What to do about North Korea...? [Archive]

Bob Fry

July 5th 06, 12:41 AM

>>>>> "JH" == Jay Honeck > writes:

JH> While the world's attention has been diverted to Iraq and
JH> Gaza, I think the real nightmare scenario is developing in
JH> North Korea.

Hmmmmm.....no. N. Korea is an isolated society controlled by a few
kooks without a cause that inspires followers. True, the worst case
is they shoot a couple of nukes off, let's say one in Asia, another to
the US...followed with massive retaliation by the US. A much more
likely scenario is they keep making threats until we can get some
practical people in the White House, replacing the current idelogues,
who will actually talk to the kooks and see what they really want (my
guess is some assurance they won't be invaded).

But the islamo-facist scenario is more profound, longer lasting, and
insidious. There are, what, a billion+ followers of Islam, the large
majority of which don't much care for what they think Western culture
is. There are probably many hundreds of thousands who would eagerly
take up arms against us, and many thousands who would volunteer to die
against the "crusaders and jews".

Furthermore, pretty much all countries (except a few extremists)
understand NK is a problem. But Bush and crew have managed to convert
a great deal of world sympathy and support against terrorism into
something between hostility and indifference to our unilateral
"efforts", which, in the case of Iraq, have almost certainly
encouraged and aided the islamic fanatics.

Jose[_1_]

July 5th 06, 01:10 AM

> But the islamo-facist scenario is more profound, longer lasting, and
> insidious. There are, what, a billion+ followers of Islam, the large
> majority of which don't much care for what they think Western culture
> is. There are probably many hundreds of thousands who would eagerly
> take up arms against us, and many thousands who would volunteer to die
> against the "crusaders and jews".

The widespread (though perhaps not strongly felt) Arab support for the
first invasion, after the little Kuwait incident, argues against this
rather bigoted position. It seems to me that our response to the 9-11
vandals has created or at least amplified a lot of the anti-US
sentiment, and made it far more difficult to mitigate that sentiment in
the next fifty years.

We get stung by a wasp.
In retalliation, we find a hornet nest and beat it to a pulp, with
predictable results, while shouting "Bad bees, bad bees!"

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Stubby

July 5th 06, 01:16 AM

Bob Noel

July 5th 06, 01:26 AM

In article >, Bob Fry >
wrote:

> JH> While the world's attention has been diverted to Iraq and
> JH> Gaza, I think the real nightmare scenario is developing in
> JH> North Korea.
>
> Hmmmmm.....no. N. Korea is an isolated society controlled by a few
> kooks without a cause that inspires followers. True, the worst case
> is they shoot a couple of nukes off, let's say one in Asia, another to
> the US...followed with massive retaliation by the US.

While it is true that N. Korea is probably not our biggest nightmare
in the long term, they still present a very real near term threat.

> A much more
> likely scenario is they keep making threats until we can get some
> practical people in the White House, replacing the current idelogues,
> who will actually talk to the kooks and see what they really want (my
> guess is some assurance they won't be invaded).

Don't make the mistake of assuming that others are operating by
roughly the same motivations as us. Sometimes diplomacy will
work, but it requires that the other side is actually interested in
peace.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Bob Noel

July 5th 06, 01:31 AM

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> It seems to me that our response to the 9-11
> vandals

"vandals"???

That is simply the dumbest characterization of the low-life scum
that I've ever heard. You make Mikey look like a genius.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Jose[_1_]

July 5th 06, 02:01 AM

> "vandals"???
>
> That is simply the dumbest characterization of the low-life scum
> that I've ever heard. You make Mikey look like a genius.

I use that particular charactarization here because I mean to emphasize
that the attack was planned and carried out by a small number of people,
not by a nation, or even a sizable religious group. Although they claim
to do it in the name of that sizable group, just like the abortion
clinic bombers do their thing in the name of their sizable group, I do
not believe that their actions reflect the actual positions of that
group. (yes, you can find in the Koran... you can also find in the
Bible...)

It was an act of mass murder by a small group, not an act of war by a
nation. While this may not matter to those who died, it should matter
very much to those who decide our response. However, our response
ultimately was to use this independent act to bolster our bravado
against a =different=, lookalike enemy. Now we wonder why they hate us
so much more. (and yes, I believe they hate us =more= now than they did
before, and with reason).

Religious fundamentalism, of all kinds, is extremely dangerous,
insidious, and difficult to root out. Bob Fry (IMHO) is correct in
this, and also the facts he presents appear reasonable, but the
inference that most all of the Islamic people are our enemy, and always
were, is all too easy to make from his presentation, and that would be
incorrect.

> True, the worst case
> is they shoot a couple of nukes off, let's say one in Asia, another to
> the US...followed with massive retaliation by the US.

Were the US to even =attempt= to retalliate with nukes would be a
disaster and make us the enemy of the world. A massive conventional war
against Korea is more likely to succeed, though our miltary history in
the last sixty years is not inspiring (and a loss here would also be a
huge disaster). Doing nothing would also be a disaster if Korea
attacked, whereas doing nothing would =not= have been a disaster after
9-11. Which I suppose is my point.

I think it is possible to contain the Korea threat. It is simple, it is
based on known principles (nations wanting power over other nations),
and it is basically military.

The threat of religious fundamentalism is far more subtle, and dealing
with it properly goes fundamentally against our (stated) principles.
This is why [warning - aviation content] we ourselves have the FRZ,
ADIZ, and other silly rules to follow, under penalty of an F-15.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Kyle Boatright

July 5th 06, 02:13 AM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> > I wonder what our Air Force guys in South Korea are doing right now...
>>
>> Sounds like they are watching missiles fail mid-flight according to CNN.
>> :-)
>>
>> I was sort of hoping we'd use this occasion for some live tests of our
>> anti-missile laser and missile systems. It would be nice to have some
>> free targets for a change.
>
> I wish I could feel so confident about this thing.
>
> While the world's attention has been diverted to Iraq and Gaza, I think
> the real nightmare scenario is developing in North Korea.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

I think the nut-jobs in North Korea will use their technology for blackmail.
They are bright enough to realize that if they ever pop of a ballistic
missile or a nuke at anyone, they will be out of power quickly because the
leadership cadre will be dead - squashed like a bug. In the end, staying in
power is their goal and being dead doesn't help that cause. So, instead of
lighting off their toys, they will rattle swords to blackmail the West and
their neighbors for various forms of aid which will serve to keep the little
gargoyle Kim El Jong in power.

The islamists, on the other hand, particularly the ones who have gone over
to the 99.99% extreme of their religion actually believe that dying is a
good thing if it is done in a way that kills infidels. If those people ever
get the bomb, I think they will use it if they get a chance.

Bob Fry

July 5th 06, 02:29 AM

>>>>> "Stubby" == Stubby > writes:
Stubby> I suspect our Special Ops crews are preparing for very
Stubby> secret missions to disable many components of NK's threat.

I suspect you've absorbed too many action movies.

Special Ops crews are not superhuman, and the NK's are not some
3rd-world banana republic.

Allen[_1_]

July 5th 06, 02:43 AM

"Jose" > wrote in message
.com...
>that our response to the 9-11 vandals has created or at least amplified a
lot of the anti-US

"Vandals"?

Dan Luke

July 5th 06, 02:50 AM

"Kyle Boatright" wrote:

> The islamists, on the other hand, particularly the ones who have gone over
> to the 99.99% extreme of their religion actually believe that dying is a
> good thing if it is done in a way that kills infidels. If those people
> ever get the bomb, I think they will use it if they get a chance.

That is why the situation in Pakistan is potentially far more dangerous than
either N. Korea or Iran.

Pakistan is a nuclear power *now*, and is only a quick coup away from having
radical Islamists in power. What will the U. S. do if we wake up tomorrow
to find Pervez Musharraf overthrown and the Mullahs in charge? Certainly,
our options will be restricted by the effort being wasted in Iraq, and the
re-emerging Taliban problem that that useless war has permitted to rise in
Afghanistan.

At a time when we need to be light on our feet, we are stuck in a tar-pit:

"We are not controlling events in Iraq. Events in Iraq are controlling us.
We are the puppet; the street gangs of Baghdad and Basra are the
puppet-masters, aided and abetted by an unsavory assortment of confidence
men, bazaar traders, scheming clerics, ethnic front men, and Iranian agents.
With all our wealth and power and idealism, we have submitted to become the
plaything of a rabble, and a Middle Eastern rabble at that. [ ] The
lazy-minded evangelico-romanticism of George W. Bush, the bureaucratic will
to power of Donald Rumsfeld, the avuncular condescension of Dick Cheney, and
the reflexive military deference of Colin Powell combined to get us into a
situation we never wanted to be in, a situation no self-respecting nation
ought to be in, a situation we don't know how to get out of."

-John Derbyshire, National Review Online, June 12th, 2006

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Matt Whiting

July 5th 06, 02:55 AM

Dan Luke wrote:

> "Kyle Boatright" wrote:
>
>
>>The islamists, on the other hand, particularly the ones who have gone over
>>to the 99.99% extreme of their religion actually believe that dying is a
>>good thing if it is done in a way that kills infidels. If those people
>>ever get the bomb, I think they will use it if they get a chance.
>
>
> That is why the situation in Pakistan is potentially far more dangerous than
> either N. Korea or Iran.
>
> Pakistan is a nuclear power *now*, and is only a quick coup away from having
> radical Islamists in power. What will the U. S. do if we wake up tomorrow
> to find Pervez Musharraf overthrown and the Mullahs in charge? Certainly,
> our options will be restricted by the effort being wasted in Iraq, and the
> re-emerging Taliban problem that that useless war has permitted to rise in
> Afghanistan.
>
> At a time when we need to be light on our feet, we are stuck in a tar-pit:
>
> "We are not controlling events in Iraq. Events in Iraq are controlling us.
> We are the puppet; the street gangs of Baghdad and Basra are the
> puppet-masters, aided and abetted by an unsavory assortment of confidence
> men, bazaar traders, scheming clerics, ethnic front men, and Iranian agents.
> With all our wealth and power and idealism, we have submitted to become the
> plaything of a rabble, and a Middle Eastern rabble at that. [ ] The
> lazy-minded evangelico-romanticism of George W. Bush, the bureaucratic will
> to power of Donald Rumsfeld, the avuncular condescension of Dick Cheney, and
> the reflexive military deference of Colin Powell combined to get us into a
> situation we never wanted to be in, a situation no self-respecting nation
> ought to be in, a situation we don't know how to get out of."
>
> -John Derbyshire, National Review Online, June 12th, 2006

What a bunch of crap.

Matt

Dan Luke

July 5th 06, 03:23 AM

"Matt Whiting" wrote:

>
> What a bunch of crap.

Couldn't very well call it a bunch of left wing crap, could you?

I'm sure you remember...

"Mission accomplished!"
- Banner welcoming George W. Bush aboard the USS Lincoln, May, 2003?

But now listen to the dean of American conservative journalism:

"One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed."
--Wm. F. Buckley, February, 2006

It takes some very intense denial to see the invasion of Iraq as anything
but a grotesque blunder. Even serious American conservative thinkers are
beginning to admit this. Now, the harm done is becoming evident: American
power and international influence--squandered in Iraq--are in short supply
when needed to confront *real* threats.

--
Dan

"Hell hath no fury like a noncombatant."
-Mitchell Coffey

Blanche Cohen

July 5th 06, 04:39 AM

I have no doubt there are US & Russian subs, just waiting around
to pick up the rockets and other debris...From what I understand,
the NK guidance system is only slightly better than the cruise control
on my car.

John[_3_]

July 5th 06, 05:50 AM

Quilljar wrote:

>>While the world's attention has been diverted to Iraq and Gaza, I
>>think the real nightmare scenario is developing in North Korea.
>
>
> Or Guantalamo Bay?

Guantalamo (sic) Bay is producing its own sovereign long range nuclear
weapons of mass destruction delivery system?

John[_3_]

July 5th 06, 05:53 AM

Jose wrote:

>> But the islamo-facist scenario is more profound, longer lasting, and
>> insidious. There are, what, a billion+ followers of Islam, the large
>> majority of which don't much care for what they think Western culture
>> is. There are probably many hundreds of thousands who would eagerly
>> take up arms against us, and many thousands who would volunteer to die
>> against the "crusaders and jews".
>
>
> The widespread (though perhaps not strongly felt) Arab support for the
> first invasion, after the little Kuwait incident, argues against this
> rather bigoted position. It seems to me that our response to the 9-11
> vandals has created or at least amplified a lot of the anti-US
> sentiment, and made it far more difficult to mitigate that sentiment in
> the next fifty years.
>
> We get stung by a wasp.
> In retalliation, we find a hornet nest and beat it to a pulp, with
> predictable results, while shouting "Bad bees, bad bees!"

I've been stung by a wasp and the sting was gone a few days later. I
don't recall having to go to any funerals for it, as I did after 9/11.
And so many others did as well. I've had to clean up vandalism from my
store. While a pain and an insurance hassle, that doesn't matter a damn
compared to burying someone you love. Too bad you can equate the two so
easily. Have a nice day.

John[_3_]

July 5th 06, 06:00 AM

Dan Luke wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" wrote:
>
>
>>What a bunch of crap.
>
>
> Couldn't very well call it a bunch of left wing crap, could you?

Wouldn't make any difference any more than distinguishing cow manure
from horse manure.

>
> I'm sure you remember...
>
> "Mission accomplished!"
> - Banner welcoming George W. Bush aboard the USS Lincoln, May, 2003?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but in May 2003, the USS Lincoln *was*
returning home (to its home port in Washington). Its mission certainly
was acccomplished, and with pride. Please try to pay attention with a
little more care.

>
> But now listen to the dean of American conservative journalism:
>
> "One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed."
> --Wm. F. Buckley, February, 2006

And who elected this genius "dean?" I missed that election.

>
> It takes some very intense denial to see the invasion of Iraq as anything
> but a grotesque blunder. Even serious American conservative thinkers are
> beginning to admit this. Now, the harm done is becoming evident: American
> power and international influence--squandered in Iraq--are in short supply
> when needed to confront *real* threats.

Uh huh. So sorry to see a tyrant committing atrocities on his own
people disposed of to a courtroom, I see. Probably much easier for you
to turn your back on it and pretend otherwise. Conversely, I think it
is a good thing, no, a great thing, that someone who maintained
political control through rape rooms and lobbing off ears, not to
mention horrible God-awful unspeakable pain through torture is out of
the picture. Think how much you would want your wife, sister, mother,
daughter to be raped by henchman of the state to influence you because
you are "suspected" of being not completely loyal to a dictator.
>

John[_3_]

July 5th 06, 06:01 AM

Bob Fry wrote:

>>>>>>"Stubby" == Stubby > writes:
>
> Stubby> I suspect our Special Ops crews are preparing for very
> Stubby> secret missions to disable many components of NK's threat.
>
> I suspect you've absorbed too many action movies.
>
> Special Ops crews are not superhuman, and the NK's are not some
> 3rd-world banana republic.

2nd world isolated starving trash heap, courtesey of its wonderful
leadership, would be more accurate.

Jose[_1_]

July 5th 06, 06:12 AM

> I've been stung by a wasp and the sting was gone a few days later. I don't recall having to go to any funerals for it..

It was a metaphor. It was addressing our counterproductive response -
beating up a hornet's nest while shouting "bad bees".

> I've had to clean up vandalism from my store. While a pain and an insurance hassle, that doesn't matter a damn compared to burying someone you love. Too bad you can equate the two so easily. Have a nice day.

Every death is tragic, and I have not been untouched by it either. But
using that murder for political gain, avenging a death by going to war
against those who did not commit the murder, is wrong, and will only
cause more tragedy in the future.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Montblack[_1_]

July 5th 06, 07:17 AM

("John" wrote)
> Sorry to burst your bubble, but in May 2003, the USS Lincoln *was*
> returning home (to its home port in Washington). Its mission certainly
> was acccomplished, and with pride. Please try to pay attention with a
> little more care.

I do pay attention!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/29/iraq/main580661.shtml
The lie(s).

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/30/politics/main614998.shtml
The truth.

The Pentagon lied to protect the president. If they lied over something this
stoooopid, don't you think they will also lie when it really matters? YES,
they will.

Montblack

Thomas Borchert

July 5th 06, 10:00 AM

Jay,

> a POW camp
> in Cuba?
>

There is a POW camp at Gitmo?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Matt Whiting

July 5th 06, 11:56 AM

Dan Luke wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" wrote:
>
>
>>What a bunch of crap.
>
>
> Couldn't very well call it a bunch of left wing crap, could you?

Crap is crap. The source isn't relevant.

Matt

Dan Luke

July 5th 06, 12:56 PM

"John" wrote:

> Dan Luke wrote:

[snip]
>>
>> I'm sure you remember...
>>
>> "Mission accomplished!"
>> - Banner welcoming George W. Bush aboard the USS Lincoln, May, 2003?
>
> Sorry to burst your bubble, but in May 2003, the USS Lincoln *was*
> returning home (to its home port in Washington). Its mission certainly
> was acccomplished, and with pride. Please try to pay attention with a
> little more care.

