those authors
wanted. Good thing, too.

Whether it's justifiable or not, the truth is that the costs of the knock-on effects of 9/11 are already much larger than the original event. In dollars; not, fortunately, in lives. But if we stay in Iraq a few more years, as I fear we must, they may well be higher. Massive, visible, aggressive actions are not only expensive, distracting, and scary, but by by their sheer visibility provide the bad guys with a recruiting tool. Low-key action is an option, and may be a better option. When the IRA blew up a hotel in Brighton (?) and nearly took Thatcher with it, the Brits didn't carpet bomb Ireland. Though they could have done.


Because the situation didn't call for it. The IRA wasn't in charge of
Ireland, they weren't running the show like Saddam was in Iraq. I can
guarentee you that if the government in Ireland DID have those sorts of
links with the IRA, and HAD been controlling the IRA, the Brits would
have reacted, er, more strongly. Helen would right now be living under
the control of the Paras.

The Arab world should pray that we never respond to them like they would
respond to us. Because if the Islamists stage another 9/11, it just
might happen.



steve

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 03:48:23 -0800, pb... <woodlark-99@newsguy.com>
wrote:
On 7 Dec 2003 01:12:24 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) writes:Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote: > > How many *ooooops moments* has he had so far? I'll let a Democratic Senator from Indiana, Even Bayh, answer you, his answer is better than anything I can do: "Even if there's only a 10 percent chance that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden would cooperate, the question is whether that's an acceptable level of risk. My answer to that would be an unequivocal 'no.' We need to be much more pro-active on eliminating threats before they're imminent."OTOH, if the response itself raises the level of risk -- as somepeople believe the Iraq invasion does -- then Mr Bayh may be morepatriotic than sensible in his argument.If there's a 10% chance that SH and AQ will get together, and kill,say, 20,000 people (I take the number quite randomly from the numberof people killed in the great Gujarat earthquake some years ago);And an Iraq invasion will cost, let us say, 2,000 (US + allies) livesby the time the engagement is over, and it has a 40% chance ofworsening terrorism and resulting in a loss of say 200 USan lives;Then by a simple calculation, the war should not have been chosen.This is without accounting for Iraqi lives, and $ amounts. Asked about the growing evidence of a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, Bayh said: "The relationship seemed to have its roots in mutual exploitation. Saddam Hussein used terrorism for his own ends, and Osama bin Laden used a nation-state for the things that only a nation-state can provide.Where did Bayh get this? It sounds like saying a firetruck is like arose because they're both red. All SOBs aren't automatically friendswith each other. Given 9/11 and what could happen next time, we're not going to wait for perfect intel before we act.Actually, I was reading an essay in a compilation of the Best ScienceEssays of 2003 that suggested that our own response to 9/11 was anirrational over-reaction, and thus the cost to us, in $, lives, andfear, was far higher than if we had reacted rationally.Sort of like an auto-immune disorder triggered by a foreign intrusion.Whether it's justifiable or not, the truth is that the costs of theknock-on effects of 9/11 are already much larger than the originalevent. In dollars; not, fortunately, in lives. But if we stay in Iraqa few more years, as I fear we must, they may well be higher.Massive, visible, aggressive actions are not only expensive,distracting, and scary, but by by their sheer visibility provide thebad guys with a recruiting tool. Low-key action is an option, and maybe a better option.When the IRA blew up a hotel in Brighton (?) and nearly took Thatcherwith it, the Brits didn't carpet bomb Ireland. Though they could havedone.RupaOnce again I'd like to nominate Rupa for "alt.a Best Denizen of theDecade Award" -- most likely to succeed in all she does and, happily,the one person I know who seems to have avoided the trap of arrogant'know-it-all' behavior which strikes all of us here...some more frequentlyand odiously than others...on many occasions. ;-)pb...

Having had the pleasure of meeting Rupa in real life a couple of times
as well as knowing here here for several years, I'm more than happy to
second your nomination.

Julia
"The reason dogs have so many friends is because they wag their tails and not their tongues." --unknown

In article
<2XrAb.159651$Ec1.6217972@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

I refer to myself as an American, though my ancestry is northern European. You define yourself through geographical location, Steve. Some of us prefer ethnicity, though of course that can be pretty mixed.


Whole point of America was to make ethnicity and ancestry a dead issue.





steve

In article <e5619372.0312061333.2252347e@posting.google.com>,
rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote:
"helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote (Just like the plastic turkey at Thanksgiving, held aloft by The Big Chief Turkey <G>) It was a real turkey! It just wasn't the turkey that was eaten. *That* turkey was canned first.


Correct. The troops (and Bush) ate either prime rib or canned turkey.
One of my military friends assures me that every mess hall in the US
armed forces has a single turkey with all the trimmings, decorated and
on a platter, on Thanksgiving day.




steve

In article <8JtAb.3532$nm6.18778@news.indigo.ie>,
"helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote:

So Big Chief Turkey got to eat the real turkey, while everyone else got to eat the 'plastic' turkey*? How nice.


