We Are All Spaniards

[Jay Honeck]

> I have enough to last about 4 more months at the current deficit rate. Can
I
> interest you in a Maule? That will build it back up pretty nicely.

You'd sell your plane before you'd move? Man, that's hard-core.

I'd cut off my, um, appendages, before selling my plane.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> You'd sell your plane before you'd move? Man, that's hard-core.

Would you get a divorce before selling your plane? That's my choice. The plane's
in for annual now. She goes down to Cape May for new paint on the top of the wings
and general clean-up after that. Then she goes on the block.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Frank > wrote:
>
> > How many were still in business after a year? I could see where rapid
> > growth
> > in self-employment might be a symptom of a bad economy. After all, if
> > there
> > are no employers hiring....

Work ebbs and flows from one sector to another, and from one company to
another.
>
>
> otoh - it might be a symptom of idiots in the management of the
> large companies.

That's always the situation, but now people are desperate enough to cut the
employment umbilical and strike out on their own. Now, if they'd just leave
home, their parents could finally be rid of their 30-40 year old offspring~
:~)

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Noel" wrote:
> > otoh - it might be a symptom of idiots in the management
> > of the large companies.
>
> Bingo. Working for a large corporation is like working for the
> government - without the job security.

Not true! If your murder someone you might get fired from a government job.

[Dylan Smith]

In article <01j8c.82996$Cb.1103178@attbi_s51>, Jay Honeck wrote:
> The real measure of the world's opinion is this: How many people are
> fighting and dying to get into FINLAND? You just don't see too many
> people floating on inner-tubes for weeks to get there...

Dunno about Finland, but Britain has a massive problem with illegal
immigration at the moment. Immigrants from as far away from China have
been discovered in the back of trucks (not always alive - in one case, a
lorryload of suffocated would-be immigrants were discovered in a
container truck).

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Martin Hotze
> wrote:

> yeah, but we don't have to spend one billion dollar per week for
> wargames.

Who is going to invade Austria?

What other country would Austria help?

--
Bob Noel

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> A 2000 square foot, three bedrom house on a nice 1/4 acre lot is common
> here; in Europe, that's a palace mostly for the aristocracy. Our aristocracy
> is based on merit, not bloodlines.

I don't have a quarter acre lot, but I have a 4 bedroom house, and I'm
hardly aristocracy (I'm a postal worker [0]). Additionally, my house is made
of proper building materials, like 3 foot thick stone walls, and
weathers the frequent winter storms we get very well.

Admittedly, the Isle of Man is not in the European Union, but we are in
the geographical area and have a similar standard of living.

> In France, people RENT dogs to walk so they can look affluent; here a dog or
> two is damn near standard equipment for most homes.

You must have been to a different France to me. The France I visited
when a friend of mine was working there for a year was actually quite
pleasant, I thought.

[0] Not a disgruntled one.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Jay Honeck]

> > Also, Europe does not have vast tracts of unused land next to cities to
> > parcel off into 1/4 acre lots.
>
>
> yep. in our area you have to pay about EUR 6,000 (that is about USD 7,200)
per
> square-meter of land. (I don't say that it is good, but it is a fact)

Heck, the main reason my family came to the U.S., over 150 years ago, was
because Europe was running out of land.

I doubt things have improved much -- although, if your reproduction rates
keep dropping, your welfare states will soon evaporate.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> > You'd sell your plane before you'd move? Man, that's hard-core.
>
> Would you get a divorce before selling your plane? That's my choice. The
plane's
> in for annual now. She goes down to Cape May for new paint on the top of
the wings
> and general clean-up after that. Then she goes on the block.

Hmm. Now THAT is a tough choice... ;-)

Actually, I'm fairly certain that my wife would rather move than sell the
plane too. Of course, she's pretty unusual, as wives go, in that she's a
pilot.

Not that there haven't been days when I have longed to go back to renting
aircraft. This usually occurs right after a twenty dollar part breaks, and
I must spend $1000 to have it repaired.

Or when I must pay $1800 for a stupid transponder. (Hell, I was looking at
lawn tractors yesterday, and balked at spending $1000, cuz it was too
expensive. Think about that a minute...)

Most days, though, it's worth it.

I wish you luck, my friend.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, G.R. Patterson III wrote:
> As a C coder, I'm obsolete here. Everything is C++, Java, Perl, etc.,

I'm a C/C++ coder (did it for 7 years for IBM on a contract to the USPS)
but I didn't find it difficult to add Perl, PHP etc. I have never used
Java in anger but I don't think it would be difficult to learn.

If you are already a good _software engineer_, the language is almost
irrelevant - algorithms need the same thing in every language, so it
really boils down to learning some new syntax and language features
(such as regexps in Perl, but if you're already using Unix, it's not
hard). I used slack periods at work, and "scratch an itch" projects at
home to learn new languages.

> wastes your money. My database experience is Informix and INGRES.
> They want Oracle.