Utter baloney. The Bush appearance aboard the Lincoln was a cynically
arranged propaganda show, meant to pump up the President's image with the
lie that something of value to the U. S. had been accomplished in Iraq.

[snip]

>> It takes some very intense denial to see the invasion of Iraq as anything
>> but a grotesque blunder. Even serious American conservative thinkers are
>> beginning to admit this. Now, the harm done is becoming evident:
>> American power and international influence--squandered in Iraq--are in
>> short supply when needed to confront *real* threats.
>
> Uh huh. So sorry to see a tyrant committing atrocities on his own people
> disposed of to a courtroom, I see. Probably much easier for you to turn
> your back on it and pretend otherwise. Conversely, I think it is a good
> thing, no, a great thing, that someone who maintained political control
> through rape rooms and lobbing off ears, not to mention horrible God-awful
> unspeakable pain through torture is out of the picture. Think how much
> you would want your wife, sister, mother, daughter to be raped by henchman
> of the state to influence you because you are "suspected" of being not
> completely loyal to a dictator.

That is a feeble attempt to dodge the real issue: America's security has
been profoundly harmed by the fiasco in Iraq. Beyond the wasted lives,
resources and diplomatic capital, our own National Intelligence Council has
concluded that the war has created a vast new terrorist training and
recruiting ground where none existed bfore:
============================
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7460-2005Jan13.html

Iraq provides terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, the
opportunity for enhancing technical skills," said David B. Low, the national
intelligence officer for transnational threats. "There is even, under the
best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are
not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will
therefore disperse to various other countries."
=============================

It is dishonest of Bush/Cheney apologists to pretend that the U. S. went to
Iraq to "save" its people from Saddam. Even worse is the apologists'
attempt to portray critics of the war as indifferent to that people's
suffering.

The world is full of evil dictators; it is not America's duty to depose them
by force and rebuild nations when they are gone--if indeed such
nation-building is even possible, which events in Iraq cast into extreme
doubt.

--
Dan

"These are exciting times for the Iraqi people!"
-George W. Bush

Flyingmonk[_1_]

July 5th 06, 01:00 PM

Jay Honeck wrote:
> Uh oh:
>
> <http://makeashorterlink.com/?I50915D5D>
>
> The news is reporting that they've launched FOUR missiles now --
> possibly one that can reach the U.S. mainland...
>
> I wonder what our Air Force guys in South Korea are doing right now...
>
> :-(
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Greg Sheridan in The Australian July 05, 2006
Burma seeks nuclear weapons alliance with N Korea

BURMA'S military junta has attempted to buy nuclear weapons technology
from North Korea's rogue regime in an alliance that presents a
frightening new threat to regional security.
The US issued a heavy-handed warning to Burmese military dictator Than
Shwe to cease and desist all such activities after discovering
Rangoon's bid late last year.

The prospect of the two pariah states of Asia joining together has
alarmed Western intelligence agencies, with the US privately
circulating a draft resolution condemning Burma's actions for the UN
Security Council.

The terms of the resolution would say that Burma constituted a "threat
to peace and security".

This would be a Chapter Six resolution, which does not imply that the
Security Council would authorise the use of force against Burma or move

directly to sanctions. But it would be the first time Burma has been
formally censured by the Security Council. It is understood that no
nuclear material has been transferred.

North Korea, which is believed to possess six or seven nuclear weapons,

has engaged in tense brinkmanship with the US, recently threatening to
launch a new generation of Taepodong missile.

If the North Koreans are able to miniaturise their nuclear weapons
sufficiently, they will eventually be able to place them on Taepodong
missiles, which are capable of reaching some targets in the US and
Australia.

Intelligence sources confirmed to The Australian that the Burmese
military had a booming relationship with the North Korean military.
Burma and North Korea do not have formal diplomatic relations. These
were broken in 1983 when, in an act of state terrorism, the North
Koreans detonated a bomb in Rangoon which killed most of the visiting
South Korean cabinet.

But Than Shwe and the equally eccentric and reclusive North Korean
leader, Kim Jong-il, have been engaged in intensive proxy diplomacy
designed to re-establish formal diplomatic relations between the two
states.

Western intelligence agencies believe Burma gets surface-to-air
missiles, artillery and small arms from North Korea. The Burmese have
also asked the Koreans for Scud missile technology.

The highly secretive Burmese state maintains the biggest army in
Southeast Asia, with a regular military estimated at about half a
million people and a paramilitary force of some 100,000.

Diplomatic observers do not believe the US resolution at this stage
would pass at the Security Council because China would oppose and, if
necessary, veto it.

However, presenting it publicly would acutely embarrass Burma's
defenders, especially China.

The resolution makes no specific mention of Burma's nuclear ambitions.
Instead it focuses on Burma's human rights abuses, which led to the
outflow of large numbers of refugees. Because of the poor state of
Burma's health services, many of these refugees are HIV-positive.

Burma also threatens international security through its drug-growing
activities. Australian authorities believe much of the heroin sold in
Australia is grown in Burma.

Apart from China, which has deep strategic interests in Burma, some
Third World members of the Security Council may also object to a
resolution based mainly on the internal human rights record of a member

nation.

Burma has also made separate inquiries with Russia over the possibility

of developing a peaceful nuclear power industry. At different times the

Burmese have denied this. The Russians are

believed to have been unresponsive to the Burmese requests.

Their lack of embassies in each other's countries has not inhibited the

development of the military-to-military relationship.

This growing relationship is ofacute concern to Western intelligence.

Both Burma and North Korea have their chief external strategic
relationship with China.

China sees Burma as an important strategic asset.

Much Chinese diplomacy has centred on energy security and Burma offers
China substantial oil and gas reserves.

Burma also offers China strategic reach into the Indian Ocean through
access to its naval ports.

It also provides China with enhanced intelligence capabilities through
intelligence establishments, especially on the Burmese border with
India.

Burma's ruling military junta has become increasingly erratic and
unpredictable in recent years. Last year, it moved its entire capital
from Rangoon to Pyinmana in central Burma andbuilt a new capital,
virtually from scratch.

This was apparently because it feared a US attack on Rangoon, but the
timing of the move, which was scheduled to within a minute, was
reportedly determined by astrological readings.

At the same time as cracking down on the opposition National League for

Democracy, headed by imprisoned Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, the
Burmese regime has intensified a vicious war against the Karen and
other ethnic minorities.

The other nine members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
are increasingly frustrated with Burma.

Malaysia's Foreign Minister, Syed Hamid, called last month for the UN
to take responsibility for encouraging the Rangoon junta towards
greater openness and moderation.

This call represents a humiliation for ASEAN and a realisation that the

strategy of reforming Burma through ASEAN membership has failed.

Some ASEAN leaders have asked US President George W.Bush to take a hard

line on Burma to help break the paralysis on political movement within
the country.

The Americans are considering convening a meeting of like-minded
nations to discuss Burma at ministerial level at this year's ASEAN
meetings, scheduled to take place in Kuala Lumpur later this month.

Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer has committed to attend
this meeting.

The Japanese and some members of ASEAN are likely to beinvited.

Mr Downer is also likely to meet Burma's Foreign Minister in Kuala
Lumpur.

Last November, the UN Security Council met privately for a briefing on
Burma from a member of the UN Secretariat, the first time the Security
Council had considered Burma, even informally.

The international mood is hardening against Burma and this could result

in renewed calls to expel it from ASEAN.

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||

Monk

Matt Barrow[_1_]

July 5th 06, 01:54 PM

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kyle Boatright" wrote:
>
>> The islamists, on the other hand, particularly the ones who have gone
>> over to the 99.99% extreme of their religion actually believe that dying
>> is a good thing if it is done in a way that kills infidels. If those
>> people ever get the bomb, I think they will use it if they get a chance.
>
> That is why the situation in Pakistan is potentially far more dangerous
> than either N. Korea or Iran.
>
> Pakistan is a nuclear power *now*, and is only a quick coup away from
> having radical Islamists in power. What will the U. S. do if we wake up
> tomorrow to find Pervez Musharraf overthrown and the Mullahs in charge?
> Certainly, our options will be restricted by the effort being wasted in
> Iraq, and the re-emerging Taliban problem that that useless war has
> permitted to rise in Afghanistan.
>
> At a time when we need to be light on our feet, we are stuck in a tar-pit:
>
> "We are not controlling events in Iraq. Events in Iraq are controlling
> us. We are the puppet; the street gangs of Baghdad and Basra are the
> puppet-masters, aided and abetted by an unsavory assortment of confidence
> men, bazaar traders, scheming clerics, ethnic front men, and Iranian
> agents. With all our wealth and power and idealism, we have submitted to
> become the plaything of a rabble, and a Middle Eastern rabble at that.
> [ ] The lazy-minded evangelico-romanticism of George W. Bush, the
> bureaucratic will to power of Donald Rumsfeld, the avuncular condescension
> of Dick Cheney, and the reflexive military deference of Colin Powell
> combined to get us into a situation we never wanted to be in, a situation
> no self-respecting nation ought to be in, a situation we don't know how to
> get out of."
>
> -John Derbyshire, National Review Online, June 12th, 2006
>
This same Derbyshire?

"Does it not occur to you liberals, not even
for a passing instant, that by purging all
sacred images, references, and words
from our public life, you are leaving us
with nothing but a cold temple presided
over by the Goddess of Reason • that
counterfeit deity who, as history has
proved time and time and time again,
inspires no affection, retains no loyalties,
soothes no grief, justifies no sacrifice,
gives no comfort, extends no charity,
displays no pity, and offers no hope,
except to the tiny cliques of fanatical
ideologues who tend her cold blue
flame." -- John Derbyshire
http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire082503.asp

Looks like they left the door unlocked at the funny farm again.

Dan Luke

July 5th 06, 01:55 PM

"Bob Noel" wrote:

>
> Don't make the mistake of assuming that others are operating by
> roughly the same motivations as us. Sometimes diplomacy will
> work, but it requires that the other side is actually interested in
> peace.

And that the other side's leadership is even rational. There is considerable
evidence that Kim Jong Il is nuts.

--
Dan

'Gut feeling'

Intestinologists concur that the human gut does not contain any
rational thoughts.

What the human gut *is* full of is moderately well
known.

Matt Barrow[_1_]

July 5th 06, 01:56 PM

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("John" wrote)
>> Sorry to burst your bubble, but in May 2003, the USS Lincoln *was*
>> returning home (to its home port in Washington). Its mission certainly
>> was acccomplished, and with pride. Please try to pay attention with a
>> little more care.
>
>
> I do pay attention!
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/29/iraq/main580661.shtml
> The lie(s).
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/30/politics/main614998.shtml
> The truth.
>
> The Pentagon lied to protect the president. If they lied over something
> this stoooopid, don't you think they will also lie when it really matters?
> YES, they will.

Ah, yes...CBS News, home of Dan Rather.

<Giggle>

Matt Barrow[_1_]

July 5th 06, 01:58 PM

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Noel" wrote:
>
>>
>> Don't make the mistake of assuming that others are operating by
>> roughly the same motivations as us. Sometimes diplomacy will
>> work, but it requires that the other side is actually interested in
>> peace.
>
> And that the other side's leadership is even rational. There is
> considerable evidence that Kim Jong Il is nuts.
>

Yes, Jong Mentally Il is nuts.

So what do we do about it?

Maule Driver

July 5th 06, 03:03 PM

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
>>"We are not controlling events in Iraq. Events in Iraq are controlling
>>us. We are the puppet; the street gangs of Baghdad and Basra are the
>>puppet-masters, aided and abetted by an unsavory assortment of confidence
>>men, bazaar traders, scheming clerics, ethnic front men, and Iranian
>>agents. With all our wealth and power and idealism, we have submitted to
>>become the plaything of a rabble, and a Middle Eastern rabble at that.
>>[ ] The lazy-minded evangelico-romanticism of George W. Bush, the
>>bureaucratic will to power of Donald Rumsfeld, the avuncular condescension
>>of Dick Cheney, and the reflexive military deference of Colin Powell
>>combined to get us into a situation we never wanted to be in, a situation
>>no self-respecting nation ought to be in, a situation we don't know how to
>>get out of."
>>
>>-John Derbyshire, National Review Online, June 12th, 2006
> This same Derbyshire?
>
> "Does it not occur to you liberals, not even
> for a passing instant, that by purging all
> sacred images, references, and words
> from our public life, you are leaving us
> with nothing but a cold temple presided
> over by the Goddess of Reason • that
> counterfeit deity who, as history has
> proved time and time and time again,
> inspires no affection, retains no loyalties,
> soothes no grief, justifies no sacrifice,
> gives no comfort, extends no charity,
> displays no pity, and offers no hope,
> except to the tiny cliques of fanatical
> ideologues who tend her cold blue
> flame." -- John Derbyshire
> http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire082503.asp
>
> Looks like they left the door unlocked at the funny farm again.
>
Sounds like a right fine mind to me. Extreme? yes. Wrong side? yes.
But not even close to the funny farm. Let's stop 'dissing' our
thinkers and communicators and focus on the content.

Gig 601XL Builder

July 5th 06, 04:37 PM

"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
>
> Hmmmmm.....no. N. Korea is an isolated society controlled by a few
> kooks without a cause that inspires followers. True, the worst case
> is they shoot a couple of nukes off, let's say one in Asia, another to
> the US...followed with massive retaliation by the US. A much more
> likely scenario is they keep making threats until we can get some
> practical people in the White House, replacing the current idelogues,
> who will actually talk to the kooks and see what they really want (my
> guess is some assurance they won't be invaded).
>

You call them kooks and in the same paragraph assume that what they really
want is something reasonable. Do you not see error in logic there?

Gig 601XL Builder

July 5th 06, 04:40 PM

"Blanche Cohen" > wrote in message
...
>I have no doubt there are US & Russian subs, just waiting around
> to pick up the rockets and other debris...From what I understand,
> the NK guidance system is only slightly better than the cruise control
> on my car.

I think your cars cruise control is better. Has your car blown up?

AES

July 5th 06, 09:38 PM

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > True, the worst case
> > is they shoot a couple of nukes off, let's say one in Asia, another to
> > the US...followed with massive retaliation by the US.
>
> Were the US to even =attempt= to retalliate with nukes would be a
> disaster and make us the enemy of the world . . .
>
> I think it is possible to contain the Korea threat. It is simple, it is
> based on known principles (nations wanting power over other nations),
> and it is basically military.

1) I'd sure like to understand what the South Korean govt and the South
Korean people -- the players who really right up against the DMZ --
really, really think about the whole North Korean situation?

The SK govt is by no means intrinsically stupid or evil, and the SK
people are fairly free, well informed about the world, and quite savvy.
Together they've done very well in other areas; I wonder what their
views on this overwhelming and overhanging situation are.

2) As for the nuclear situation, viewed more broadly: IMHO the US
nuclear policy should be:

a) Decide, state explicitly and openly, and try to make clear we
really mean that our nation's basic nuclear policy is "No first use,
ever";

b) As a corollary of this, openly and verifiably get rid of all
existing tactical nukes (bunker-busters, artillery shells, other
nonsense) and terminate all programs developing such things;

c) At the same time maintain a modest but adequate array of strategic
nukes and especially the means to deliver them anywhere, any time,
worldwide and on quite short notice;

d) And finally let it be known, behind the scenes if not openly,
that the implicit corollary of "no first use" is pretty sure to mean,
for us, "more or less guaranteed (and forceful) second use", whether as
retaliation for a first-use attack on us, or as punishment for a first
use by someone else against someone else (or even, implied between the
lines, as punishment for an "innocent" nation that had let terrorist
elements use their nation as a base for planning or preparing a nuclear
terrorist act carried out against us).

The purpose of (a) and (b) is to set a tone, set an example, get morally
aligned with the rest of the world.

The purpose of (c) and (d) is twofold:

--Make clear to rational rogue governments (e.g., Pakistan) that
spending resources on nuclear weapons will be ultimately worse than
useless; all they can do with them in the end is destroy themselves.

--More important, make clear to *all* governments, friend, foe, or just
on the sidelines that it's essential for their own long-term well-being
to control rogue groups who may try to operate within their borders, and
to join in international efforts to control rogue states, rational or
otherwise.

This last point seems to me probably the most important one of all.

Matt Whiting

July 5th 06, 09:51 PM

Dan Luke wrote:

> "John" wrote:
>
>
>>Dan Luke wrote:
>
>
> [snip]
>
>>>I'm sure you remember...
>>>
>>>"Mission accomplished!"
>>>- Banner welcoming George W. Bush aboard the USS Lincoln, May, 2003?
>>
>>Sorry to burst your bubble, but in May 2003, the USS Lincoln *was*
>>returning home (to its home port in Washington). Its mission certainly
>>was acccomplished, and with pride. Please try to pay attention with a
>>little more care.
>
>
> Utter baloney. The Bush appearance aboard the Lincoln was a cynically
> arranged propaganda show, meant to pump up the President's image with the
> lie that something of value to the U. S. had been accomplished in Iraq.

So what? Every politician from every party has done that since the
1800s. You make it sound like it is something unique to GWB or the
Republicans.