No, the President ate what the troops ate. You might try reading the
news instead of just looking at the pictures.




steve

"Steve White" <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message
news:steve-9161BD.15012307122003@netnews.attbi.com... In article <2XrAb.159651$Ec1.6217972@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote: I refer to myself as an American, though my ancestry is northern European. You define yourself through geographical location, Steve. Some of us prefer ethnicity, though of course that can be pretty mixed. Whole point of America was to make ethnicity and ancestry a dead issue. steve

But it's not, and it shouldn't be. Blood always comes first.

Marley

"Steve White" <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message
news:steve-CAE87E.15032407122003@netnews.attbi.com... In article <e5619372.0312061333.2252347e@posting.google.com>, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) wrote: "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote (Just like the plastic turkey at Thanksgiving, held aloft by The Big Chief Turkey <G>) It was a real turkey! It just wasn't the turkey that was eaten. *That* turkey was canned first. Correct. The troops (and Bush) ate either prime rib or canned turkey. One of my military friends assures me that every mess hall in the US armed forces has a single turkey with all the trimmings, decorated and on a platter, on Thanksgiving day. steve

And how friggin' cheap is that? When I did PR for Goodwill we used to beg
for turkeys for the needy and got more than enough.. I'm sure some nice
patriotic poultry procssor would love do donate real turkeys. Or maybe we
could just serve up the one who lives in the White House.

Marley
Eat the rich

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 21:01:24 GMT, Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> writes:
In article<2XrAb.159651$Ec1.6217972@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote: I refer to myself as an American, though my ancestry is northern European. You define yourself through geographical location, Steve. Some of us prefer ethnicity, though of course that can be pretty mixed.Whole point of America was to make ethnicity and ancestry a dead issue.steve

Well that's really working well for us, eh? You might wish to check
the stats on genealogical research -- ever since Roots (Haley) aired in
the late 70s, it's been one of the top pastimes in America.

_____________________________
From: http://www.common-place.org/

Vol. 2 · No. 3 · April 2002

"Meanwhile, in the public arena, the immense popularity of the
book and television miniseries Roots in the early 1970s led to a
wave of interest in genealogy and family history. In fact, a 1978
American Quarterly review essay noted the post-Roots popularity
of factual and fictional family sagas, genealogical how-to books,
and ethnic community studies, and posited that the rising interest
in family history, genealogy, and memoir represented a cultural
shift from the ethos of the self-made man to the individual as
product of family and ethnic group. The resonance of Roots, as
David Chioni Moore reasoned, lay in the appeal of a recovered
"rooted identity," especially "when a major chunk of the tangle
of one's identity has been either erased or systematically
denigrated, or, in the case of Haley and his primary intended
readers, both." As such, the tracing of that narrative root (or
route), even if it was a narrow genealogical one, provided a
historical bridge for the wider public."


Sheila O'Hare is social sciences bibliographer at the University
of California, Santa Cruz. She holds advanced degrees in history,
law, and library and information science.

"As the Internet continues to enable and encourage possibilities
for professional-nonprofessional collaboration, the historian and
genealogist may find that the gulf between them has been bridged
--almost in spite of themselves." --Sheila O'Hare

"Steve White" <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message
news:steve-9161BD.15012307122003@netnews.attbi.com... In article <2XrAb.159651$Ec1.6217972@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote: I refer to myself as an American, though my ancestry is northern European. You define yourself through geographical location, Steve. Some of us prefer ethnicity, though of course that can be pretty mixed. Whole point of America was to make ethnicity and ancestry a dead issue.

They're not doing a good job of it then, judging by the teeming hordes that
descend every year on Ireland, the UK and the rest of Europe, in search of
their "ethnicity and ancestry".

Helen
steve

"Steve White" <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message
news:steve-1529D7.15045207122003@netnews.attbi.com... In article <8JtAb.3532$nm6.18778@news.indigo.ie>, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote: So Big Chief Turkey got to eat the real turkey, while everyone else got to eat the 'plastic' turkey*? How nice. No, the President ate what the troops ate. You might try reading the news instead of just looking at the pictures.

I read the news every day, and watch it too. Pictures can also be very
revealing, Steve, particularly when someone has been lying through their
teeth.

Helen
steve

Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote Except, of course, our lives are more valuable to us. Despite the inroads of the pomo left in our country, shrugging our shoulders and accepting the loss of our citizens (like some Europeans would do) is not acceptable. Because of that we're not going to make that calculation.

Actually we accept the loss of our citizens quite rationally when the
deaths are caused by automobiles and handguns. Terrorists don't stage attacks just once. They can kill us today. Tomorrow. Next week. Next month. They'll keep doing it, and if we don't stop them at some point they'll just do it again. Terrorists are kind of funny that way. And that's why calculations like yours don't work.

So they can. And so they still can. And if everything we do gives them
a more exciting battle to fight, they may well do.
Please recall the problem with danegeld -- as the saying goes, after a while, how do you get rid of the Dane?

This isn't danegeld, because we are not paying anyone off.
Where did Bayh get this? It sounds like saying a firetruck is like a rose because they're both red. All SOBs aren't automatically friends with each other. Increasing amounts of evidence that Saddam and al-Q were chummy on certain matters,

There has been no convincing evidence of this at all, to the best of
my knowledge.
It has seemed much like wishful thinking, backed by a few people who
told the government what it wanted to hear.