This is more of a problem, when you can't just download 'Orrible to
get experience with it. Like programming languages, RDBMS aren't that
different - if you know one well, it doesn't take half that effort to
learn another one. The bulk of it is the same.

> With employers getting literally thousands of resumes for every i
> position, they take
> only people who are a perfect match for the job.

My solution was to 'network' - no, not the kind you do with Cat5e
cables, but the kind aspiring airline pilots do. My last two jobs were
not advertised. I'm also doing some freelance work which wasn't
advertised either. They all came through contacts I made through the
*flying club!* Flying clubs are excellent places to socially network -
because it tends to be a place where business owners/managers
accumulate, and will sometimes moan offline about how such and such a
system isn't working for them. Then you can offer to step in.

Most geeks don't do the social thing very well. If you do socially
network (being an antisocial geek myself, I found this very hard) you
stand out so much from the crowd that it massively improves your chances
of getting work: your fellow geeks are busy mailing out CVs (resumes)
but you actually know the business owners/managers - and will be
considered almost sight unseen before someone else's CV/resume is even
looked at.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

In article >,
Bob Noel wrote:
> Have you watched any TV in the UK? 'nuff said.

Even worse, have you watched TV in the US? :-)

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Wdtabor wrote:
> Uh, have you ever seen the condition of the average Brit's teeth?

Speaking as an average Brit:
* I am 31.
* I have no fillings
* I have no tooth problems (including wisdom tooth problems).

Mostly, this was caused by having good dental health as a child, and I'm
sure flouridized water helped.

While I've seen some people with terrible teeth here, I've seen just as
many people with terrible teeth in the US. There was even an article in
AOPA Magazine about a bunch of doctors who fly in the Appalacians (with
amongst other things, a DC-3) who have to pull out an awful lot of
rotten teeth.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[leslie]

Tom Sixkiller ) wrote:
:
: Work ebbs and flows from one sector to another, and from one company to
: another.
:

And from one country to another:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_05/b3818001.htm
BW Online | February 3, 2003 | The New Global Job Shift

even including lawyers, the larval form of politicians:

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/426946.cms
Now, outsourcing to hit US lawyers - The Economic Times

http://www.atlaslegal.com/atlasBusineemode.html
Atlas legal Research

http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=16600553
Legal Research And Back-Office Work To Go Offshore Next

Fields thought to be the "Next Big Thing" such as biotechnology and
nanoteachnology are also being offshored:

http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=37377
US Biotech Companies Evince Interest In Outsourcing To India


Will Ricardo's Iron Law of Wages come true?:

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0110-05.htm
The Price of Globalization

"...The iron law of wages is also simple and logical. It says that wages
will tend to stabilize at or about subsistence level. That seemed
inevitable to Ricardo, since while workers are necessary, and so have
to be kept alive, they have no hope of any better treatment since they
are infinitely available, replaceable, and generally interchangeable.

Ricardo's wage theory has seemed untrue. The supply of competent
workers in a given place is not unlimited; neither workers nor
industry are perfectly mobile, and labor demonstrated in the 19th and
20th centuries that it could mobilize and defend itself. The iron law
of wages would seem to function only if the supply of labor is
infinite and totally mobile.

Unfortunately that day, for practical purposes, has now arrived,
thanks to globalization.

Globalization is removing the constraints imposed in the past by
societies possessing institutions, legislation, and the political will
to protect workers.

Free trade doctrine is hostile to unions, social legislation, and
legal restriction on industry's labor practices, all of which deprive
poor countries of their comparative advantage, which is poverty..."

Perhaps it already is coming true:

http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/7769103.htm
Mercury News | 01/22/2004 | Jobs shift to lower-paying sectors
Posted on Thu, Jan. 22, 2004


--Jerry Leslie
Note: is invalid for email

[Wdtabor]

In article >, Martin Hotze
> writes:

>>
>> Who is going to invade Austria?
>
>we = Europe
>
>> What other country would Austria help?
>
>well (speaking of Austria), AFAIK the 4 nations that signed the treaty would
>have to (UK, France, US, Russia).
>

It would have been nice if you guys would have handled the Balkans crap
yourselves instead of us having to go over there and stop the genocide.

We have to do those things because you folks don't.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Wdtabor]

In article >, Martin Hotze
> writes:

>
(Wdtabor) wrote:
>
>> and we can now address the
>> problem areas in Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia individually and in whatever
>way
>> is appropriate.
>
>neat wording for "do what we want because we are stronger. we can invade you
>anytime. we don't care what you do or think, we are right and you are wrong.
>always."
>

Neat wording is the soul of diplomacy.

But OK, I'll be a bit more blunt. If Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia continue to
support and shelter people who periodically come out and try to murder my
children, we'll stomp them flatter than bat**** and install a government there
that will keep its fanatics in line.

There, feel better?

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Jay Honeck]

> While I've seen some people with terrible teeth here, I've seen just as
> many people with terrible teeth in the US.