Matt

Matt Whiting

July 5th 06, 09:53 PM

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Bob Noel" wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Don't make the mistake of assuming that others are operating by
>>>roughly the same motivations as us. Sometimes diplomacy will
>>>work, but it requires that the other side is actually interested in
>>>peace.
>>
>>And that the other side's leadership is even rational. There is
>>considerable evidence that Kim Jong Il is nuts.
>>
>
>
> Yes, Jong Mentally Il is nuts.
>
> So what do we do about it?

I'd say nothing as long as he causes us no harm. The Chinese, Japanese,
Russians, Koreans, etc. have much more to be worried about than we, at
least at present.

Matt

Matt

Morgans[_1_]

July 6th 06, 01:41 AM

"AES" > wrote "Yada Yada Yada"

Mercy! A national defense expert, here on the aviation newsgroup!
What-da-ya think, we'll have next?
--
Jim in NC

Jose[_1_]

July 6th 06, 01:45 AM

> a) Decide, state explicitly and openly, and try to make clear we
> really mean that our nation's basic nuclear policy is "No first use,
> ever";

We did that. We changed our minds.

> The purpose of (a) and (b) is to set a tone, set an example, get morally
> aligned with the rest of the world.

For this to actually work, our word needs to be believed and respected
by the world. We have squandered whatever credibility we had and it
won't be coming back in the next fifty years.

> d) And finally let it be known, behind the scenes if not openly,
> that the implicit corollary of "no first use" is pretty sure to mean,
> for us, "more or less guaranteed (and forceful) second use", [...]
> as punishment for an "innocent" nation that had let terrorist
> elements use their nation as a base for planning or preparing a nuclear
> terrorist act carried out against us).

This is a morally repugnant position. It requires such nations to
maintain an equally repugnant repression in their homeland, lest we slay
millions of innocents for the momentary security lapse or acts of a
rogue few. We ourselves could not, and should not, live up to that
standard.

> More important, make clear to *all* governments, friend, foe, or just
> on the sidelines that it's essential for their own long-term well-being
> to control rogue groups who may try to operate within their borders, and
> to join in international efforts to control rogue states, rational or
> otherwise.
>
> This last point seems to me probably the most important one of all.

How would you propose that the United States do this on its own soil,
while preserving the freedoms we are killing our own children to purport
to export?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Bob Fry

July 6th 06, 01:54 AM

>>>>> "Jose" == Jose > writes:

Jose> respected by the world. We have squandered whatever
Jose> credibility we had and it won't be coming back in the next
Jose> fifty years.

I don't think so. Most of the world recognizes it is Bush and his
team that is acting in a rougish fashion. A level-headed moderate
president, not driven by religous or other dogma, could do a lot for
both the US and its relations with the world.

Alas, we don't seem to produce those candidates, and when we do, the
Midwest and South reject them.

george

July 6th 06, 05:58 AM

Morgans wrote:
> "AES" > wrote "Yada Yada Yada"
>
> Mercy! A national defense expert, here on the aviation newsgroup!
> What-da-ya think, we'll have next?

Some-one who posts on topic ?
though we shouldn't hold our breath

Neil Gould

July 6th 06, 12:45 PM

Recently, Bob Fry > posted:

>>>>>> "Jose" == Jose > writes:
>
> Jose> respected by the world. We have squandered whatever
> Jose> credibility we had and it won't be coming back in the next
> Jose> fifty years.
>
> I don't think so. Most of the world recognizes it is Bush and his
> team that is acting in a rougish fashion. A level-headed moderate
> president, not driven by religous or other dogma, could do a lot for
> both the US and its relations with the world.
>
> Alas, we don't seem to produce those candidates, and when we do, the
> Midwest and South reject them.
>
As I see it, the problem is that while critical fundamental principles
guiding our nation should not be up to the whim of particular politicians
or political parties, the reality is that they are. Therefore, once we
have shown a willingness to act in ways that are morally repugnant, there
is no guarantee that we won't do it again when the mood suits us. It is
completely reasonable for those outside our borders is to expect that at
some point we will again act in the worst ways that we have in the past.
50 years may not be long enough to provide convince others of our good
intentions, if one considers that we are the only nation on the planet to
nuke somebody, and we are still actively developing ways to nuke somebody
else.

A question to anyone in this discussion: if *you* were the leader of North
Korea, having US troops on your southern border for the last 50+ years;
with the leader of the US calling you one of the "Axis of Evil"; and
having invaded and destroyed a sovereign nation (also on the "Axis of
Evil" list, btw) on the most obviously bogus of pretenses, how would *you*
respond to protect your population? As I see it, it's a good thing NK
doesn't have any oil.

Neil

Bob Noel

July 6th 06, 02:00 PM

In article >,
"Neil Gould" > wrote:

> A question to anyone in this discussion: if *you* were the leader of North
> Korea, having US troops on your southern border for the last 50+ years;
> with the leader of the US calling you one of the "Axis of Evil"; and
> having invaded and destroyed a sovereign nation (also on the "Axis of
> Evil" list, btw) on the most obviously bogus of pretenses, how would *you*
> respond to protect your population?

do you actually think that the "leader" of NK has any interest in protecting
"his" population?

time for a reality check.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Bob Noel

July 6th 06, 02:04 PM

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > "vandals"???
> >
> > That is simply the dumbest characterization of the low-life scum
> > that I've ever heard. You make Mikey look like a genius.
>
> I use that particular charactarization here because I mean to emphasize
> that the attack was planned and carried out by a small number of people,
> not by a nation, or even a sizable religious group.

Then say so. Calling them vandals grossly misrepresents the problems
and the dangers. It's irresponsible.

[snip]
> Were the US to even =attempt= to retalliate with nukes would be a
> disaster and make us the enemy of the world.

according to you and others of your ilk, we are already the enemy of the world.

make up your mind

[snip]

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Jose[_1_]

July 6th 06, 02:18 PM

>> I use that particular charactarization here because I mean to emphasize
>> that the attack was planned and carried out by a small number of people,
>> not by a nation, or even a sizable religious group.

> Then say so. Calling them vandals grossly misrepresents the problems
> and the dangers. It's irresponsible.

Actually, I am looking from a larger point of view - that of injury to
the country, not to individuals. It is easy to react to the sense that
this minimizes the tragedy of those killed, however we are sending our
children to be killed in response; that is equally tragic.

It is "vandalism" in the sense that the attack was small and isolated
compared to the size and strength of our country, as opposed to, say,
the attack on Pearl Harbor, and also in the sense that it was
perpetrated by a few individuals, rather than by another nation.

As for being an irresponsible choice of words, I disagree. Perhaps
there is a better word, I didn't think of it. But we tend, as the
victims, to use terms that justify our subsequent response. That too is
irresponsible.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Bob Noel

July 6th 06, 03:11 PM

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > Then say so. Calling them vandals grossly misrepresents the problems
> > and the dangers. It's irresponsible.
>
> Actually, I am looking from a larger point of view - that of injury to
> the country, not to individuals.

Perhaps you should consider that protecting a country without
protecting its citizens is useles. Plug that into your alleged
larger view.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Morgans[_1_]

July 6th 06, 03:12 PM

"Neil Gould" > wrote

> As I see it, it's a good thing NK doesn't have any oil.

And with this statement, it shows how little you truly understand the whole
issue.

Amazing. Truly amazing.
--
Jim in NC

Jose[_1_]

July 6th 06, 03:29 PM

> Perhaps you should consider that protecting a country without
> protecting its citizens is useles.

This is true. What is your point? We are not protecting the country
against terrorism by beating the hornet's nest with a baseball bat - our
Iraq debacle is utter folly. The nature of that problem is quite
different than the nature of the North Korea problem.

And no, I don't have a solution. I do know that for diplomacy to work,
our word must be good and our "big stick" must be credible and
effective. To be effective, it must be a stick we are willing to use,
and one we can get away with using.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Neil Gould

July 6th 06, 04:52 PM

Recently, Morgans > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote
>
>> As I see it, it's a good thing NK doesn't have any oil.
>
> And with this statement, it shows how little you truly understand the
> whole issue.
>
Oh? The on-topic response to "the issue" is covered by what you deleted.

> Amazing. Truly amazing.
>
What's truly amazing is that you chose to respond to the joke and ignored
the basic points.

Neil

Neil Gould

July 6th 06, 05:01 PM

Recently, Bob Noel > posted:

> In article >,
> "Neil Gould" > wrote:
>
>> A question to anyone in this discussion: if *you* were the leader of
>> North Korea, having US troops on your southern border for the last
>> 50+ years; with the leader of the US calling you one of the "Axis of
>> Evil"; and having invaded and destroyed a sovereign nation (also on
>> the "Axis of Evil" list, btw) on the most obviously bogus of
>> pretenses, how would *you* respond to protect your population?
>
> do you actually think that the "leader" of NK has any interest in
> protecting "his" population?
>
Irrelevant. I wasn't asking about Kim Jong Il; I asked what *you* would
do.

> time for a reality check.
>
Indeed.

For starters, it would be a good idea to know approximately how wide the
Pacific Ocean is. Then compare that figure with the experts' opinions of
the range of the Taepodong-2 missile sans payload (which though it has
never been successfully flown, its "range" has been somehow increased
about 3x from their original statements). Then try to reconcile the
completely irresponsible claims being made about it being able to deliver
a nuclear weapon that could reach the lower 48 states.

You're being had yet again.

Neil

Bob Noel

July 6th 06, 06:15 PM

In article >,
"Neil Gould" > wrote:

> > do you actually think that the "leader" of NK has any interest in
> > protecting "his" population?
> >
> Irrelevant. I wasn't asking about Kim Jong Il; I asked what *you* would
> do.

well, such a question isn't relevant. Rationale sane people are not in charge
of the nk government.

but I, for one, wouldn't bother trying to **** off the USA. I wouldn't **** away
government funds on a worthless military weapon systems when millions of
my citizens are starving.

>
> > time for a reality check.
> >
> Indeed.
>
> For starters, it would be a good idea to know approximately how wide the
> Pacific Ocean is.

perhaps you should learn something about missiles, in particular the flight path
for something between nk and the USA.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Neil Gould

July 6th 06, 07:13 PM

Recently, Bob Noel > posted:

> Rationale sane people are not
> in charge of the nk government.
>
Some think the same about our leaders.

> but I, for one, wouldn't bother trying to **** off the USA. I
> wouldn't **** away government funds on a worthless military weapon
> systems when millions of my citizens are starving.
>
I see; so you'd cozy up to the folks who think you're part of an "Axis of
Evil", and prefer that the popuce run around anxious that the US is going
to attack you next while they starve anyway. Hmm. Is that the rational and
sane approach?

> perhaps you should learn something about missiles, in particular the
> flight path for something between nk and the USA.
>
That isn't a matter of "missiles"; it's navigation of a geoid, and *still*
doesn't extend the range of their missle sufficiently to reach "...the
lower 48 states" as claimed. Perhaps you don't know where Korea is?

Neil

Skylune[_1_]

July 6th 06, 09:04 PM

by "Morgans" > Jul 6, 2006 at 10:12 AM

"Neil Gould" > wrote

> As I see it, it's a good thing NK doesn't have any oil.

And with this statement, it shows how little you truly understand the
whole
issue.

Amazing. Truly amazing

<<

This whole discussion is a bunch of horse-****. The NKs missles pose no
threat to the US. The FARs PROHIBIT these things from flying in our
airspace.

No need for drastic action, like having Boyer "take on" the NKs....

Montblack[_1_]

July 6th 06, 09:57 PM

("Skylune" wrote)
> This whole discussion is a bunch of horse-****. The NKs missles pose no
> threat to the US. The FARs PROHIBIT these things from flying in our
> airspace.

I think they're ok above FL600, so long as they remain clear of clouds,
since Class E is "controlled" airspace.

Montblack

Matt Whiting

July 6th 06, 10:24 PM

Neil Gould wrote:

> A question to anyone in this discussion: if *you* were the leader of North
> Korea, having US troops on your southern border for the last 50+ years;
> with the leader of the US calling you one of the "Axis of Evil"; and
> having invaded and destroyed a sovereign nation (also on the "Axis of
> Evil" list, btw) on the most obviously bogus of pretenses, how would *you*
> respond to protect your population? As I see it, it's a good thing NK
> doesn't have any oil.

Bogus in your mind, maybe. I don't agree with the decision to invade
Iraq, but I DO believe they had WMD and were trying to make more. I
think there was some reason to invade, but I'm not sure how urgent
things were. I will, however, give Bush and company the benefit of the
doubt in that they may have known things that can't be made public.

As to your NK question, I certainly wouldn't respond by trying to bait
the US into a conflict? If that is what they are really worried about,
why all of the provocation? They aren't worried at all about invading
us. They need financial help and are trying to become a big enough pain
that we'll pay them off. This might have happened with Clinton in
office, but isn't likely with Bush.

Matt

Bob Noel

July 6th 06, 10:36 PM

In article >,
"Neil Gould" > wrote:

> > Rationale sane people are not
> > in charge of the nk government.
> >
> Some think the same about our leaders.

some people think the world is flat

>
> > but I, for one, wouldn't bother trying to **** off the USA. I
> > wouldn't **** away government funds on a worthless military weapon
> > systems when millions of my citizens are starving.
> >
> I see; so you'd cozy up to the folks who think you're part of an "Axis of
> Evil",

not ****ing off and "cozy up" are not at all the same thing.

[snip]

> > perhaps you should learn something about missiles, in particular the
> > flight path for something between nk and the USA.
> >
> That isn't a matter of "missiles"; it's navigation of a geoid, and *still*
> doesn't extend the range of their missle sufficiently to reach "...the
> lower 48 states" as claimed. Perhaps you don't know where Korea is?

I had to wonder if you had a clue since the dimension of the pacific ocean
isn't particularly when you go great circle route.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

AES

July 6th 06, 11:01 PM

In article >,
Bob Noel > wrote:

> > A question to anyone in this discussion: if *you* were the leader of North
> > Korea, having US troops on your southern border for the last 50+ years;
> > with the leader of the US calling you one of the "Axis of Evil"; and
> > having invaded and destroyed a sovereign nation (also on the "Axis of
> > Evil" list, btw) on the most obviously bogus of pretenses, how would *you*
> > respond to protect your population?
>
> do you actually think that the "leader" of NK has any interest in protecting
> "his" population?

Exactly my response when I read the initial paragraph.

Newps

July 7th 06, 12:53 AM

Matt Whiting wrote:

They need financial help and are trying to become a big enough pain
> that we'll pay them off.

This is crucial since military spending is about 150% of GDP.

Jay Honeck

July 7th 06, 04:42 AM

> > Rationale sane people are not
> > in charge of the nk government.
> >
> Some think the same about our leaders.

I've not met any sane people who claim this to be true.

> > but I, for one, wouldn't bother trying to **** off the USA. I
> > wouldn't **** away government funds on a worthless military weapon
> > systems when millions of my citizens are starving.
> >
> I see; so you'd cozy up to the folks who think you're part of an "Axis of
> Evil", and prefer that the popuce run around anxious that the US is going
> to attack you next while they starve anyway. Hmm. Is that the rational and
> sane approach?

You don't seem to get it. The world (yes, it's not just your horrid
United States of America)warned North Korea not to launch any more
missiles toward Japan under the guise of "testing" them.

In response, they launched not one, but SEVEN missiles, provoking what
could have been an all-out retaliatory strike.

I suppose you believe these missile launches were the act of a sane
government? Good grief...

Interestingly, it is the Japanese who are now demanding sanctions
against NK, and (as usual) the Russians and Chinese who are proving
that the "United Nations" is as ineffective as as always.

Here's the bottom line, folks: North Korea represents a clear and
present danger to the U.S., and its allies -- and as of this evening
they are now threatening to fire even MORE missiles into the Sea of
Japan. President Bush, by labeling NK part of the "Axis of Evil", has
correctly identified North Korea as one of the main enemies of freedom
in the world -- as their actions clearly illustrate.

Most thinking people understand the logic of this position, and it
alarms me that there are apologists in this group for (I can't believe
I'm writing this!) the actions of Kim Jong Il -- a man who aspires to
join the despicable ranks of Stalin, Mao, and his own father. What
are you guys *thinking*?

The fact that we currently have an administration in power that
actually says what it means, and means what it says, is a fortunate
stroke of luck in world history. Can you imagine what Clinton (or
Kerry? Or Gore?) would be doing right now? God almighty, we'd be
showering Kim with gifts, offering him a state visit, and firing cruise
missiles into the Libyan desert to divert the media's attention...

Sadly, incredibly, once again, if diplomacy fails it looks like we may
have to go it alone against North Korea -- and once again the majority
of Americans (and, I believe, the world) will support such an action.
But what a shame...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck

July 7th 06, 04:48 AM

> And no, I don't have a solution. I do know that for diplomacy to work,
> our word must be good and our "big stick" must be credible and
> effective. To be effective, it must be a stick we are willing to use,
> and one we can get away with using.

Hmm, let's see. In the last dozen or so years, we've:

- Gone to war in the Balkans, and overthrown a tyrant or two.
- Gone to war in Iraq, and overthrown a tyrant or two.
- Gone to war in Afghanistan, and overthrown the most evil regime in
history.

What part of our "Big Stick" aren't you getting?