Do you have any good URLs of unbiased sites? (Or at least two sites
with opposing biases that agree on the facts if not the
interpretation?)

Ah yes, the rational response would be to ask "why do they hate us?" Then contemplate that, and talk, and talk, and talk some more, beat our chests, hang our heads, talk some more, throw up our hands and pull away from the world, talk some more, have a memorial service, and talk about it some.

I'll try and get you the URL if it's on the net. That wasn't precisely
what they recommended.

Rupa

Julia <jurol@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote
pb... <woodlark-99@newsguy.com> wrote:On 7 Dec 2003 01:12:24 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) writes:Once again I'd like to nominate Rupa for "alt.a Best Denizen of theDecade Award" -- most likely to succeed in all she does and, happily,the one person I know who seems to have avoided the trap of arrogant'know-it-all' behavior which strikes all of us here...some more frequentlyand odiously than others...on many occasions. ;-)pb... Having had the pleasure of meeting Rupa in real life a couple of times as well as knowing here here for several years, I'm more than happy to second your nomination. Julia

Wow
Thanks

Rupa
(Blushing furiously)

In article <9657tvon10b7qrdblgshcpvd3jg4ru15f1@4ax.com>, Julia
<jurol@nospam.hotmail.com> writes:
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 03:48:23 -0800, pb... <woodlark-99@newsguy.com>wrote:On 7 Dec 2003 01:12:24 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) writes:Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote> "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote:> >> > How many *ooooops moments* has he had so far?>> I'll let a Democratic Senator from Indiana, Even Bayh, answer you, his> answer is better than anything I can do:>> "Even if there's only a 10 percent chance that Saddam Hussein and Osama> bin Laden would cooperate, the question is whether that's an acceptable> level of risk. My answer to that would be an unequivocal 'no.' We need> to be much more pro-active on eliminating threats before they're> imminent."OTOH, if the response itself raises the level of risk -- as somepeople believe the Iraq invasion does -- then Mr Bayh may be morepatriotic than sensible in his argument.If there's a 10% chance that SH and AQ will get together, and kill,say, 20,000 people (I take the number quite randomly from the numberof people killed in the great Gujarat earthquake some years ago);And an Iraq invasion will cost, let us say, 2,000 (US + allies) livesby the time the engagement is over, and it has a 40% chance ofworsening terrorism and resulting in a loss of say 200 USan lives;Then by a simple calculation, the war should not have been chosen.This is without accounting for Iraqi lives, and $ amounts.>> Asked about the growing evidence of a relationship between Iraq and al> Qaeda, Bayh said: "The relationship seemed to have its roots in mutual> exploitation. Saddam Hussein used terrorism for his own ends, and Osama> bin Laden used a nation-state for the things that only a nation-state> can provide.Where did Bayh get this? It sounds like saying a firetruck is like arose because they're both red. All SOBs aren't automatically friendswith each other.> Given 9/11 and what could happen next time, we're not going to wait for> perfect intel before we act.Actually, I was reading an essay in a compilation of the Best ScienceEssays of 2003 that suggested that our own response to 9/11 was anirrational over-reaction, and thus the cost to us, in $, lives, andfear, was far higher than if we had reacted rationally.Sort of like an auto-immune disorder triggered by a foreign intrusion.Whether it's justifiable or not, the truth is that the costs of theknock-on effects of 9/11 are already much larger than the originalevent. In dollars; not, fortunately, in lives. But if we stay in Iraqa few more years, as I fear we must, they may well be higher.Massive, visible, aggressive actions are not only expensive,distracting, and scary, but by by their sheer visibility provide thebad guys with a recruiting tool. Low-key action is an option, and maybe a better option.When the IRA blew up a hotel in Brighton (?) and nearly took Thatcherwith it, the Brits didn't carpet bomb Ireland. Though they could havedone.RupaOnce again I'd like to nominate Rupa for "alt.a Best Denizen of theDecade Award" -- most likely to succeed in all she does and, happily,the one person I know who seems to have avoided the trap of arrogant'know-it-all' behavior which strikes all of us here...some more frequentlyand odiously than others...on many occasions. ;-)pb...Having had the pleasure of meeting Rupa in real life a couple of timesas well as knowing here here for several years, I'm more than happy tosecond your nomination.Julia

There's not even a reason to vote. I can't think of a more consistently
thoughtful, articulate and considerate poster.

I should also mention she's a great tour guide with an in depth knowledge of
garden porn, to boot. ;-}

J.