North Korea's leaders are acting irresponsibly if they don't think
there is a big stick floating off shore.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck

July 7th 06, 04:56 AM

> "We are not controlling events in Iraq. Events in Iraq are controlling us.
> We are the puppet; the street gangs of Baghdad and Basra are the
> puppet-masters, aided and abetted by an unsavory assortment of confidence
> men, bazaar traders, scheming clerics, ethnic front men, and Iranian agents.
> With all our wealth and power and idealism, we have submitted to become the
> plaything of a rabble, and a Middle Eastern rabble at that. [ ] The
> lazy-minded evangelico-romanticism of George W. Bush, the bureaucratic will
> to power of Donald Rumsfeld, the avuncular condescension of Dick Cheney, and
> the reflexive military deference of Colin Powell combined to get us into a
> situation we never wanted to be in, a situation no self-respecting nation
> ought to be in, a situation we don't know how to get out of."

Wow. Try this:

- Substitute the word "Chicago" for "Iraq", "Baghdad" and "Basra"

- Substitute "drug dealers" for "Iranian agents"

- Substitue "ghetto" for "Middle Eastern"

- And, finally, substitute "Daley" for "Bush", "Rumsveld" and "Powell"
-- and that whole ridiculous diatribe makes sense!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck

July 7th 06, 04:56 AM

> "We are not controlling events in Iraq. Events in Iraq are controlling us.
> We are the puppet; the street gangs of Baghdad and Basra are the
> puppet-masters, aided and abetted by an unsavory assortment of confidence
> men, bazaar traders, scheming clerics, ethnic front men, and Iranian agents.
> With all our wealth and power and idealism, we have submitted to become the
> plaything of a rabble, and a Middle Eastern rabble at that. [ ] The
> lazy-minded evangelico-romanticism of George W. Bush, the bureaucratic will
> to power of Donald Rumsfeld, the avuncular condescension of Dick Cheney, and
> the reflexive military deference of Colin Powell combined to get us into a
> situation we never wanted to be in, a situation no self-respecting nation
> ought to be in, a situation we don't know how to get out of."

Wow. Try this:

- Substitute the word "Chicago" for "Iraq", "Baghdad" and "Basra"

- Substitute "drug dealers" for "Iranian agents"

- Substitute "ghetto" for "Middle Eastern"

- And, finally, substitute "Daley" for "Bush", "Rumsveld" and "Powell"
-- and that whole ridiculous diatribe makes sense!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jose[_1_]

July 7th 06, 05:25 AM

> - Gone to war in the Balkans, and overthrown a tyrant or two.
> - Gone to war in Iraq, and overthrown a tyrant or two.
> - Gone to war in Afghanistan, and overthrown the most evil regime in
> history.
>
> What part of our "Big Stick" aren't you getting?

I don't know about the Balkans, but in Iraq we have not overthrown a
tyrant or two that hasn't been replaced by another tyrant or three. In
Afghanistan, we did =not= overthrow the most evil regime in history; we
slowed that particular branch of terrorism a bit, while allowing it to
breed elsewhere like a hydra. We are going to win the war on terrorism
the same way we won the war on drugs. Our stick isn't even that big -
by all reports I've read, we don't even equip our troops properly.

As for North Korea being irresponsible,

> The world (yes, it's not just your horrid
> United States of America)warned North Korea not to launch any more
> missiles toward Japan under the guise of "testing" them.
>
> In response, they launched not one, but SEVEN missiles, provoking what
> could have been an all-out retaliatory strike.
>
> I suppose you believe these missile launches were the act of a sane
> government? Good grief...

Yes, I do. A dangerous one to be sure. But defying orders is not the
mark of insanity. It is important to understand how the enemy thinks
and what they value. It's a grave error to evaluate them based on how
-we- think.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Bob Noel

July 7th 06, 05:41 AM

In article . com>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> In response, they launched not one, but SEVEN missiles, provoking what
> could have been an all-out retaliatory strike.

hey - I just had a thought.... maybe NK was actually just trying to help
the USA with its fourth of July celebration!!

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Montblack[_1_]

July 7th 06, 05:56 AM

("Jay Honeck" wrote)
> North Korea's leaders are acting irresponsibly if they don't think there
> is a big stick floating off shore.

NK's leader(s) have seen the US invade countries like Panama,
Serbia/Yugo/Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq(x2), Afghanistan, etc, etc.

NK's leader(s) know the US negotiates with countries with nukes - Iran and
Pakistan come to mind.

NK's leader(s) wants to be in the second group.

"You are smart... you will make us strong... you will help us go..."

Montblack
"We Like Things That Make Us Go!"...Pakled Captain
The Samaritan Snare
Star Trek - TNG: Season Two
Episode: 17 (#143)

Jay Honeck

July 7th 06, 06:01 AM

> I don't know about the Balkans, but in Iraq we have not overthrown a
> tyrant or two that hasn't been replaced by another tyrant or three.

??? What news reports are you reading?

The democratically elected government in Iraq (their first, ever) is
running about as well as, oh, let's say, the Cabrini Green district of
Chicago -- but it *is* running.

If you're referring to the insurgents blowing up innocents, well,
that's about the same thing that happens in America's inner cities
every day. Scum is scum, everywhere.

> In
> Afghanistan, we did =not= overthrow the most evil regime in history; we
> slowed that particular branch of terrorism a bit,

Really? Again, what news reports are you reading? I don't believe the
Taliban has held office since our rather abrupt arrival.

Oh, wait, you're referring to the street violence again. Check out
East St. Louis on a Saturday night, and report back how well our own
democracy is working there.

You guys are hilarious. You expect democracy to work in the Middle
East overnight, when we've got portions of many American inner cities
that -- after 230 years -- can't even be patrolled safely by law
enforcement, let alone visited by normal Americans. .

Give it time. Sane people eventually LIKE democracy, flawed though it
may be.

> > I suppose you believe these missile launches were the act of a sane
> > government? Good grief...
>
> Yes, I do. A dangerous one to be sure. But defying orders is not the
> mark of insanity. It is important to understand how the enemy thinks
> and what they value. It's a grave error to evaluate them based on how
> -we- think.

Yes -- but it is THEIR grave error.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

David Dyer-Bennet

July 7th 06, 07:19 AM

Matt Whiting > writes:

> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> > Uh oh:
> > <http://makeashorterlink.com/?I50915D5D>
> > The news is reporting that they've launched FOUR missiles now --
> > possibly one that can reach the U.S. mainland...
> > I wonder what our Air Force guys in South Korea are doing right
> > now...
>
> Sounds like they are watching missiles fail mid-flight according to
> CNN. :-)
>
> I was sort of hoping we'd use this occasion for some live tests of our
> anti-missile laser and missile systems. It would be nice to have some
> free targets for a change.

Sure, but so embarrassing when it doesn't work!
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

Dan Luke

July 7th 06, 11:49 AM

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

>> "We are not controlling events in Iraq. Events in Iraq are controlling
>> us.
>> We are the puppet; the street gangs of Baghdad and Basra are the
>> puppet-masters, aided and abetted by an unsavory assortment of confidence
>> men, bazaar traders, scheming clerics, ethnic front men, and Iranian
>> agents.
>> With all our wealth and power and idealism, we have submitted to become
>> the
>> plaything of a rabble, and a Middle Eastern rabble at that. [ ] The
>> lazy-minded evangelico-romanticism of George W. Bush, the bureaucratic
>> will
>> to power of Donald Rumsfeld, the avuncular condescension of Dick Cheney,
>> and
>> the reflexive military deference of Colin Powell combined to get us into
>> a
>> situation we never wanted to be in, a situation no self-respecting nation
>> ought to be in, a situation we don't know how to get out of."
>
> Wow. Try this:
>
> - Substitute the word "Chicago" for "Iraq", "Baghdad" and "Basra"
>
> - Substitute "drug dealers" for "Iranian agents"
>
> - Substitute "ghetto" for "Middle Eastern"
>
> - And, finally, substitute "Daley" for "Bush", "Rumsveld" and "Powell"
> -- and that whole ridiculous diatribe makes sense!

Don't be silly. Comparing the fiasco in Iraq to conditions in Chicago is an
act of willful self delusion. Does it make you feel better about the cost
of the war?

How many Islamist terrorists are being created in Chicago? How many U. S.
troops are being killed every week in Chicago? How many $billions are being
added every month to the federal deficit?

The Iraq war is a disaster created by fools. These idiots have gotten our
country stuck in a hopeless mess with no good way out. They deserve to be
held accountable for the harm they have done: the time for excuses and
rationalizations is long past.

--
Dan

"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison
without formulating any charge known to the law, and
particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is
in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of
all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."
- Winston Churchill

"There ought to be limits to freedom."
- George W. Bush

Neil Gould

July 7th 06, 12:16 PM

Recently, Jay Honeck > posted:

>> I don't know about the Balkans, but in Iraq we have not overthrown a
>> tyrant or two that hasn't been replaced by another tyrant or three.
>
> ??? What news reports are you reading?
>
Apparently, the same one's that I've been reading, where those in the
Iraqi "government" are imposing unsanctioned rules on the locals in the
few small areas where they can function at all.

> Oh, wait, you're referring to the street violence again. Check out
> East St. Louis on a Saturday night, and report back how well our own
> democracy is working there.
>
> You guys are hilarious. You expect democracy to work in the Middle
> East overnight, when we've got portions of many American inner cities
> that -- after 230 years -- can't even be patrolled safely by law
> enforcement, let alone visited by normal Americans. .
>
When was that last time you spent any time in one of our major inner
cities, Jay? What do you *know* of living there? What do you *know* of
what is and isn't "rational behavior" there? From your comments, I'd say
you've spent no time in that environment; is that incorrect?

Life in those areas has been pretty much the same ever since such areas
were built, and the reason for the violence in those areas is pretty much
unchanged too. It isn't that those areas "...can't even be patrolled
safely by law enforcement...", they certainly could be, but aren't. So,
gangs and mob rule fill the void created by the lack of law enforcement
who are spending their time and resources in more affluent areas of the
city. The same choice has been made by local governments for over a
hundred years in cities like New York and Chicago. And, those police
departments are well known for their "integrity", aren't they?

> Give it time. Sane people eventually LIKE democracy, flawed though it
> may be.
>
If those residents weren't being disenfranchised at the polls, perhaps
they could give it a try.

Neil

Neil Gould

July 7th 06, 12:31 PM

Recently, Jay Honeck > posted:

>>> Rationale sane people are not
>>> in charge of the nk government.
>>>
>> Some think the same about our leaders.
>
> I've not met any sane people who claim this to be true.
>
I'd suspect that "people you've met" would be an insignificant sample size
of the world's population.

> I suppose you believe these missile launches were the act of a sane
> government? Good grief...
>
From the frame of mind of those in that region, I'd say yes, it was sane.
How do you think it will play out? We're not going to attack NK any more
than we're going to attack Pakistan or Iran, and pretty much for the same
reasons; the consequences are dire. That concept is slowly sinking into
Bush's dense skull.

> Interestingly, it is the Japanese who are now demanding sanctions
> against NK, and (as usual) the Russians and Chinese who are proving
> that the "United Nations" is as ineffective as as always.
>
Given that the Russians and Chinese really *are* within range of NK's
weapons, it would seem that their opinions should carry more weight than
ours.

> Here's the bottom line, folks: North Korea represents a clear and
> present danger to the U.S.
>
You're being had, yet again.

> The fact that we currently have an administration in power that
> actually says what it means, and means what it says, is a fortunate
> stroke of luck in world history.
>
We'll see. It appears that the Bush administration's actions have cause
more harm to our reputation than otherwise, and the mess that they created
in the Middle East will have negative repercussions for decades, if not
centuries. How do you see it playing out otherwise?

> Sadly, incredibly, once again, if diplomacy fails it looks like we may
> have to go it alone against North Korea --
>
It won't happen, unless Bush is truly insane.

Neil

Neil Gould

July 7th 06, 12:39 PM

Recently, Martin Hotze > posted:

> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>> I don't agree with the decision to invade
>> Iraq, but I DO believe they had WMD
>
>
> for sure they had them!
> 1) they used them
> 2) some of these have been bought from the USA; you should have the
> receipt somewhere.
>
Hey, that's how we knew they had them. However, our accounting was flawed;
we couldn't accurately subtract those that they used from those that they
had.

Neil

Matt Barrow[_1_]

July 7th 06, 01:28 PM

"David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I was sort of hoping we'd use this occasion for some live tests of our
>> anti-missile laser and missile systems. It would be nice to have some
>> free targets for a change.
>
> Sure, but so embarrassing when it doesn't work!

Not as embarrassing as when they fail in a real crisis because they never
conducted a fully operational test.

Thomas Borchert

July 7th 06, 02:00 PM

Matt,

> but I DO believe they had WMD
>

Hardly a matter of belief. There are none. Period.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Jay Honeck

July 7th 06, 02:36 PM

> When was that last time you spent any time in one of our major inner
> cities, Jay? What do you *know* of living there? What do you *know* of
> what is and isn't "rational behavior" there? From your comments, I'd say
> you've spent no time in that environment; is that incorrect?

Quite incorrect. I spent seven years collecting money in hard-core
inner city areas of Racine and Kenosha, WI -- on the "drug road" (I-94)
from Chicago to Milwaukee.

I've stepped across bodies to get into an apartment complex -- have
you?

And these areas are tiny examples of what's going on in the really big
inner cities -- yet they were areas that "normal" Americans --
including law enforcement officials -- feared to tread. (Luckily, I was
young and dumb...and got out alive.)

The only difference between these areas, and Baghdad, is the size of
the explosives used.

> Life in those areas has been pretty much the same ever since such areas
> were built, and the reason for the violence in those areas is pretty much
> unchanged too.

Wrong. Inner cities grow like a fungus. What were once beautiful
parts of Milwaukee and Racine are now uninhabitable by normal
Americans. Gunshots ring out with regularity, and police are either
paid off or afraid.

Sound familiar? Does Baghdad come to mind?

> It isn't that those areas "...can't even be patrolled
> safely by law enforcement...", they certainly could be, but aren't. So,
> gangs and mob rule fill the void created by the lack of law enforcement
> who are spending their time and resources in more affluent areas of the
> city.

That, my friend, is crap. Affluent areas generally receive miminal law
enforcement money -- why? Because there's no crime there. Cops just
don't have time to patrol a sleep, affluent suburb.

Where the money goes is to the "border" areas -- the fuzzy no-man's
land between the inner city and the "nice" parts of town. Sadly, in my
experience, for every piece of inner city that is "gentrified" (brought
back to liveability), there are three that sink into the putrid mess
known as "the ghetto".

Sound familiar?

Again -- you guys that expect democracy to work overnight in Iraq are
simply showing your ignorance. It won't happen -- no, it CAN'T happen
-- in a mere four years. Or ten. It hasn't happened here (in many
parts of America) yet.

> The same choice has been made by local governments for over a
> hundred years in cities like New York and Chicago. And, those police
> departments are well known for their "integrity", aren't they?

Many choices are made -- just not the ones you think are being made.
The reason the police departments in Chicago and New York (and others)
have grown corrupt is because our namby-pamby court system simply
refuses to take the criminal element off the streets. I've spoken to
many police officers who won't arrest or detain a known criminal,
simply because there is no point. They'll be on the street again in
hours -- and the cop will have to fill out endless paperwork, and
(perhaps) appear in court.

Sound familiar?

> If those residents weren't being disenfranchised at the polls, perhaps
> they could give it a try.

Which residents -- Iraqi or American?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jose[_1_]

July 7th 06, 02:53 PM

> Again -- you guys that expect democracy to work overnight in Iraq are
> simply showing your ignorance. It won't happen -- no, it CAN'T happen
> -- in a mere four years. Or ten. It hasn't happened here (in many
> parts of America) yet.

If it's so bad, why are we delivering it to the rest of the world?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Neil Gould

July 7th 06, 04:13 PM

Recently, Jay Honeck > posted:

>> When was that last time you spent any time in one of our major inner
>> cities, Jay? What do you *know* of living there? What do you *know*
>> of what is and isn't "rational behavior" there? From your comments,
>> I'd say you've spent no time in that environment; is that incorrect?
>
> Quite incorrect. I spent seven years collecting money in hard-core
> inner city areas of Racine and Kenosha, WI -- on the "drug road"
> (I-94) from Chicago to Milwaukee.
>
Racine? Kenosha? Major inner cities... not! Still, I'd say those are good
experiences to draw on, so what would you consider to be rational behavior
for those who live there?

> The only difference between these areas, and Baghdad, is the size of
> the explosives used.
>
Well, I differ with your opinion, here, unless your comparison is that
both "these areas" and life in Baghdad are the result of our government's
involvement.

>> Life in those areas has been pretty much the same ever since such
>> areas were built, and the reason for the violence in those areas is
>> pretty much unchanged too.
>
> Wrong. Inner cities grow like a fungus. What were once beautiful
> parts of Milwaukee and Racine are now uninhabitable by normal
> Americans. Gunshots ring out with regularity, and police are either
> paid off or afraid.
>
Well, we agree about the corruption as a contributing factor. As for
"Inner cities grow like a fungus", well, no, they don't. They are the
result of many things, such as the lack of ownership, lack of opportunity,
extraction of wealth, and lack of enforcement of building codes and law.
Those areas where, for example, absentee landlords are held accountable
for their property do not become blighted, and a desirable side effect is
that ownership is increased. That still doesn't guarantee safety and
protection, though, and that will discourages investment and limit
opportunity.