>Subject: Re: Nominations: 'Best Denizen of the Decade on alt.a Award' [was:Re: GWB doesFrom: "helicon" helicon@eircom.netDate: 12/8/03 8:09 AM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <Wo0Bb.3690$nm6.19156@news.indigo.ie>
"J." <jmdjmh@aol.com> wrote in message
I should also mention she's a great tour guide with an in depth knowledgeof garden porn, to boot. ;-}And you would gnome that, how? <g>

LOL! You're such a pistil, Helen!! ;-)


-------------------------
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend will
be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!"
-----Unknown

"Julia" <jurol@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9657tvon10b7qrdblgshcpvd3jg4ru15f1@4ax.com... On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 03:48:23 -0800, pb... <woodlark-99@newsguy.com> wrote:On 7 Dec 2003 01:12:24 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) writes:Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote> "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote:> >> > How many *ooooops moments* has he had so far?>> I'll let a Democratic Senator from Indiana, Even Bayh, answer you, his> answer is better than anything I can do:>> "Even if there's only a 10 percent chance that Saddam Hussein and
Osama> bin Laden would cooperate, the question is whether that's an
acceptable> level of risk. My answer to that would be an unequivocal 'no.' We need> to be much more pro-active on eliminating threats before they're> imminent."OTOH, if the response itself raises the level of risk -- as somepeople believe the Iraq invasion does -- then Mr Bayh may be morepatriotic than sensible in his argument.If there's a 10% chance that SH and AQ will get together, and kill,say, 20,000 people (I take the number quite randomly from the numberof people killed in the great Gujarat earthquake some years ago);And an Iraq invasion will cost, let us say, 2,000 (US + allies) livesby the time the engagement is over, and it has a 40% chance ofworsening terrorism and resulting in a loss of say 200 USan lives;Then by a simple calculation, the war should not have been chosen.This is without accounting for Iraqi lives, and $ amounts.>> Asked about the growing evidence of a relationship between Iraq and al> Qaeda, Bayh said: "The relationship seemed to have its roots in mutual> exploitation. Saddam Hussein used terrorism for his own ends, and
Osama> bin Laden used a nation-state for the things that only a nation-state> can provide.Where did Bayh get this? It sounds like saying a firetruck is like arose because they're both red. All SOBs aren't automatically friendswith each other.> Given 9/11 and what could happen next time, we're not going to wait
for> perfect intel before we act.Actually, I was reading an essay in a compilation of the Best ScienceEssays of 2003 that suggested that our own response to 9/11 was anirrational over-reaction, and thus the cost to us, in $, lives, andfear, was far higher than if we had reacted rationally.Sort of like an auto-immune disorder triggered by a foreign intrusion.Whether it's justifiable or not, the truth is that the costs of theknock-on effects of 9/11 are already much larger than the originalevent. In dollars; not, fortunately, in lives. But if we stay in Iraqa few more years, as I fear we must, they may well be higher.Massive, visible, aggressive actions are not only expensive,distracting, and scary, but by by their sheer visibility provide thebad guys with a recruiting tool. Low-key action is an option, and maybe a better option.When the IRA blew up a hotel in Brighton (?) and nearly took Thatcherwith it, the Brits didn't carpet bomb Ireland. Though they could havedone.RupaOnce again I'd like to nominate Rupa for "alt.a Best Denizen of theDecade Award" -- most likely to succeed in all she does and, happily,the one person I know who seems to have avoided the trap of arrogant'know-it-all' behavior which strikes all of us here...some more
frequentlyand odiously than others...on many occasions. ;-)pb... Having had the pleasure of meeting Rupa in real life a couple of times as well as knowing here here for several years, I'm more than happy to second your nomination.

Never having met Rupa, but feeling that I would know her *anywhere* (!) I
want to add that she is (in no particular order) funny, warm, intelligent,
ariticulate, erudite, reasonable, balanced, wise, and a great debater. I
hate to say it, but I bet she is beautiful too. <g>

Helen
Julia"The reason dogs have so many friends is because they wag their tails and not their tongues." --unknown

"J." <jmdjmh@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031208083537.00545.00002776@mb-m02.aol.com... In article <9657tvon10b7qrdblgshcpvd3jg4ru15f1@4ax.com>, Julia <jurol@nospam.hotmail.com> writes:On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 03:48:23 -0800, pb... <woodlark-99@newsguy.com>wrote:On 7 Dec 2003 01:12:24 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) writes:>Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote>> "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote:>>> >>> > How many *ooooops moments* has he had so far?>>>> I'll let a Democratic Senator from Indiana, Even Bayh, answer you,
his>> answer is better than anything I can do:>>>> "Even if there's only a 10 percent chance that Saddam Hussein and
Osama>> bin Laden would cooperate, the question is whether that's an
acceptable>> level of risk. My answer to that would be an unequivocal 'no.' We
need>> to be much more pro-active on eliminating threats before they're>> imminent.">>OTOH, if the response itself raises the level of risk -- as some>people believe the Iraq invasion does -- then Mr Bayh may be more>patriotic than sensible in his argument.>>If there's a 10% chance that SH and AQ will get together, and kill,>say, 20,000 people (I take the number quite randomly from the number>of people killed in the great Gujarat earthquake some years ago);>>And an Iraq invasion will cost, let us say, 2,000 (US + allies) lives>by the time the engagement is over, and it has a 40% chance of>worsening terrorism and resulting in a loss of say 200 USan lives;>>Then by a simple calculation, the war should not have been chosen.>This is without accounting for Iraqi lives, and $ amounts.>>>> Asked about the growing evidence of a relationship between Iraq and
al>> Qaeda, Bayh said: "The relationship seemed to have its roots in
mutual>> exploitation. Saddam Hussein used terrorism for his own ends, and
Osama>> bin Laden used a nation-state for the things that only a nation-state>> can provide.>>Where did Bayh get this? It sounds like saying a firetruck is like a>rose because they're both red. All SOBs aren't automatically friends>with each other.>>> Given 9/11 and what could happen next time, we're not going to wait
for>> perfect intel before we act.>>Actually, I was reading an essay in a compilation of the Best Science>Essays of 2003 that suggested that our own response to 9/11 was an>irrational over-reaction, and thus the cost to us, in $, lives, and>fear, was far higher than if we had reacted rationally.>>Sort of like an auto-immune disorder triggered by a foreign intrusion.>>Whether it's justifiable or not, the truth is that the costs of the>knock-on effects of 9/11 are already much larger than the original>event. In dollars; not, fortunately, in lives. But if we stay in Iraq>a few more years, as I fear we must, they may well be higher.>>Massive, visible, aggressive actions are not only expensive,>distracting, and scary, but by by their sheer visibility provide the>bad guys with a recruiting tool. Low-key action is an option, and may>be a better option.>>When the IRA blew up a hotel in Brighton (?) and nearly took Thatcher>with it, the Brits didn't carpet bomb Ireland. Though they could have>done.>>RupaOnce again I'd like to nominate Rupa for "alt.a Best Denizen of theDecade Award" -- most likely to succeed in all she does and, happily,the one person I know who seems to have avoided the trap of arrogant'know-it-all' behavior which strikes all of us here...some more
frequentlyand odiously than others...on many occasions. ;-)pb...Having had the pleasure of meeting Rupa in real life a couple of timesas well as knowing here here for several years, I'm more than happy tosecond your nomination.Julia There's not even a reason to vote. I can't think of a more consistently thoughtful, articulate and considerate poster.

I agree.
I should also mention she's a great tour guide with an in depth knowledge
of garden porn, to boot. ;-}

And you would gnome that, how? <g>

Helen
J.

"LilMtnCbn" <lilmtncbn@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20031208100621.28735.00000519@mb-m01.aol.com...Subject: Re: Nominations: 'Best Denizen of the Decade on alt.a Award'
[was:Re: GWB doesFrom: "helicon" helicon@eircom.netDate: 12/8/03 8:09 AM Mountain Standard TimeMessage-id: <Wo0Bb.3690$nm6.19156@news.indigo.ie>"J." <jmdjmh@aol.com> wrote in message I should also mention she's a great tour guide with an in depth
knowledgeof garden porn, to boot. ;-}And you would gnome that, how? <g> LOL! You're such a pistil, Helen!! ;-)

Shoot, anything for a laugh!

Helen
------------------------- A good friend will come and bail you out of jail . . . but, a true friend
will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn . . . that was fun!" -----Unknown

In article <e5619372.0312072014.187a9017@posting.google.com>,


What Julia said!

Rupa for Best Denizen.

Linda

In article <7pa7tvcelor5e9tumk559itn5o3sdj9ogn@4ax.com>,
Whole point of America was to make ethnicity and ancestry a dead issue.steve


What utter balderdash. Sg=hall we talk about the laws in the post Civil
War South that defined anyone with any black ancestry at all as black?
Shall we talk about segregation? Shall we talk about three way
segregation, for instance in eastern North Carolina there were three
separate school systems, one for whites, one for blacks and one for Native
Americans.

Shall we talk about the Pocohantas exemption? Early 20th century Virginia
had racial laws on its books that would have done the Nazis proud. One
drop of Black or Indian blood made you Black or Indian and subject to the
rankest kind of discrimination. Problem is, all the First Family of
Virginia types claimed some relationshi to Pocohantas. So, the state
legislature exempted relatives of Pocohantas to the draconian laws.

Shall we talk about legacy admissions to Ivy League colleges? Shall we
talk about the legions of geneaologists in this country?

"Linda Fortney" <lfortney@dc.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:br35bj$vmc@tracy.umd.edu... In article <7pa7tvcelor5e9tumk559itn5o3sdj9ogn@4ax.com>,Whole point of America was to make ethnicity and ancestry a dead issue.steve What utter balderdash. Sg=hall we talk about the laws in the post Civil War South that defined anyone with any black ancestry at all as black? Shall we talk about segregation? Shall we talk about three way segregation, for instance in eastern North Carolina there were three separate school systems, one for whites, one for blacks and one for Native Americans. Shall we talk about the Pocohantas exemption? Early 20th century Virginia had racial laws on its books that would have done the Nazis proud. One drop of Black or Indian blood made you Black or Indian and subject to the rankest kind of discrimination. Problem is, all the First Family of Virginia types claimed some relationshi to Pocohantas. So, the state legislature exempted relatives of Pocohantas to the draconian laws. Shall we talk about legacy admissions to Ivy League colleges? Shall we talk about the legions of geneaologists in this country?

And let's not forget ethically-based social and fraternal organizations
which are still going strong, and Greek festivals, and ethnic churches.