>> It isn't that those areas "...can't even be patrolled
>> safely by law enforcement...", they certainly could be, but aren't.
>> So, gangs and mob rule fill the void created by the lack of law
>> enforcement who are spending their time and resources in more
>> affluent areas of the city.
>
> That, my friend, is crap. Affluent areas generally receive miminal
> law enforcement money -- why? Because there's no crime there. Cops
> just don't have time to patrol a sleep, affluent suburb.
>
Please read more carefully. I didn't say anything about "suburbs" -- I
said "...more affluent areas of the city." Since a city has a single
budget for law enforcement, it is the same for the affluent areas as it is
for the poor areas. But, that isn't how the resources are apportioned.

> Where the money goes is to the "border" areas -- the fuzzy no-man's
> land between the inner city and the "nice" parts of town.
>
And, whose police force is in the "border areas"? We may be in agreement,
there.

> Again -- you guys that expect democracy to work overnight in Iraq are
> simply showing your ignorance. It won't happen -- no, it CAN'T happen
> -- in a mere four years. Or ten. It hasn't happened here (in many
> parts of America) yet.
>
Again, we may be in agreement. But, I'll go a step further; if we can't do
it, we can't help others to do it, and therefore have no business trying
to impose it on those others.

>> The same choice has been made by local governments for over a
>> hundred years in cities like New York and Chicago. And, those police
>> departments are well known for their "integrity", aren't they?
>
> Many choices are made -- just not the ones you think are being made.
> The reason the police departments in Chicago and New York (and others)
> have grown corrupt is because our namby-pamby court system simply
> refuses to take the criminal element off the streets. I've spoken to
> many police officers who won't arrest or detain a known criminal,
> simply because there is no point. They'll be on the street again in
> hours -- and the cop will have to fill out endless paperwork, and
> (perhaps) appear in court.
>
And, these police officers' job is to do what, exactly? What you're
describing are people who, if not criminals themselves by virtue of aiding
and abetting crime, at least lack integrity. To not arrest criminals
because they'd have to fill out paperwork is absurd.

Neil

Jay Honeck

July 7th 06, 04:28 PM

> > Again -- you guys that expect democracy to work overnight in Iraq are
> > simply showing your ignorance. It won't happen -- no, it CAN'T happen
> > -- in a mere four years. Or ten. It hasn't happened here (in many
> > parts of America) yet.
>
> If it's so bad, why are we delivering it to the rest of the world?

Democracy is a terribly corrupt and inefficient system.

It's also the best system we've yet devised.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck

July 7th 06, 04:40 PM

> Don't be silly. Comparing the fiasco in Iraq to conditions in Chicago is an
> act of willful self delusion. Does it make you feel better about the cost
> of the war?

The word "Chicago" is a metaphor for ALL American inner cities.
Personally, I'd rather be spending money in the Middle East -- the
source of our economic life-blood -- than in the inner cities our own
citizens choose to create on a daily basis.

> How many Islamist terrorists are being created in Chicago? How many U. S.
> troops are being killed every week in Chicago? How many $billions are being
> added every month to the federal deficit?

You haven't spent much time there, have you, Dan? The criminal
element in every American inner city are easily on a par with
terrorists -- and they probably have better weaponry.

How many billions are being added to the federal deficit by the inner
cities? Surely you jest! Lyndon Johnson started the fiasco with his
vaunted "War on Poverty" in the 1960s -- until now fully 2/3rds of our
federal (that's FEDERAL) budget is spent on "entitlements"...

> The Iraq war is a disaster created by fools. These idiots have gotten our
> country stuck in a hopeless mess with no good way out. They deserve to be
> held accountable for the harm they have done: the time for excuses and
> rationalizations is long past.

Let's see...how long were our troops stationed in the Axis countries
after the end of World War II... Oh, wait -- you mean they haven't
left YET? I think the fools who got us into that never-ending mess
should be held accountable!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jose[_1_]

July 7th 06, 04:55 PM

>>If it's so bad, why are we delivering it to the rest of the world?
>
> Democracy is a terribly corrupt and inefficient system.
>
> It's also the best system we've yet devised.

This still doesn't give us, the new kid on the block, the right to force
it down the throats of others at gunpoint, sacrificing the lives of OUR
CHILDREN in the process.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jay Honeck

July 7th 06, 05:19 PM

> Racine? Kenosha? Major inner cities... not!

Small by comparison to Chicago, true enough -- but still places that
most Americans (at the very least) aren't welcome, nonetheless.

If Joe Sixpack Americans had ANY idea what was really going on in
American inner cities, they would be completely appalled -- and (I
suspect) far less concerned about the continuing spate of violence in
Baghdad.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Thomas Borchert

July 7th 06, 05:28 PM

Jay,

> Let's see...how long were our troops stationed in the Axis countries
> after the end of World War II... Oh, wait -- you mean they haven't
> left YET? I think the fools who got us into that never-ending mess
> should be held accountable!
>

Have you totally lost it? Your troops are still there not because they
are needed to maintain peace and freedom, but because forward bases
close to (what used to be) the enemy can't be had any cheaper than in
previously occupied country. Man, you really need a reality check...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

john smith

July 7th 06, 05:38 PM

> Have you totally lost it? Your troops are still there not because they
> are needed to maintain peace and freedom, but because forward bases
> close to (what used to be) the enemy can't be had any cheaper than in
> previously occupied country. Man, you really need a reality check...

Thomas, we are giving them back, slowly, aren't we?
We realize the Europeans no longer need our help and assistance in
returning to prosperity
We've are moving on now. We have made new friends in the Middle East
recently. We are now helping them regain their prosperity. They have
generously granted us access to rebuild their airfields, and
infrastructure. Once they have achieved an appropriate level of success,
we will find new friends who want our help.

(Very tongue in cheek!) ;-))

Morgans[_2_]

July 7th 06, 05:50 PM

Jay, I just thought that I would point out, that you are doing the
'wrestling with the pig" bit. You get all dirty, and the pig likes it.

There is no point you could make, that would change his mind.
--
Jim in NC

john smith

July 7th 06, 06:37 PM

In article >,
"Morgans" > wrote:

> Jay, I just thought that I would point out, that you are doing the
> 'wrestling with the pig" bit. You get all dirty, and the pig likes it.

> There is no point you could make, that would change his mind.

Jim, be fair.
We (USA) do strong-arm our friends, depending on which way the winds are
blowing. It's called "national interests".
I really enjoy "diplomat speak" and trying to figure what they really
mean when they say something.

Andrew Gideon

July 7th 06, 08:16 PM

On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 13:53:29 +0000, Jose wrote:

> If it's so bad, why are we delivering it to the rest of the world?

Fortunately, we're not - at least not deliberately. So I find myself
surprised that people still use the term "democracy" as if it either (1)
describes our system of government or (2) would be useful for other
nations.

Iraq is, in fact, a good example of a nation that would be destroyed by
democracy. Much of the trouble there recently results from Shiites - the
majority - taking actions against minority groups. Why bother? When
"democracy" is established, they can just vote that all Sunnis should have
to work for free, or move to one city, or be dead.

Of course, we've been pressuring the Iraqi government to be less than
completely democratic in this respect. And good thing that, too!

The Palestinian territories serve as a good example of democracy in
action. What should the world do if a population's majority wants to be
lead by terrorists? By religious fanatics? By nut jobs? By illiterates?
By people in the pocket of one special interest group or another?

For all our use of this buzz word "democracy", what we really need to be
spreading around the world is the concept of "respect for rights". Only
when a society protects the rights of individuals, including individuals
that are in some minority, can a democracy (or even a democratic republic)
serve a worthy goal.

If a society awards all people the right to live, then we don't have to
worry about a democracy voting killers into office. If a society awards
all people the right to freedom, then we don't have to worry about a
democracy voting for ethnic cleansing.

Sadly, we've our own religious fanatics in this country setting a poor
example. How can it hurt my marriage if a pair of guys or gals is
permitted to marry? What they do couldn't possibly hurt me. Yet rather
than show the world what "respect for rights" means, we've in fact shown
just how narrow a meaning "rights" can have, even here.

No, democracy isn't the answer - at least by itself. If we don't manage
to export a respect for the rights of our fellow humans (regardless of all
those many criteria by which we can divide ourselves), then "democracy" is
just going to put more groups like Hamas into power.

So where is this on our national agenda?

- Andrew

Thomas Borchert

July 7th 06, 09:09 PM

John,

I like your style ;-)

> Thomas, we are giving them back, slowly, aren't we?
> We realize the Europeans no longer need our help and assistance in
> returning to prosperity
> We've are moving on now. We have made new friends in the Middle East
> recently. We are now helping them regain their prosperity. They have
> generously granted us access to rebuild their airfields, and
> infrastructure. Once they have achieved an appropriate level of success,
> we will find new friends who want our help.
>

In short: The Russians are gone, the Arabs are here. And Japan and Korea
turn out to have just extended their useful life.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Andrew Gideon

July 7th 06, 09:33 PM

On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 12:51:39 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:

> Think India, 1938-ish, British agents inciting Hindus versus Muslims.
> (And, yes, eventually the British left, but that doesn't mean their
> tactics didn't work for a long, long time.)
>
> No, if you sit back and view the thing from a cold, analytical, long-range
> strategic point of view, what's going on in Iraq is pretty close to what
> needs to happen -- and this whole thing about "creating a breeding ground
> for terrorists" is just blather. They are killing EACH OTHER now, and I
> think that's been part of the plan from the start.

Um...what you're writing is that having a nuclear arms race between India
and Pakistan is a Good Thing? That Pakistan therefore was able to sell
nuclear technology to various nations including Iran and N. Korea is
pretty close to what needed to happen?

Is it a Good Thing that Iraq is providing so fertile a training ground for
terrorists? Recall that Afghanistan was Bin Laden's training ground. How
will the US suffer in future decades from the terrorists being trained
today?

Personally, I believe that you're giving our intelligence services more
credit than they deserve. Though, admittedly, it would be pretty easy to
incite violence in Iraq today.

But I think it pretty clear that the animosity between Muslim and Hindu in
south asia has served the world badly, and there's no reason to expect
better of Sunni/Shiite animosity.

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon

July 7th 06, 09:38 PM

On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 11:39:14 +0000, Neil Gould wrote:

> Hey, that's how we knew they had them. However, our accounting was flawed;
> we couldn't accurately subtract those that they used from those that they
> had.

Ah ha! *Another* Accounting scandal.

Why can't I get one of these wunderkinde to be *my* accountant? Then I
could hear how easily I could afford my own plane instead of just
listening to "tsk tsk tsk" and watching a shaking head.

- Andrew

Matt Whiting

July 7th 06, 10:03 PM

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Matt,
>
>
>>but I DO believe they had WMD
>>
>
>
> Hardly a matter of belief. There are none. Period.

Bull. Moving them to Iran or elsewhere wouldn't have been hard nor is
burying them in the desert where it might take decades to find them if
they are ever found.

Matt

Matt Whiting

July 7th 06, 10:05 PM

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>I was sort of hoping we'd use this occasion for some live tests of our
>>>anti-missile laser and missile systems. It would be nice to have some
>>>free targets for a change.
>>
>>Sure, but so embarrassing when it doesn't work!
>
>
> Not as embarrassing as when they fail in a real crisis because they never
> conducted a fully operational test.

In what crises would they work? If they succeeded in sending even one
to the US, their entire country would be leveled within minutes. What
advantage is that to them?

Matt

Jose[_1_]

July 7th 06, 10:12 PM

> For all our use of this buzz word "democracy", what we really need to be
> spreading around the world is the concept of "respect for rights".

Does this include the right of a nation to be soverign over its people?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Matt Whiting

July 7th 06, 10:20 PM

Jose wrote:

>> For all our use of this buzz word "democracy", what we really need to be
>> spreading around the world is the concept of "respect for rights".
>
>
> Does this include the right of a nation to be soverign over its people?

Yes, it does as long as they aren't threatening other countries. Iraq
did this in 1990 and I think the invasion then was warranted. I think
we should have went after Saddam then when we had good justification,

This is the main reason I don't agree with the more recent Iraq invasion
as I don't think we had sufficient justification at that time that Iraq
was a threat to us.

Matt

Andrew Gideon

July 7th 06, 10:50 PM

On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 21:12:36 +0000, Jose wrote:

> Does this include the right of a nation to be soverign over its people?

I was less than clear: I was referring to rights of people. Not
corporate entities. Not national entities. Human entities.

I've no problem with artificial beings (ie. corporations and such) being
granted rights of a sort, mind you. But those are artifacts which, like
"democracy", can only be good things if done w/in the context of rights of
human people.

However, I am also aware that this perspective is simplistic. The right
to self-determination, for example, has certain complexities when people
live in groups. It would be hard, for example, for one citizen of my town
to secede from the US.

Nevertheless, I believe that respect for human rights is a necessary
condition in keeping a democracy from being nothing more than a tyranny
of the majority.

- Andrew

Jose[_1_]

July 7th 06, 10:53 PM

>> Does this include the right of a nation to be soverign over its people?
>
>
> Yes, it does as long as they aren't threatening other countries.

Does this include us?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

john smith

July 7th 06, 11:44 PM

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> John,
> I like your style ;-)

I am half second generation American from German and Hungarian
immigrants.
I have aunts, uncles and cousins in Germany.
I lived with my great aunt and worked as a praktikant for a year in
Germany. (Firme Albert Siebdruck Fabrik, Frankenthal, Rhineland Pfalz)
I worked and played with Germans and other immigrants when I lived there.
I spoke German the entire time I lived there.
I had some very interesting political discussions with my relatives and
my co-workers and teammates when I lived there. It was an education I
would not have received in this country.
I remember asking one of my co-workers what he thought about the
American military still being in Germany. His response was, "Better than
the Russians."

Dan Luke

July 8th 06, 12:52 AM

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
>
> I suppose you think that the fact that they are blowing each other up
> with increasing regularity is some sort of an accident? D'oh!
>
> I'm certain that we've got hundreds of agents all over the Middle East,
> sewing the seeds of discontent between the two sects. Anyone who
> studies history knows that the best way to fight an enemy is to get
> them to rot from within...and that is precisely what is happening in
> Iraq.

So all of Bush's talk about creating a stable democracy in Iraq is just a
big lie, then?

Well, that explains the 50 murdered corpses showing up every day at the
Baghdad morgue--it's America's doing! We *actually* went there to create a
genocidal civil war!

I guess it makes as much sense as any of the other reasons we've been given.

--
Dan

"These are exciting times for the Iraqi people!"
-George W. Bush

Matt Barrow[_1_]

July 8th 06, 01:49 AM

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
. com...
> Recently, Jay Honeck > posted:
>

> When was that last time you spent any time in one of our major inner
> cities, Jay? What do you *know* of living there? What do you *know* of
> what is and isn't "rational behavior" there? From your comments, I'd say
> you've spent no time in that environment; is that incorrect?
>
> Life in those areas has been pretty much the same ever since such areas
> were built, and the reason for the violence in those areas is pretty much
> unchanged too.

Unmitigated BS! Read Thomas Sowell's story about Harlem specifically (upper
middle class blacks moved there to get away from the Irish and Italians) and
the entirety of 'Migrations and Cultures: A World View' to dispel that
nonsense.

Matt Whiting

July 8th 06, 02:56 AM

Jose wrote:

>>> Does this include the right of a nation to be soverign over its people?
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, it does as long as they aren't threatening other countries.
>
>
> Does this include us?

Sure. What is your point?

Matt

Jay Honeck

July 8th 06, 03:40 AM

> > I'm certain that we've got hundreds of agents all over the Middle East,
> > sewing the seeds of discontent between the two sects. Anyone who
> > studies history knows that the best way to fight an enemy is to get
> > them to rot from within...and that is precisely what is happening in
> > Iraq.
>
> So all of Bush's talk about creating a stable democracy in Iraq is just a
> big lie, then?
>
> Well, that explains the 50 murdered corpses showing up every day at the
> Baghdad morgue--it's America's doing! We *actually* went there to create a
> genocidal civil war!
>
> I guess it makes as much sense as any of the other reasons we've been given.

No, as with most of these things, I imagine our intelligence agencies
are trying to play both ends against the middle.

In other words, if a stable democracy develops in Iraq, we win. And if
civil war between the two major sects of Islam rages on
indefinitely...we still win.

The only way we lose is if both sects unite in an Islamic theocracy. I
don't think that is going to happen.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jose[_1_]

July 8th 06, 04:37 AM

>>>> Does this include the right of a nation to be soverign over its people?
>>> Yes, it does as long as they aren't threatening other countries.
>> Does this include us?
> Sure. What is your point?

My point is that we are threatening other countries. Do those other
countries (or maybe even =other= other countries) then have a right to
deprive us of our soverignity?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

cjcampbell

July 8th 06, 07:57 AM

Stefan

July 8th 06, 11:20 AM

Jay Honeck schrieb:

> In other words, if a stable democracy develops in Iraq, we win. And if
> civil war between the two major sects of Islam rages on
> indefinitely...we still win.

So if a civil war develops, causes the death of hundreds of thousends
innocent people who have done nothing wrong (particularly not to you),
probably millions loose their home and everything they have (which in
most cases wasn't much to start with), a whole generation of children
has no chance to live a normal childhood but has to grow up in war, hate
and fear etc. etc., *you win*? What a disgusting point of view!

Stefan

Thomas Borchert

July 8th 06, 12:39 PM

Matt,

> Moving them to Iran
>

Bruhaha. Saddam moving his WMD to Iran. Yeah, right. You have world
politics down pat, no doubt.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

July 8th 06, 12:39 PM

Matt,

> Yes, it does as long as they aren't threatening other countries.
>

Uhoh. There's someone sitting in a glass house throwing stones if ever
I saw it...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

July 8th 06, 12:39 PM

Stefan,

> *you win*? What a disgusting point of view!
>

Yep. And after posting something like that, I'm sure it's: off to
church!

Happy 4th indeed...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Matt Whiting

July 8th 06, 01:41 PM

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Matt,
>
>
>>Yes, it does as long as they aren't threatening other countries.
>>
>
>
> Uhoh. There's someone sitting in a glass house throwing stones if ever
> I saw it...
>

I guess you haven't seen it. What country are you from?

Matt

Matt Whiting

July 8th 06, 01:42 PM

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Matt,
>
>
>>Moving them to Iran
>>
>
>
> Bruhaha. Saddam moving his WMD to Iran. Yeah, right. You have world
> politics down pat, no doubt.

Yes, I know a little about "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Matt

Jim Macklin

July 8th 06, 02:05 PM

The cease fire just stopped the active fighting in Korea in
1953. A state of war still is the controlling legal
condition between South Korea, The United States and North
Korea.

North Korea has repeatedly sent troops and terror squads
across the DMZ. They have dug tunnels. Now they are
developing and firing missiles. These are all acts of war
under the terms of the cease fire accord.

We should advise N. Korea that the USA will resume active
war status and force compliance with the nearly 60 year old
cease fire. This will include air strikes on all of their
military bases, military production and warehouse facilities
and under ground bases.

--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
| Thomas Borchert wrote:
|
| > Matt,
| >
| >
| >>Moving them to Iran
| >>
| >
| >
| > Bruhaha. Saddam moving his WMD to Iran. Yeah, right. You
have world
| > politics down pat, no doubt.
|
| Yes, I know a little about "the enemy of my enemy is my
friend."
|
| Matt

Jay Honeck

July 8th 06, 02:22 PM

> So if a civil war develops, causes the death of hundreds of thousends
> innocent people who have done nothing wrong (particularly not to you),
> probably millions loose their home and everything they have (which in
> most cases wasn't much to start with), a whole generation of children
> has no chance to live a normal childhood but has to grow up in war, hate
> and fear etc. etc., *you win*? What a disgusting point of view!

Welcome to geopolitics, Stefan. I didn't say it was a good thing --
but it's the real deal.

Bottom line: Screwing with the U.S. (at least since 1945) has
traditionally been a lose-lose situation. Even Viet Nam, which
supposedly "won" its war with America, lost two generations to war.
Some victory.

Why do you think so few countries are dumb enough to try it?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jose[_1_]

July 8th 06, 02:38 PM

> I was less than clear: I was referring to rights of people. Not
> corporate entities. Not national entities. Human entities.

.... who have the right to form groups...

> [...] However, I am also aware that this perspective is simplistic....

Yes, rights intersect and interfere with each other all the time. This
is why no rights are absolute.

> Nevertheless, I believe that respect for human rights is a necessary
> condition in keeping a democracy from being nothing more than a tyranny
> of the majority.

I agree with you. But a belief that X is ncessary does not give us the
right or obligation to impose it. Substitute "respect for human rights"
with "respect and reverence for our Creator and Lord", or even "respect
and reverence for our Creator and Lord, Allah" and you will have a
situation where those who believe do so with even more conviction, and
(if true) even more reason. Yet we object.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Martin Hotze[_1_]

July 8th 06, 03:52 PM

On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 18:28:24 +0200, Thomas Borchert wrote:

>Have you totally lost it? Your troops are still there not because they
>are needed to maintain peace and freedom, but because forward bases
>close to (what used to be) the enemy can't be had any cheaper than in
>previously occupied country. Man, you really need a reality check...

and as they where at it it was also a big plus to use it for stealing
inventions and spying on his own allies.

but this is really old news.

#m
--
Did you ever realize how much text fits in eighty columns? If you now consider
that a signature usually consists of up to four lines, this gives you enough
space to spread a tremendous amount of information with your messages. So seize
this opportunity and don't waste your signature with bull**** nobody will read.

Martin Hotze[_1_]

July 8th 06, 03:57 PM

On 7 Jul 2006 12:51:39 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:

>They are killing EACH
>OTHER now, and I think that's been part of the plan from the start.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/
so _this_ is only collateral damage, eh?

#m
--
Did you ever realize how much text fits in eighty columns? If you now consider
that a signature usually consists of up to four lines, this gives you enough
space to spread a tremendous amount of information with your messages. So seize
this opportunity and don't waste your signature with bull**** nobody will read.

Martin Hotze[_1_]

July 8th 06, 03:59 PM

On 7 Jul 2006 19:40:59 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:

>In other words, if a stable democracy develops in Iraq, we win.

what will _you_ (you mean the USA, I suppose) win?

> And if
>civil war between the two major sects of Islam rages on
>indefinitely...we still win.

again: what will _you_ (the USA) win?

#m
--
Did you ever realize how much text fits in eighty columns? If you now consider
that a signature usually consists of up to four lines, this gives you enough
space to spread a tremendous amount of information with your messages. So seize
this opportunity and don't waste your signature with bull**** nobody will read.

john smith

July 8th 06, 04:10 PM

In article om>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> Bottom line: Screwing with the U.S. (at least since 1945) has
> traditionally been a lose-lose situation. Even Viet Nam, which
> supposedly "won" its war with America, lost two generations to war.
> Some victory.
> Why do you think so few countries are dumb enough to try it?

In the words of the great Japanese Admiral Yamamoto, "I fear we have
awakened a great sleeping giant."
Or a truely great American President, Teddy Roosevelt, "Walk softly and
carry a big stick."

Jay Honeck

July 8th 06, 04:19 PM

> >In other words, if a stable democracy develops in Iraq, we win.
>
> what will _you_ (you mean the USA, I suppose) win?
>
> > And if
> >civil war between the two major sects of Islam rages on
> >indefinitely...we still win.
>
> again: what will _you_ (the USA) win?

In scenario #1, we have created a stable and friendly government in a
critical area of the world. In other words, peace has been achieved.

In scenario #2, we have diverted the enemy's attention inward, so that
they are devoting resources to killing each other rather than us. In
other words, peace (from our end) has been achieved.

In either scenario, we have helped to assure a consistent supply of oil
for the world's economy.

>From the point of view of the US, neither scenario is optimal, and both
carry grave risks -- that "stable democracy" could elect themselves a
tyrranical radical mullah as president, for example -- but that never
changes. The world is a dangerous place.

And now, back to North Korea: For those who may need more reasons,
this is a pretty good summation of why we need to be worried about
them: http://tinyurl.com/n3nfp
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[email protected]

July 8th 06, 06:09 PM

Jay Honeck wrote:
The only way we lose is if both sects unite in an Islamic theocracy.
I
> don't think that is going to happen.
> --

I suspect that 2,539 (plus 3 more today) American families think we
have already lost.

Jay Honeck

July 8th 06, 07:02 PM

> The only way we lose is if both sects unite in an Islamic theocracy.
> I
> > don't think that is going to happen.
>
> I suspect that 2,539 (plus 3 more today) American families think we
> have already lost.

Agreed. But that's the way it is in all wars.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Thomas Borchert

July 8th 06, 07:06 PM

Jay,

> Why do you think so few countries are dumb enough to try it?
>

Why do YOU think they crash airliners into your biggest buildings?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

karl gruber[_1_]

July 8th 06, 07:11 PM

Because they are the Muslem enemy.

Karl

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Jay,
>
>> Why do you think so few countries are dumb enough to try it?
>>
>
> Why do YOU think they crash airliners into your biggest buildings?
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

[email protected]

July 8th 06, 08:00 PM

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Agreed. But that's the way it is in all wars.

Jay,
I agree with you; that is the way it is with all wars. Of course, that
begs the real question, doesn't it.

Bob Noel

July 8th 06, 08:26 PM

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> > Why do you think so few countries are dumb enough to try it?
>
> Why do YOU think they crash airliners into your biggest buildings?

To try to incite others into attacking the USA.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Stefan

July 8th 06, 08:54 PM

Jay Honeck schrieb:

> Welcome to geopolitics, Stefan. I didn't say it was a good thing --
> but it's the real deal.

You said *you win*. Disgusting.

Stefan

Jose[_1_]

July 8th 06, 09:01 PM

>>I suspect that 2,539 (plus 3 more today) American families think we
>> have already lost.
>
> Agreed. But that's the way it is in all wars.

Including wars we shouldn't be in.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Newps

July 8th 06, 09:11 PM

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Matt,
>
>
>>Moving them to Iran
>>
>
>
> Bruhaha. Saddam moving his WMD to Iran. Yeah, right. You have world
> politics down pat, no doubt.
>

He moved his fighter planes there.

Newps

July 8th 06, 09:13 PM

Martin Hotze wrote:

> On 7 Jul 2006 19:40:59 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>
>>In other words, if a stable democracy develops in Iraq, we win.
>
>
> what will _you_ (you mean the USA, I suppose) win?

You're a dumbass. That's a collective we. You can't see the value to
the world of a democracy in Iraq? You can't be serious.

Newps

July 8th 06, 09:14 PM

wrote:

> Jay Honeck wrote:
> The only way we lose is if both sects unite in an Islamic theocracy.
> I
>
>>don't think that is going to happen.
>>--
>
>
>
> I suspect that 2,539 (plus 3 more today) American families think we
> have already lost.
>

Then you suspect wrong.

Newps

July 8th 06, 09:16 PM

By the way, flyin today at the Redman ranch which is at the BIL 225/19
give or take a mile or so. Fly that Hawk down there and bring a side
dish and something to drink. Burgers, brats and chicken breast coming
off the grill about 6 pm.

wrote:

> Jay Honeck wrote:
> The only way we lose is if both sects unite in an Islamic theocracy.
> I
>
>>don't think that is going to happen.
>>--
>
>
>
> I suspect that 2,539 (plus 3 more today) American families think we
> have already lost.
>

Jay Honeck

July 8th 06, 09:30 PM

> > Why do you think so few countries are dumb enough to try it?
>
> Why do YOU think they crash airliners into your biggest buildings?

What you or I think is irrelevant. The bottom line is that when anyone
has yanked America's chain hard enough, they have always lost...always
-- even when they "won".

And this isn't just true of America, by the way. It's the old "don't
tug on Superman's cape" rule that pretty much defines the geopolitical
world -- and has for millenia.

Don't believe it? Ask Germany's Hitler, Italy's Mussolini, Japan's
Hirohito and Tojo, Iraq's Saddam, Al Queda's Al Zarqawi, Panama's
Noriega, Serbia's Milosevic...the list goes on and on.

Even the few apparent "winners" on the short list of those who have
gone toe-to-toe with America -- the North Vietnamese, Cuba's Fidel
Castro, and Osama bin Laden, to name three -- lost so much in the
process of "winning" as to dissuade most people from even attempting to
rile America.

For example, the Vietnamese won the war, but lost two (three?)
generations of young men -- and, in the end, America accomplished its
long-range strategic goal of stopping communism.

Fidel Castro has stuck his tongue out at America for 45 years -- but
has been forced to live his life in a gilded cage, in constant fear of
assassination. And, with the fall of communism worldwide, he's
watched his power and prestige evaporate to the point where no one in
America (well, outside of Miami) has taken him seriously for at least a
decade.

And then, of course, bin Laden has attacked America and (thus far)
evaded capture. To accomplish this he is probably holed up in a cave
in Tora Bora, dodging the elite special forces unit that recently
brought down Al Zarqawi. Sound like fun?

I wouldn't characterize any of these supposed "victors" as having lived
anything approaching a fulfilling life -- and most thinking people see
their fate, and come to the same conclusion: Don't screw with America.

It remains to be seen if America can accomplish its long-range
strategic goals in this current war -- but I wouldn't bet against it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jose[_1_]

July 8th 06, 10:03 PM

> I wouldn't characterize any of these supposed "victors" as having lived
> anything approaching a fulfilling life...

No, I suppose they haven't flown a Cherokee across the country with a
wife who is also a pilot and two children who may also become aviators.
They haven't opened an aviation themed hotel and argued on the
internet with kith and kin. They haven't done Oshkosh and partied
around the Mother Of All Grills.

But that's not fulfilling to everyone. Some people are fulfilled
sitting at the top of a tree for three days waiting for the Enemy Of The
World to pass by, and then pulling the trigger. THIS is fulfillment for
some. It is their victory.

Not me. I'd rather sit by the pool. But I am not going to define
victory for others based on what my whims in life are.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jay Honeck

July 8th 06, 10:09 PM

> > I wouldn't characterize any of these supposed "victors" as having lived
> > anything approaching a fulfilling life...
>
> No, I suppose they haven't flown a Cherokee across the country with a
> wife who is also a pilot and two children who may also become aviators....

<SNIP>

> Not me. I'd rather sit by the pool. But I am not going to define
> victory for others based on what my whims in life are.

Me, neither.

My point, Jose, is that these "victories" have come at such a high
personal cost to those who achieved them as to dissuade most thinking
people from even trying to mess with America.

Why? Because most people DON'T want to spend their lives on the run,
living in a cave.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Bob Noel

July 8th 06, 10:50 PM

In article >,
Newps > wrote:

> > Bruhaha. Saddam moving his WMD to Iran. Yeah, right. You have world
> > politics down pat, no doubt.
>
> He moved his fighter planes there.

He *tried* - many didn't make it - crashing without even being
shot at.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Jose[_1_]

July 8th 06, 11:08 PM

> My point, Jose, is that these "victories" have come at such a high
> personal cost to those who achieved them as to dissuade most thinking
> people from even trying to mess with America.
>
> Why? Because most people DON'T want to spend their lives on the run,
> living in a cave.

But "most people" aren't the problem. It's the exceptions that are the
ones that cause us the headaches. These exceptions often do not have
our values, so to judge them by our values is folly. Some of them do
have our values, and are just smaller than we are, but perceive us as
being evil and very harmful to them. If a big galoot were raping your
sister, would you sit by because he's bigger than you and has whupped
lots of others? I suspect you'd give it your all, and accept the risk
of injury or death to save what you percieve as more important.

That big galoot might not consider your sister to be "important", and
might judge you irrational or insane to come after him. But I bet you
would.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jay Honeck

July 9th 06, 03:42 AM

> Figured I'd try to make a little lemonade out of this, so I'm having
> long range tanks installed as long as the wings are off, and saved
> about $3000 on that since alot of the labor for that is already covered
> by the work needed to repair the wings, anyway. :)

A good pilot can *always* justify spending more money on his plane by
detailing the amount of money saved...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Newps

July 9th 06, 05:03 AM

Too bad. You missed a great fly-in. I'm the flower bombing champ and a
Maule lost control on landing and will havfe to be trucked out. We
didn't start any forest fires though.

wrote:

> Newps wrote:
>
>>By the way, flyin today at the Redman ranch which is at the BIL 225/19
>>give or take a mile or so. Fly that Hawk down there and bring a side
>>dish and something to drink. Burgers, brats and chicken breast coming
>>off the grill about 6 pm.
>>
>
> I'd love to, and would if I could!!! It is just too nice a day. I
> taxied my plane into the damn "EXXON EDWARDS" sign at Edwards One while
> trying to squeeze into a close place and crumpled my left wing about a
> foot in from the end. Had to have the wings removed and the whole
> thing trucked to Greeley CO for a major fix. SH-T !!! The insurance
> guy asked me if I'd figured out a way to blame it on my wife. Had to
> laugh at that one. Actually, I had thought about a way. ;)
>
> Figured I'd try to make a little lemonade out of this, so I'm having
> long range tanks installed as long as the wings are off, and saved
> about $3000 on that since alot of the labor for that is already covered
> by the work needed to repair the wings, anyway. :)
>

Newps

July 9th 06, 05:05 AM

wrote:

I
> taxied my plane into the damn "EXXON EDWARDS" sign at Edwards One while
> trying to squeeze into a close place and crumpled my left wing about a
> foot in from the end. Had to have the wings removed and the whole
> thing trucked to Greeley CO for a major fix.

You could have taken it to Big Sky Aircraft in Laurel. It's an FAA
repair station and Frank is famous for that kind of work.

Martin Hotze[_1_]

July 9th 06, 01:21 PM

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 14:13:58 -0600, Newps wrote:

>>>In other words, if a stable democracy develops in Iraq, we win.
>>
>>
>> what will _you_ (you mean the USA, I suppose) win?
>
>You're a dumbass. That's a collective we.