Marley

"Linda Fortney" <lfortney@dc.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:br35bj$vmc@tracy.umd.edu... In article <7pa7tvcelor5e9tumk559itn5o3sdj9ogn@4ax.com>,Whole point of America was to make ethnicity and ancestry a dead issue.steve What utter balderdash. Sg=hall we talk about the laws in the post Civil War South that defined anyone with any black ancestry at all as black? Shall we talk about segregation? Shall we talk about three way segregation, for instance in eastern North Carolina there were three separate school systems, one for whites, one for blacks and one for Native Americans. Shall we talk about the Pocohantas exemption? Early 20th century Virginia had racial laws on its books that would have done the Nazis proud. One drop of Black or Indian blood made you Black or Indian and subject to the rankest kind of discrimination. Problem is, all the First Family of Virginia types claimed some relationshi to Pocohantas. So, the state legislature exempted relatives of Pocohantas to the draconian laws. Shall we talk about legacy admissions to Ivy League colleges? Shall we talk about the legions of geneaologists in this country?

How 'open' are your golf clubs? (Tiger, notwithstanding!)

Helen

In article <Wo0Bb.3690$nm6.19156@news.indigo.ie>, "helicon"
<helicon@eircom.net> writes:
"J." <jmdjmh@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:20031208083537.00545.00002776@mb-m02.aol.com... In article <9657tvon10b7qrdblgshcpvd3jg4ru15f1@4ax.com>, Julia <jurol@nospam.hotmail.com> writes:On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 03:48:23 -0800, pb... <woodlark-99@newsguy.com>wrote:>On 7 Dec 2003 01:12:24 -0800, rkbose@pacific.net.sg (Rupa Bose) writes:>>>Steve White <steve@spam.me.never> wrote>>> "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote:>>>>> >>>> > How many *ooooops moments* has he had so far?>>>>>> I'll let a Democratic Senator from Indiana, Even Bayh, answer you,his>>> answer is better than anything I can do:>>>>>> "Even if there's only a 10 percent chance that Saddam Hussein andOsama>>> bin Laden would cooperate, the question is whether that's anacceptable>>> level of risk. My answer to that would be an unequivocal 'no.' Weneed>>> to be much more pro-active on eliminating threats before they're>>> imminent.">>>>OTOH, if the response itself raises the level of risk -- as some>>people believe the Iraq invasion does -- then Mr Bayh may be more>>patriotic than sensible in his argument.>>>>If there's a 10% chance that SH and AQ will get together, and kill,>>say, 20,000 people (I take the number quite randomly from the number>>of people killed in the great Gujarat earthquake some years ago);>>>>And an Iraq invasion will cost, let us say, 2,000 (US + allies) lives>>by the time the engagement is over, and it has a 40% chance of>>worsening terrorism and resulting in a loss of say 200 USan lives;>>>>Then by a simple calculation, the war should not have been chosen.>>This is without accounting for Iraqi lives, and $ amounts.>>>>>> Asked about the growing evidence of a relationship between Iraq andal>>> Qaeda, Bayh said: "The relationship seemed to have its roots inmutual>>> exploitation. Saddam Hussein used terrorism for his own ends, andOsama>>> bin Laden used a nation-state for the things that only a nation-state>>> can provide.>>>>Where did Bayh get this? It sounds like saying a firetruck is like a>>rose because they're both red. All SOBs aren't automatically friends>>with each other.>>>>> Given 9/11 and what could happen next time, we're not going to waitfor>>> perfect intel before we act.>>>>Actually, I was reading an essay in a compilation of the Best Science>>Essays of 2003 that suggested that our own response to 9/11 was an>>irrational over-reaction, and thus the cost to us, in $, lives, and>>fear, was far higher than if we had reacted rationally.>>>>Sort of like an auto-immune disorder triggered by a foreign intrusion.>>>>Whether it's justifiable or not, the truth is that the costs of the>>knock-on effects of 9/11 are already much larger than the original>>event. In dollars; not, fortunately, in lives. But if we stay in Iraq>>a few more years, as I fear we must, they may well be higher.>>>>Massive, visible, aggressive actions are not only expensive,>>distracting, and scary, but by by their sheer visibility provide the>>bad guys with a recruiting tool. Low-key action is an option, and may>>be a better option.>>>>When the IRA blew up a hotel in Brighton (?) and nearly took Thatcher>>with it, the Brits didn't carpet bomb Ireland. Though they could have>>done.>>>>Rupa>>Once again I'd like to nominate Rupa for "alt.a Best Denizen of the>Decade Award" -- most likely to succeed in all she does and, happily,>the one person I know who seems to have avoided the trap of arrogant>'know-it-all' behavior which strikes all of us here...some morefrequently>and odiously than others...on many occasions. ;-)>>pb...Having had the pleasure of meeting Rupa in real life a couple of timesas well as knowing here here for several years, I'm more than happy tosecond your nomination.Julia There's not even a reason to vote. I can't think of a more consistently thoughtful, articulate and considerate poster.I agree. I should also mention she's a great tour guide with an in depth knowledgeof garden porn, to boot. ;-}And you would gnome that, how? <g>Helen

Gnome or not, I've had the pleasure of meeting Rupa on two occasions.