Hopefully you don't fight the war (it is a war, isn't it?) for _me_. And in
recent years I won't be put in the same context as the general American
(yeah, there are some smart people over there, but they can be hardly made
out), this is too disgusting.

> You can't see the value to
>the world of a democracy in Iraq?

Your (American) world? I am sorry, but I can't follow your current American
ideals. You are war mongers.

> You can't be serious.

I _am_ serious. More than ever.

#m
--
Did you ever realize how much text fits in eighty columns? If you now consider
that a signature usually consists of up to four lines, this gives you enough
space to spread a tremendous amount of information with your messages. So seize
this opportunity and don't waste your signature with bull**** nobody will read.

Andrew Gideon

July 9th 06, 07:29 PM

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 13:38:46 +0000, Jose wrote:

> But a belief that X is ncessary does not give us the
> right or obligation to impose it.

In fact, one conclusion is that to *impose* it is to violate it. It's
one of those "the operation was a success but the patient died" situations.

> Substitute "respect for human rights"
> with "respect and reverence for our Creator and Lord", or even "respect
> and reverence for our Creator and Lord, Allah" and you will have a
> situation where those who believe do so with even more conviction, and
> (if true) even more reason. Yet we object.

Believers in those various dogmas have an advantage over people that
believe in human rights. As I wrote above, human rights cannot be
imposed. The very idea is silly (how does one "impose" "free choice"?).

But those other dogmas *can* be imposed.

I suspect that there's a basic principle there, but I cannot prove it.

- Andrew

Jose[_1_]

July 9th 06, 10:54 PM

> As I wrote above, human rights cannot be
> imposed. The very idea is silly (how does one "impose" "free choice"?).

One does so by forcibly removing the obstacles to free choice. This is
often a small set of people and a power structure. Then one ensures
that the replacement small set of people and power structure will permit
the governed to choose freely.

Whether this is easy, hard, or next to impossible depends on many
things, including the underlying social structure and the external
politics. Whether this is desirable or not depends on which side of the
gun you sit.

Whether this is morally justified, or morally reprehensible, is the
question, and like many such, it is a tangle of intersecting rights. I
tend towards it being none of our business, until it threatens our
survival, in which case morals take a second place. What is wrong
however is doing this not when it threatens our survival, but when it
threatens to threaten our survival. It's like prosecuting somebody
because they came "too close" to the border of a restricted area.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

cjcampbell

July 10th 06, 03:34 AM

Jose wrote:
> >>I suspect that 2,539 (plus 3 more today) American families think we
> >> have already lost.
> >
> > Agreed. But that's the way it is in all wars.
>
> Including wars we shouldn't be in.
>

Now you have me curious. I have no dog in this fight, you understand. I
have committed myself towards working for peace. Nevertheless, I am
well aware that I am able to do so only because there are others who
are willing to break the peace in order to protect the lives of me, my
family, and all that I know.

But you appear to think that there are wars we should be in. Which are
those? Can you think of a single argument in favor of going to war
with, say, Hitler or Tojo that does not apply equally well to Saddam,
Kim Il Sung, the leaders of Iran, or of Somalia?

A few weeks ago I visited the American Cemetery in Manila. It is a
beautiful spot. I took photos of seemingly endless rows of crosses and
stars against a backdrop of flame trees. There are more than 17,000
graves there. More than 3,000 of the markers have no names on them;
they are unidentified. And there is a great circle of stone tables on
which are inscribed many thousands of more names of those whose bodies
were never recovered. And these are just those Americans (and others
from several other nations fighting under the American flag) who died
in order to kick the Japanese out of the Philippines and a few islands
in the Pacific. Was it worth the cost? I wonder what the world would be
like if, after Hitler had sunk a single ship or if the Japanese had
massacred a battalion of Marines assaulting the beach, if we had just
said that the cost of opposing Hitler or Tojo was too great, if we had
just made our separate peace, abandoning our allies to their fate.

Maybe it would not have made any difference at all. Who knows?

Do you really think the world would be better off if we simply allowed
Islamic extremists to destroy Israel, unite all of the Middle East and
South Asia under an aggressive Islamic flag, overrun some more African
nations, and threaten Europe and America with nuclear weapons? What do
you suppose we would have to do to appease these people in order to
finally stop the killing and find peace? And how would we appease their
mortal enemies, who might very well adopt the same tactics of terror
that these Islamic extremists now use? Do we just do whatever anybody
holding a gun orders us to do? And what if the person holding the gun
orders you to kill somebody, perhaps a friend, perhaps even your wife
or your children?

I think, if you want to work for peace, that you need to find serious
answers to these serious questions, and stop playing the shill for
domestic and foreign politicians who would sell their country out in
return for political gain. That is, if you want peace, give me
something other than the sophomoric arguments of Michael Moore or
Barbara Streisand. Tell me what you are really willing to do in order
to achieve peace.

cjcampbell

July 10th 06, 03:34 AM

Andrew Gideon

July 10th 06, 03:42 AM

On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 21:54:22 +0000, Jose wrote:

>> As I wrote above, human rights cannot be imposed. The very idea is
>> silly (how does one "impose" "free choice"?).
>
> One does so by forcibly removing the obstacles to free choice.

That's not really "imposing". But I'm not sure what word does apply.

[...]

> Whether this is morally justified, or morally reprehensible, is the
> question, and like many such, it is a tangle of intersecting rights.

We'd not find it acceptable should the police do nothing about a hostage
situation in our home town, eh? Of course, we've hired the police - in
that example - as a collective.

- Andrew

Jay Honeck

July 10th 06, 04:05 AM

> I think, if you want to work for peace, that you need to find serious
> answers to these serious questions, and stop playing the shill for
> domestic and foreign politicians who would sell their country out in
> return for political gain. That is, if you want peace, give me
> something other than the sophomoric arguments of Michael Moore or
> Barbara Streisand. Tell me what you are really willing to do in order
> to achieve peace.

Bravo! Excellent post, all 'round.

And it points up a terrible, possibly mortal weakness in the Left in
general, at least since I was in college, some 25 years ago: They only
stand AGAINST things -- they never stand FOR things.

For the Left (or, if you prefer, for the sake of this discussion, the
anti-war movement) to answer your questions would require them to make
a stand four-square FOR something, which means that moral relativism --
their central philosophy -- would cease to function. In other words,
if nothing is "right" and nothing is "wrong" -- only varying shades of
gray -- how can you possibly ever decide that *anything* is worth
fighting for?

THAT, in a nutshell, is why the Democrats (in America) and the Left
(worldwide) can't seem to get any traction in the polls. Voters may
not be able to put it into words, but people intuitively understand
that only standing against things isn't a workable solution to
anything.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Morgans[_3_]

July 10th 06, 05:08 AM

"cjcampbell" > wrote

> Now you have me curious. I have no dog in this fight, you understand. I
> have committed myself towards working for peace. Nevertheless, I am
> well aware that I am able to do so only because there are others who
> are willing to break the peace in order to protect the lives of me, my
> family, and all that I know.
>
> But you appear to think that there are wars we should be in. Which are
> those? Can you think of a single argument in favor of going to war
> with, say, Hitler or Tojo that does not apply equally well to Saddam,
> Kim Il Sung, the leaders of Iran, or of Somalia?

Thanks, CJ. You are in a unique place and situation, to have thought about
these issues, at some length. You have expressed many thoughts that some
here must think, and expressed them quite clearly and rationally.

What you have written seems so plain, and truthful, that I can not
understand how everyone does not think as you do. I too do not want war, or
to see young men killed, but theirs is a noble sacrifice, to hopefully
prevent some many thousands of other young men and women, children and
elders, from losing their lives.

Again, thanks. Also, thanks for what you do, in bringing new ideas and
understandings to the people that your group is attempting to reach.
--
Jim in NC

Jose[_1_]

July 10th 06, 05:13 AM

> But you appear to think that there are wars we should be in. Which are
> those? Can you think of a single argument in favor of going to war
> with, say, Hitler or Tojo that does not apply equally well to Saddam,
> Kim Il Sung, the leaders of Iran, or of Somalia?

In short (but mindful that real life is never this simple),

When a nation attacks us, we have the moral right to defend ourselves,
to attack back, and to defeat the enemy. When a nation attacks our
allies, we have the obligation to our allies, according to the terms of
our alliance, to help them defend themselves - in exchange presumably
they would do the same or some equivalent for us.

When a nation attacks a non-allied nation, we have no moral obligation
to send our children to risk their lives in something that is none of
our business. In fact, we have an obligation to stay out of it.

In the case of 911, we were not attacked by a nation. We were attacked
by a handful of rogue individuals. We have the right and moral
obligation to root them out and destroy them and their support
structure. However, we do not have the right to attack other countries
just because they "look the same", nor do we have the right to use this
attack as an excuse to the American People to wage war on other
countries not involved.

Hitler and his allies attacked us (with Japan as the proxy).

Saddam did not. (at least not since 9-11)

There is a difference between an attack, a threat of attack, and a
threat of threat of attack. Blurring the line risks turning us into the
very demon we claim to fight. It must be done with extreme caution,
because there is no hindsight, and I don't trust our politicians to have
foresight.

> Do you really think the world would be better off if we simply allowed
> Islamic extremists to destroy Israel, unite all of the Middle East and
> South Asia under an aggressive Islamic flag, overrun some more African
> nations, and threaten Europe and America with nuclear weapons?

No. But our inaction may not cause it to happen. In fact, our =action=
may hasten it. We are dealing with a differnet kind of enemy.

> What do
> you suppose we would have to do to appease these people in order to
> finally stop the killing and find peace?

I don't think they can be appeased. Nor can they be destroyed.

> I think, if you want to work for peace, that you need to find serious
> answers to these serious questions...

I can give you a simple, complete, and foolproof answer to all these
questions, once you supply me with a number that is greater than six and
less than four.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose[_1_]

July 10th 06, 05:16 AM

> We'd not find it acceptable should the police do nothing about a hostage
> situation in our home town, eh?

I don't know. If there's a murder in your home town, would you want
the police from the neighboring state to drive in and blow up all the
houses that look like crack houses, in case the murder were drug related?

The end result may be a safer and more peaceful city. But there is a price.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

cjcampbell

July 10th 06, 05:58 AM

Jose wrote:
> > But you appear to think that there are wars we should be in. Which are
> > those? Can you think of a single argument in favor of going to war
> > with, say, Hitler or Tojo that does not apply equally well to Saddam,
> > Kim Il Sung, the leaders of Iran, or of Somalia?
>
> In short (but mindful that real life is never this simple),
>
> When a nation attacks us, we have the moral right to defend ourselves,
> to attack back, and to defeat the enemy. When a nation attacks our
> allies, we have the obligation to our allies, according to the terms of
> our alliance, to help them defend themselves - in exchange presumably
> they would do the same or some equivalent for us.
>
> When a nation attacks a non-allied nation, we have no moral obligation
> to send our children to risk their lives in something that is none of
> our business. In fact, we have an obligation to stay out of it.
>
> In the case of 911, we were not attacked by a nation. We were attacked
> by a handful of rogue individuals. We have the right and moral
> obligation to root them out and destroy them and their support
> structure. However, we do not have the right to attack other countries
> just because they "look the same", nor do we have the right to use this
> attack as an excuse to the American People to wage war on other
> countries not involved.
>

Would we have the right to attack a country that was harboring those
who planned 9-11, funding their activities, and training them? Would
you consider that country to have attacked us?

> Hitler and his allies attacked us (with Japan as the proxy).
>
> Saddam did not. (at least not since 9-11)
>

Apparently a lot of people believe he did by paying rewards to suicide
bombers' families, firing missiles at our planes, etc.

> There is a difference between an attack, a threat of attack, and a
> threat of threat of attack. Blurring the line risks turning us into the
> very demon we claim to fight. It must be done with extreme caution,
> because there is no hindsight, and I don't trust our politicians to have
> foresight.
>

Is it just Republican politicians that you do not trust, or do you not
trust any of them?

> > Do you really think the world would be better off if we simply allowed
> > Islamic extremists to destroy Israel, unite all of the Middle East and
> > South Asia under an aggressive Islamic flag, overrun some more African
> > nations, and threaten Europe and America with nuclear weapons?
>
> No. But our inaction may not cause it to happen. In fact, our =action=
> may hasten it. We are dealing with a differnet kind of enemy.
>

Well, Iran's president is a Holocaust-denying politician (do you trust
him more than your own politicians?) who has publicly stated on the
floor of the United Nations that he believes it his personal
responsibility to bring about Armageddon. He wants Israel, our ally,
destroyed. He has sent supplies, men, arms, and money to people who use
them to attack our soldiers. By these criteria he has attacked both us
and our allies. Would you suggest attacking him? Or would you wait for
him to acquire a nuclear weapon and use it on Jerusalem or Berlin
before attacking him?

Let us suppose that an enraged man who cannot be reasoned with bursts
into your home screaming that he is going to kill you and your entire
family. He points a gun at you. Do you wait for him to fire first
before you shoot him, or do you shoot first? What if he is out in the
public street?

> > What do
> > you suppose we would have to do to appease these people in order to
> > finally stop the killing and find peace?
>
> I don't think they can be appeased. Nor can they be destroyed.
>

So we just cave into their demands?

> > I think, if you want to work for peace, that you need to find serious
> > answers to these serious questions...
>
> I can give you a simple, complete, and foolproof answer to all these
> questions, once you supply me with a number that is greater than six and
> less than four.
>

Obviously. Are you saying that your own philosophy has painted you into
a logical corner?

cjcampbell

July 10th 06, 06:01 AM

Morgans[_3_]

July 10th 06, 06:44 AM

"Jose" > wrote

> I can give you a simple, complete, and foolproof answer to all these
> questions, once you supply me with a number that is greater than six and
> less than four.
>
Jose

Your arguments have as much rationale as the above statement.

Anymore, you seem to argue, just for the sake of argument. If the opinions
you are expressing are what you really believe, you are in a vocal minority,
around here. All you seem to do is argue, with nobody you are responding to
getting one bit closer to believing in what you are saying. All it does, is
prolong the pointless postings.

I for one, am tired of hearing it. You and everyone else, give it up!

I know, don't read it, you say. It is coming close to me not reading any of
it, because it is not worth the effort of sorting out the garbage, for the
occasional jewel. Is that what you want to do? Run me, and many others
like me away from the group? It would be a shame if it continued, but I
have a feeling that you will not have enough self control to restrain
yourself.
--
Jim in NC

Thomas Borchert

July 10th 06, 07:32 AM

Cjcampbell,

> Would we have the right to attack a country that was harboring those
> who planned 9-11, funding their activities, and training them? Would
> you consider that country to have attacked us?
>

Well, my hometown of Hamburg, Germany, should have been a goner way
before Iraq, if that was the reason the US did it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

July 10th 06, 07:32 AM

Morgans,

> you are in a vocal minority,
> around here.
>

Nope, he isn't. And even if so, all the more reason to speak up.

But, nice try.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Morgans[_3_]

July 10th 06, 08:46 AM

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Morgans,
>
> > you are in a vocal minority,
> > around here.
> >
>
> Nope, he isn't. And even if so, all the more reason to speak up.
>
> But, nice try.

I count about 4, with the hardline views that he, you and about two more
share. That looks like a minority, to me.
--
Jim in NC

cjcampbell

July 10th 06, 09:33 AM

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Cjcampbell,
>
> > Would we have the right to attack a country that was harboring those
> > who planned 9-11, funding their activities, and training them? Would
> > you consider that country to have attacked us?
> >
>
> Well, my hometown of Hamburg, Germany, should have been a goner way
> before Iraq, if that was the reason the US did it.

Possibly so. As I said, I am interested only in peace. If the USA
showed forbearance in not attacking Hamburg, then that is fine with me.

But I was not thinking of Iraq. I was thinking more along the lines of
Afghanistan.

I really do not claim to have the answers as to what constitutes an
attack that requires a response. I am fishing for what you and Jose
think. I am aware that you believe that attacking Iraq was a mistake.
As for my own opinion on it, I must remain silent. But I am genuinely
interested in your rationale as to why it is okay to attack Germany but
not Iraq, even though Iraq actually did kill US citizens and allies
quite frequently.

cjcampbell

July 10th 06, 09:35 AM

Neil Gould

July 10th 06, 11:50 AM

Recently, cjcampbell > posted:

> Jose wrote:
>>>> I suspect that 2,539 (plus 3 more today) American families think we
>>>> have already lost.
>>>
>>> Agreed. But that's the way it is in all wars.
>>
>> Including wars we shouldn't be in.
>>
>
> Now you have me curious. I have no dog in this fight, you understand.
> I have committed myself towards working for peace. Nevertheless, I am
> well aware that I am able to do so only because there are others who
> are willing to break the peace in order to protect the lives of me, my
> family, and all that I know.
>
> But you appear to think that there are wars we should be in. Which are
> those? Can you think of a single argument in favor of going to war
> with, say, Hitler or Tojo that does not apply equally well to Saddam,
> Kim Il Sung, the leaders of Iran, or of Somalia?
>
(rest snipped for brevity)

The differences between these examples are significant, and IMO, those
that can't tell the difference are those that believe any aggressive
action can be justified after-the-fact. Before *any* action was taken,
Hitler attacked other nations. The case could be made that action could
have been taken to stop Hitler sooner; so history taught us that lesson.
Tojo's direct attack of the US is the reason we retaliated; we didn't do
so on the mere notion that he may have had the capability to attack us and
might have wanted to.

As soon as Hussein attacked Kuwait it was time to move. The world agreed,
and he was immediately suppressed; Hussein posed no *real* threat to
anyone since that time.

Iran is a situation where we are still experiencing the repercussions from
our fiddling with their government since the early '50s. That mistake has
cost us dearly in the region, and we have little choice but to ride it
out. Sadly, our attack of Iraq has only complicated matters and created
new problem that will have repercussions for decades (if not centuries) to
come.

Korea is another situation where the world has contained the aggression of
the North, and won't really do much beyond that. Those living in the
region have the most at risk, and they do not appear to be of the opinion
that NK should be attacked a la Iraq. "Most thinking people" would agree.

I don't believe that wars will end in our lifetime, but I do think that we
can act more responsibly than we have acted by attacking Iraq. It was a
stupid, ill-informed move, and compounding that with other stupid,
ill-informed moves won't make matters better.

Neil

Neil Gould

July 10th 06, 12:00 PM

Recently, cjcampbell > posted:

> Jose wrote:
>>
>> When a nation attacks us, we have the moral right to defend
>> ourselves, to attack back, and to defeat the enemy. When a nation
>> attacks our allies, we have the obligation to our allies, according
>> to the terms of our alliance, to help them defend themselves - in
>> exchange presumably they would do the same or some equivalent for us.
[...]
>> In the case of 911, we were not attacked by a nation. We were
>> attacked by a handful of rogue individuals. We have the right and
>> moral obligation to root them out and destroy them and their support
>> structure. However, we do not have the right to attack other
>> countries just because they "look the same", nor do we have the
>> right to use this attack as an excuse to the American People to wage
>> war on other countries not involved.
>>
>
> Would we have the right to attack a country that was harboring those
> who planned 9-11, funding their activities, and training them? Would
> you consider that country to have attacked us?
>
Apparently not, given that Bin Laden et al are very likely in Pakistan. We
knew that, and attacked Iraq. Hmm.

> Apparently a lot of people believe he did by paying rewards to suicide
> bombers' families, firing missiles at our planes, etc.
>
He was firing missiles at our planes in *his* airspace. Hardly surprising.

> Let us suppose that an enraged man who cannot be reasoned with bursts
> into your home screaming that he is going to kill you and your entire
> family. He points a gun at you. Do you wait for him to fire first
> before you shoot him, or do you shoot first? What if he is out in the
> public street?
>
Let's not gloss over your assertion that he "...bursts into your home..."
If he had burst into your neighbor's home, do you rush in with a gun and
start shooting? When your stray bullet kills one of your neighbors, what
should be the consequences?

Neil

Neil Gould

July 10th 06, 12:04 PM

Recently, Morgans > posted:

> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Morgans,
>>
>>> you are in a vocal minority,
>>> around here.
>>>
>>
>> Nope, he isn't. And even if so, all the more reason to speak up.
>>
>> But, nice try.
>
> I count about 4, with the hardline views that he, you and about two
> more share. That looks like a minority, to me.
>
So, you are of the opinion that the minority should have no voice? If we
don't agree with you, we should just let you rant on about such topics as
this? What is the value of that approach, Jim?

Neil

Thomas Borchert

July 10th 06, 12:57 PM

Cjcampbell,

> But I am genuinely
> interested in your rationale as to why it is okay to attack Germany but
> not Iraq,
>

To put Iraq and Nazi-Germany in the same basket in this context is beyond
ridiculous.

May I suggest you just google back 3 years? The arguments have all been
posted here even though it is not the main topic of the group.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

July 10th 06, 12:57 PM

Neil,

> What is the value of that approach, Jim?
>

It's very American. And it's the view of the majority.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Gig 601XL Builder

July 10th 06, 04:01 PM

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Matt,
>
>> Moving them to Iran
>>
>
> Bruhaha. Saddam moving his WMD to Iran. Yeah, right. You have world
> politics down pat, no doubt.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

You do remember that Saddam moved several of his fighter aircraft to Iran
during the 1st Gulf War?

Gig 601XL Builder

July 10th 06, 04:14 PM

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> On 7 Jul 2006 12:51:39 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>They are killing EACH
>>OTHER now, and I think that's been part of the plan from the start.
>
> http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/
> so _this_ is only collateral damage, eh?
>

That database (at least the first page) pretty much confirms what Jay wrote.
With the exception of one airstrike that killed to people it looks like all
the deaths were caused by insurgents.

Andrew Gideon

July 10th 06, 05:08 PM

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 04:16:31 +0000, Jose wrote:

>> We'd not find it acceptable should the police do nothing about a hostage
>> situation in our home town, eh?
>
> I don't know. If there's a murder in your home town, would you want the
> police from the neighboring state to drive in and blow up all the houses
> that look like crack houses, in case the murder were drug related?
>
> The end result may be a safer and more peaceful city. But there is a
> price.

You don't need to introduce the "neighboring state" metaphor. Think
"Philadelphia" and "MOVE". I'm sure there are plenty of other examples.

I'm not sure where this takes the discussion, however. Perhaps: don't
underestimate the population's willingness to see houses bombed as long as
(1) it is someone else's house and (2) it is supposed to make them safer.
Consider those that respond to the current administrations warrant-free
searches with "well, if you've nothing to hide...".

Then there's the ADIZ, which makes the DC area safe from law-abiding
pilots. Or the invasion of Iraq, which makes the US safe from all those
WMD-carrying terrorists that attacked the US in 2001/09.

Populations aren't all that discerning. And what does *that* mean for the
promotion of democracy <laugh>?

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon

July 10th 06, 05:15 PM

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 08:32:24 +0200, Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Well, my hometown of Hamburg, Germany, should have been a goner way before
> Iraq, if that was the reason the US did it.

If we're comparing this to Afghanistan, then it pays to be mindful of the
fact that Germany as a political entity didn't/doesn't support the
terrorists. In fact, it considers them criminals and works to hunt them
down.

I'm pretty sure that Hamburg is safe, therefore, from the US.

The situation with Pakistan is far less clear, in my opinion. It's an
interesting left hand/right hand case.

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon

July 10th 06, 05:41 PM

On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 20:05:52 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:

> only varying shades of gray
> -- how can you possibly ever decide that *anything* is worth fighting for?
>
[...]

> people intuitively understand that only
> standing against things isn't a workable solution to anything.

This is an interesting juxtaposition. You require that one be able to
decide upon something being worth fighting for, and yet "standing against
things" isn't workable.

You make several other logical errors, perhaps the largest of which is
mixing "left" and "anti-war". In fact, even "anti-war" is a misnomer and
simplification. There's a difference between a pacifist that is against
war as an institution and someone that is against the current "war" in
Iraq.

But this is all a game of public relations. Just as the debate about
illegal immigration was framed as one about "immigration" by those looking
to avoid a true debate on the issues, people like to reframe the "war" in
Iraq as being about the "war" on terrorism.

The reality is that one can be for the "war" on terrorism w/o being for
the "war" in Iraq. In fact, there are those of us that have a heightened
concern about our waste of time and resources in Iraq precisely because
we've this other "war" to which we should be paying attention.

The question you need to ask yourself is whether you're willing to look
past the silly PR on the news every day (primarily in politicians'
speeches) and actually see the situation in Iraq for what it is distinct
from the situation with terrorism. Yes, there are insurgents in Iraq
today using terrorist techniques. But that's largely a civil war amongst
its own population. We didn't cause that, but we did permit it. And we
should do something about it...although, to be honest, I'm not sure that
we can do enough. Can a central government be sufficiently strong to
govern in the face of the sectarian tensions w/o simply recreating the
horrors of the Saddam regime?

But this has nothing to do with the [more important, in my opinion] "war"
that we should be fighting on terrorism.

Of course, neither action is truly a "war" in the conventional sense.
Both really should be seen more as police actions. In Iraq, we're trying
to enforce a peace between sectarian groups (thus "peace officers" {8^).
In the case of the terrorists, the conflict is largely not one of applied
military force but instead tracking, identifying, and locating the
individuals involved. This is more the task of a police officer than a
soldier (though of course "intelligence services" play a role either way).

There may be some real wars in our "war" on terrorism. Afghanistan was
one, and I suspect it's not the last. But the overall process isn't
really a "war" (though perhaps "cold war" as a description might work).

- Andrew

Jose[_1_]

July 10th 06, 06:10 PM

> You don't need to introduce the "neighboring state" metaphor. Think
> "Philadelphia" and "MOVE". I'm sure there are plenty of other examples.

I do need to introduce the "neighboring state" metaphor, since what I am
addressing is attacking somebody that didn't attack you. MOVE at least
was attacked by police that had actual jurisdiction. Whether they did
right is a separate question - at least they had the grounds to do it.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose[_1_]

July 10th 06, 06:35 PM

> Would we have the right to attack a country that was harboring those
> who planned 9-11, funding their activities, and training them? Would
> you consider that country to have attacked us?

That depends on the extent to which they were backing the terrorists.
Bear in mind that the United States is also harboring terrorists,
funding their activities, and training them. We might not like it, one
branch of our government might be trying to root them out while another
branch of our same government is giving them scholarships, paying food
stamps, and teaching them how to fly. It could be construed as criminal
negligence that even faced with actual reports to relevant government
officials about the "odd" behavior and training requests that the 911
pilots manifested, our government ignored these reports, gave them
visas, and aided and abetted them. (We'd certainly call it "aid and
abet" if it were Pakistan that did that).

> Apparently a lot of people believe [Saddam] did [attack us] by paying rewards to suicide
> bombers' families, firing missiles at our planes, etc.

What planes did he attack? I believe they were all planes that violated
his soverign airspace.

As to paying rewards to suicide bombers' families, that's not an attack
on the United States, and I don't think we have the right to stop it.
Here we pay rewards to jobless drifters, faith based institutions, and
drug dealers. There are many government programs that can be construed
to support the actions of evil people. Be careful, houses are made of
glass.

> Is it just Republican politicians that you do not trust, or do you not
> trust any of them?

I don't trust any of them. I don't know what "Republican" has to do
with what I am saying.

> Well, Iran's president is a Holocaust-denying politician (do you trust
> him more than your own politicians?) who has publicly stated on the
> floor of the United Nations that he believes it his personal
> responsibility to bring about Armageddon. He wants Israel, our ally,
> destroyed.

What he believes and wants is one thing, what he does is another.

> He has sent supplies, men, arms, and money to people who use
> them to attack our soldiers. By these criteria he has attacked both us
> and our allies. Would you suggest attacking him? Or would you wait for
> him to acquire a nuclear weapon and use it on Jerusalem or Berlin
> before attacking him?

What were our soldiers doing at the time?

> Let us suppose that an enraged man who cannot be reasoned with bursts
> into your home screaming that he is going to kill you and your entire
> family. He points a gun at you. Do you wait for him to fire first
> before you shoot him, or do you shoot first? What if he is out in the
> public street?

This is a credible threat, and I would shoot as soon as he pointed the
gun at me or my friends. I would not subsequently go out and shoot
everyone else who looked like him.

>>I can give you a simple, complete, and foolproof answer to all these
>> questions, once you supply me with a number that is greater than six and
>> less than four.
> Obviously. Are you saying that your own philosophy has painted you into
> a logical corner?

There are some problems that just have no solution. In these cases, it
is even =more= important not to take actions that make the situation
worse. I don't advocate caving in to their demands, and I don't think
there is a general answer to the question, except this is something we
just have to live with and accept, if we are not going to "destroy the
village in order to save it".

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Andrew Gideon

July 10th 06, 08:14 PM

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 17:35:58 +0000, Jose wrote:

> Bear
> in mind that the United States is also harboring terrorists, funding their
> activities, and training them. We might not like it, one branch of our
> government might be trying to root them out while another branch of our
> same government is giving them scholarships, paying food stamps, and
> teaching them how to fly.

To what aviation students are you referring?

[...]

>> Apparently a lot of people believe [Saddam] did [attack us] by paying
>> rewards to suicide bombers' families, firing missiles at our planes,
>> etc.
>
> What planes did he attack? I believe they were all planes that violated
> his soverign airspace.

A pair of no-fly-zones were enforced as a consequence of Iraq's defeat
after having invaded Kuwait. I'm not sure that "sovereign" applies in
that case, given that the no-fly-zones were to ensure the enforcement of
the cease fire to which Iraq had agreed.

- Andrew

Jose[_1_]

July 10th 06, 09:14 PM

>>Bear
>> in mind that the United States is also harboring terrorists, funding their
>> activities, and training them. We might not like it, one branch of our
>> government might be trying to root them out while another branch of our
>> same government is giving them scholarships, paying food stamps, and
>> teaching them how to fly.
>
> To what aviation students are you referring?

No specific reference, although the 9-11 terrorists were given visas by
our government despite warnings by their CFIs that they were up to
something suspicious. Osama Bin Laden himself was trained and supported
by the United States. We give out welfare money with little regard for
criminality; granted our system may be broken, but that would not be an
excuse if it were our enemy claiming the same things.

> A pair of no-fly-zones were enforced as a consequence of Iraq's defeat
> after having invaded Kuwait. I'm not sure that "sovereign" applies in
> that case, given that the no-fly-zones were to ensure the enforcement of
> the cease fire to which Iraq had agreed.

I'm sure Iraq considered itself soverign, despite its defeat.

Politics is not so simple that we can simply walk around knowing we are
right, and imposing ourselves on others. The world is getting much too
small for that.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[email protected]

July 11th 06, 01:12 AM

Newps wrote:

> You could have taken it to Big Sky Aircraft in Laurel. It's an FAA
> repair station and Frank is famous for that kind of work.

Yeah, Edwards mentioned them. I just went along with my insurance
company's recommendation. I checked out the Greely outfit, Beegles
Aircraft Service, and from what I could find, they have a good rep.
Fortunately, I don't have a lot of experience in the aircraft repair
business.

[email protected]

July 11th 06, 01:14 AM

Jay Honeck wrote:
> > Figured I'd try to make a little lemonade out of this, so I'm having
> > long range tanks installed as long as the wings are off, and saved
> > about $3000 on that since alot of the labor for that is already covered
> > by the work needed to repair the wings, anyway. :)
>
> A good pilot can *always* justify spending more money on his plane by
> detailing the amount of money saved...
>
> ;-)
> --

You're right. I learned long ago that I have no prayer of justifying
it any other way (at least financially).

[email protected]

July 11th 06, 01:16 AM

Newps wrote:
> Too bad. You missed a great fly-in. I'm the flower bombing champ and a
> Maule lost control on landing and will havfe to be trucked out. We
> didn't start any forest fires though.
>
>I assume you mean "flour" bombing. Or do you actually pick out some poor wildflower and try to hit it? ;)

[email protected]

July 11th 06, 02:30 AM

Please visit www.kenlayisalive.org, an informative website devoted to
tracking the movements of the "late" Kenneth L. Lay, convicted felon
and former CEO of Enron Corporation.

You may send all of your reports to

Americans for Equal Justice is providing this site as a public service
for all of those who demand that Ken Lay and other white-collar
criminals be brought to justice. We welcome and will publish any and
all relevant information on the whereabouts of Kenneth L. Lay.
Americans for Equal Justice strongly suggests that you not only report
your findings to us, but most importantly, to your local news outlets.
Please send any links to news outlets reporting your sightings to our
organization as well.

You may send all of your reports to

We here at Americans for Equal Justice feel strongly that the
possibility exists that Mr. Lay, like Hitler, Elvis, and Tupac before
him, has faked his own death in order to avoid any more unwanted public
scrutiny. If this is true, then it is our responsibility as good
Americans to bring this criminal to justice by reporting his
whereabouts to the proper authorities.

Thank you for your support,

Americans for Equal Justice

http://blogs.dfw.com/startle_grams/2006/07/who_knew_that_k.html

wrote:
> Newps wrote:
> > By the way, flyin today at the Redman ranch which is at the BIL 225/19
> > give or take a mile or so. Fly that Hawk down there and bring a side
> > dish and something to drink. Burgers, brats and chicken breast coming
> > off the grill about 6 pm.
> >
> I'd love to, and would if I could!!! It is just too nice a day. I
> taxied my plane into the damn "EXXON EDWARDS" sign at Edwards One while
> trying to squeeze into a close place and crumpled my left wing about a
> foot in from the end. Had to have the wings removed and the whole
> thing trucked to Greeley CO for a major fix. SH-T !!! The insurance
> guy asked me if I'd figured out a way to blame it on my wife. Had to
> laugh at that one. Actually, I had thought about a way. ;)
>
> Figured I'd try to make a little lemonade out of this, so I'm having
> long range tanks installed as long as the wings are off, and saved
> about $3000 on that since alot of the labor for that is already covered
> by the work needed to repair the wings, anyway. :)