As you've obviously discerned, garden porn has nothing whatsoever to do with
run of the mill pornography. Rupa was good enough to share some of hers with
us. While leafing through that we found an idea for a small fountain in our
Lilliputian yard.

J.

In article <etRAb.3654$nm6.19049@news.indigo.ie>,
"helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote:

No, the President ate what the troops ate. You might try reading the news instead of just looking at the pictures. I read the news every day, and watch it too. Pictures can also be very revealing, Steve, particularly when someone has been lying through their teeth.


I'll resist the temptation to say that I don't have a picture of you
right now, but I still know ...

Bush ate what the troops ate. The turkey was there for show. There's one
for show in every mess hall on T-day.





steve

In article
<V6OAb.410982$0v4.20130555@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

And how friggin' cheap is that? When I did PR for Goodwill we used to beg for turkeys for the needy and got more than enough.. I'm sure some nice patriotic poultry procssor would love do donate real turkeys.


Why, that would leave one to speculate that the poultry producer donated
the turkey in return for political favors from
BushChenyHalliburtonBrownKellogg & Root.

Or something like that.

The Army can pay for the poultry.




steve

In article <br35bj$vmc@tracy.umd.edu>,
lfortney@dc.umd.edu (Linda Fortney) wrote:
In article <7pa7tvcelor5e9tumk559itn5o3sdj9ogn@4ax.com>,Whole point of America was to make ethnicity and ancestry a deadissue. Shall we talk about the laws in the post Civil War South that defined anyone with any black ancestry at all as black?


If your point is that we got away from our ideals, no argument from me.
Notice that slowly, surely we're moving back towards them in some good
ways.




steve

"Steve White" <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message
news:steve-AAB346.19540508122003@netnews.attbi.com... In article <V6OAb.410982$0v4.20130555@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote: And how friggin' cheap is that? When I did PR for Goodwill we used to beg for turkeys for the needy and got more than enough.. I'm sure some nice patriotic poultry procssor would love do donate real turkeys. Why, that would leave one to speculate that the poultry producer donated the turkey in return for political favors from BushChenyHalliburtonBrownKellogg & Root.

Well, we can't have that, can we? Or something like that. The Army can pay for the poultry.

Then why don't they?

Marley steve

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 02:16:22 GMT, "Marley Greiner"
<maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> writes:
"Steve White" <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in messagenews:steve-AAB346.19540508122003@netnews.attbi.com... In article <V6OAb.410982$0v4.20130555@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Marley Greiner" <maddogmarley@worldnet.att.net> wrote: And how friggin' cheap is that? When I did PR for Goodwill we used to beg for turkeys for the needy and got more than enough.. I'm sure some nice patriotic poultry procssor would love do donate real turkeys. Why, that would leave one to speculate that the poultry producer donated the turkey in return for political favors from BushChenyHalliburtonBrownKellogg & Root.Well, we can't have that, can we? Or something like that. The Army can pay for the poultry. steve
Then why don't they?Marley

Because they already charge troops for their meals...poor kids have to BUY
meal tickets. Disgusting. We demand they risk their lives for "their country"
and yet we charge them for the food to keep them going. Care to research the
number of members in the armed services who *must* rely on food stamps to
get by...as in survive?

pb...


"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president,
or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not
only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the
American public."
--Theodore Roosevelt, 1918

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/

"Steve White" <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message
news:steve-B7E26C.19522508122003@netnews.attbi.com... In article <etRAb.3654$nm6.19049@news.indigo.ie>, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote: No, the President ate what the troops ate. You might try reading the news instead of just looking at the pictures. I read the news every day, and watch it too. Pictures can also be very revealing, Steve, particularly when someone has been lying through their teeth. I'll resist the temptation to say that I don't have a picture of you right now, but I still know ... Bush ate what the troops ate. The turkey was there for show. There's one for show in every mess hall on T-day.

But one got the booby prize, and had TWO turkeys in their mess hall. <eg>

Helen
steve

"Steve White" <steve@spam.me.never> wrote in message
news:steve-4D203E.13421006122003@netnews.attbi.com... In article <jJmAb.3490$nm6.18453@news.indigo.ie>, "helicon" <helicon@eircom.net> wrote: We'll figure it out. Might be buried in the Bekaa. In the meantime, you make the point nicely -- intel is never 100% sure about anything. LOL - you don't say!
<snip>
How's that stockpile of nuclear armaments growing, Steve? The ones that we're decommissioning, you mean? We have far fewer of these weapons now compared to twenty years ago.

Have you read this?

"Congress, with only a limited debate, has given the Bush administration a
green light for the biggest revitalization of the country's nuclear weapons
program since the end of the Cold War, leaving many Democrats and even some
hawkish Republicans seething.

"This has been a good year," said Linton Brooks, the administrator of the
National Nuclear Security Administration, which develops and manages the
country's nuclear weapons arsenal. "I'm pretty happy we essentially got what
we wanted."

Reversing a decade of restraint in nuclear weapons policy, Congress agreed
to provide more than $6 billion for research, expansion and upgrades in the
country's nuclear capabilities. While Congress approved large sums to
maintain the existing nuclear arsenal even during the Clinton years, this
year's increases will finance multiyear programs to design a new generation
of warheads as well as more sophisticated missiles, bombers and re-entry
vehicles to deliver them. "

and this

"A number of the new initiatives also bring the promise of increased
spending in the future. For instance, Congress approved increasing the
readiness of the Nevada Test Site, where weapons were tested underground
until a ban was put in place in 1992. The NNSA has estimated it would cost
as much as $83 million over three years to increase the level of readiness,
and an additional $25 million to $30 million a year to sustain that level.

Congress also approved with virtually no debate $320 million for
manufacturing new "pits," the plutonium cores of warheads, almost $90
million more than last year. More than $135 million was appropriated for a
program to keep tritium, a radioactive gas used to boost the power of
warheads, ready for weapons use and another $265 million for a broad
campaign to refurbish the facilities used to produce and maintain the
nuclear arsenal."

For the full article:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/12/07/MNG5Q3GH941.DTL



E-mail James Sterngold at jsterngold@sfchronicle.com.

©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback | FAQ


Helen


... remember Chernobyl, Steve? There were caesium deposits here in Ireland after that little blow - imagine THAT!) I believe it. It's "cesium", by the way. Oh but I *do* understand -your anthrax attacks came from within, with "made in the USA" stamped on every grain. Maybe; no one knows for sure, not the FBI, and not the outside experts (some of whom are European) who've been called in. Your leaders are very slow learners, though, making devastating mistakes everywhere they go, lying through their teeth to justify the unjustifiable. Yas, yas, so much better just to let the "Troubles" fester, eh? PS: what's the ethnic origin of the Prots in Northern Ireland? What are "Prots", Steve? Do you mean *Protestants*, by any chance? As an Irishwoman you would know the term better than I. Or at least should. Some Northern Irish Protestants had ancestors who were 'planted' in the North by the English Establishment - from Scotland and from the Isle of Man, to oust the native population. Change "some" to "many" and we're in violent agreement :-) Most Protestants in the North - particularly in the Church of Ireland, for example, would refer to themselves as Northern *Irish*. I refer to myself as an American, though my ancestry is northern European. Some Presbyterians would have strong links with Scotland, and there is a very strong anti-Catholic bias in parts of Glasgow so they feel that they are amongst their own there when they visit. They mutually massage each other's bigotries on special occasions, like the Twelfth of July, for example. Much as the IRA massages its bigotries when amongst their cousins to the south. steve

In article <2jabtvg081ip6lu94sd81il3bekp2d501h@4ax.com>, pb...
<woodlark-99@newsguy.com> writes:
Because they already charge troops for their meals...poor kids have to BUYmeal tickets. Disgusting. We demand they risk their lives for "their country"and yet we charge them for the food to keep them going. Care to research thenumber of members in the armed services who *must* rely on food stamps toget by...as in survive?

Wrong, Patty. If they are deployed, their rations are free, because they do
not get paid separate rations. If they are getting paid separate rations, then
yes, they must pay. They are paid a daily rate that will buy three squares at
a military dining hall. I suppose you are referring to the media blitz about
soldiers paying for meals in the hospital. They get paid an extra allowance to
pay it. When bson was born I paid nothing because I wasn't drawing separate
rations I had a meal card that got me meals in the chow hall for free. When
my youngest was born, I paid $7.10 a day because I was drawing separate rations
of guess how much? $7.10 a day!

Jeannette, bmom

Forgiveness does not change the past, but it does enlarge the future.
Paul Boese


The Animal Rescue Site - Feed An Animal In Need
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/CTDSites

On 09 Dec 2003 12:33:59 GMT, jrobnett1@aol.combustible (Jrobnett1) writes:
In article <2jabtvg081ip6lu94sd81il3bekp2d501h@4ax.com>, pb...<woodlark-99@newsguy.com> writes:Because they already charge troops for their meals...poor kids have to BUYmeal tickets. Disgusting. We demand they risk their lives for "their country"and yet we charge them for the food to keep them going. Care to research thenumber of members in the armed services who *must* rely on food stamps toget by...as in survive?Wrong, Patty. If they are deployed, their rations are free, because they donot get paid separate rations. If they are getting paid separate rations, thenyes, they must pay. They are paid a daily rate that will buy three squares ata military dining hall. I suppose you are referring to the media blitz aboutsoldiers paying for meals in the hospital.

Actually, not, Jeannette...my info came directly from the mom of a deployed
Marine. Re the food stamps, etc., that comes from a number of friends who
have military family members who can barely make ends meet.
They get paid an extra allowance topay it. When bson was born I paid nothing because I wasn't drawing separaterations I had a meal card that got me meals in the chow hall for free. Whenmy youngest was born, I paid $7.10 a day because I was drawing separate rationsof guess how much? $7.10 a day!Jeannette, bmom

Long overdue...Thank you, Jeannette, for your service to our country. The
US would be in a very sad state without the armed services - all volunteer!
- who watch over us. Should you be wondering, I am quite sincere in my
thanks to you.

pb...
Forgiveness does not change the past, but it does enlarge the future.Paul BoeseThe Animal Rescue Site - Feed An Animal In Needhttp://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/CTDSites