Yep. I don't see this as a money problem, or a social problem, but more of
a cultural thing.

Dental care is easy. Brushing your teeth is easy, and cheap.

Having parents that force you to practice good oral hygiene isn't --
apparently regardless of what part of the world you live in.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Globalization is removing the constraints imposed in the past by
> societies possessing institutions, legislation, and the political will
> to protect workers.
>
> Free trade doctrine is hostile to unions, social legislation, and
> legal restriction on industry's labor practices, all of which deprive
> poor countries of their comparative advantage, which is poverty..."

That's the most illogical hypothesis I've seen. How is competing globally
any different than competition between the states? Or how about with
Canada? Where do you draw the line?

The alternative to competition is isolationism and protectionism, which
leads to $25 hammers, and $40K automobiles that don't last 50K miles...

I don't know about you, but I remember the days before America was forced to
compete with Japan and Germany. Remember "American Motors"? Remember
paying good, hard-earned money for junk cars that rusted out and broke down?

Well, I do, and it sucked. Meanwhile, the unionized line workers at AMC
were bringing in $60K, and loved to tell me jokes about how all they did was
sleep all day in the back room.

No, integration with the world economy is our only hope of long-term
survival.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> It would have been nice if you guys would have handled the Balkans crap
> yourselves instead of us having to go over there and stop the genocide.
>
> We have to do those things because you folks don't.

Further, Martin, what if we HADN'T stopped the killing? How long until the
ethnic hatred and anger had spilled across more borders, and involved MORE
countries?

Europe in general, and Austria in particular, will be "consulted" and
"treated as an equal" when you can figure out how to fix these kinds of
problems without allowing them to become world wars.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Martin Hotze
> > wrote:
>
> > yeah, but we don't have to spend one billion dollar per week for
> > wargames.
>
> Who is going to invade Austria?

Well, Germany did...but Austria then bent over and spread its cheeks.

>
> What other country would Austria help?

Who would want their help?

[Paul Sengupta]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
> Unemployment is
> about 7%, most of it is white collar, and it really grates to have someone
try to
> tell the world that anyone who wants a job can have one in the U.S.

My cousin in India wanted to move to Canada and get a job in IT.
His other choice was somewhere in Europe. I told him he's nuts as
the only only place booming in IT at the moment is India. He's got
a far greater chance of getting a job there.

Paul
(still in telecomms thankfully)

[Paul Sengupta]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
> Newps wrote:
> >
> > Then why do you live there?
>
> Because my wife lives here.

I wouldn't hold out so much hope for other places. The big
telecomms firms are all down and none are recruiting on either
side of the pond. My ex-boss was/is pretty much in charge of
transferring all support out of Richardson (TX) to Montreal and
to Mexico. He's a manager now in Mexico.

Our stuff in Santa Barbera has also shut down.

I know others are doing worse. At least we've pretty much
stopped laying people off now.

Paul

[Doug Carter]

Paul Sengupta > wrote:

> My cousin in India wanted to move to Canada and get a job in IT.
> His other choice was somewhere in Europe. I told him he's nuts as
> the only only place booming in IT at the moment is India. He's got
> a far greater chance of getting a job there.

What is the salary/cost of living ratio (for comparable U.S. conditions)
in India? Clearly there are a lot of software writers in India but I've
heard they don't make a lot.

Asked another way, what are his prospects for achieving a comparable
standard of living in India to what he might be able to do in the U.S.?

[Paul Sengupta]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Gmn8c.84408$Cb.1107621@attbi_s51...
> > Guess if I ever do come to Iowa City (not honestly very likely), I'll
> > be looking for another hotel.
>
> Sad, but we'll get by without you, John.
>
> If a conversation about world politics so upsets your delicate nature, I
can
> only wonder how you survive in the real world.

Well, I, for one, am looking forward to meeting Jay in April.
Hopefully we can have some beers together and have a good
discussion about all this sort of stuff.

Oh, and maybe going to see some aviation museums...

Paul

[Paul Sengupta]

I think that was Iraqis.

Paul

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:Tfp8c.85877$_w.1145038@attbi_s53...
> Last week I heard that 70% of the Brits approved of the war. Was this
> in error?

[Dylan Smith]

In article <pDV8c.98339$Cb.1264816@attbi_s51>, Jay Honeck wrote:
> I doubt things have improved much -- although, if your reproduction rates
> keep dropping, your welfare states will soon evaporate.

There are *far* too many people on this planet - a drop in reproduction
rates is a *good* thing. The oil isn't going to last forever, and our
highly productive intensive agricultural systems are absolutely
dependent on oil. Humans need to downsize, or the Earth will downsize
us.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

In article <KJV8c.97233$1p.1451082@attbi_s54>, Jay Honeck wrote:
> Or when I must pay $1800 for a stupid transponder. (Hell, I was looking at
> lawn tractors yesterday, and balked at spending $1000, cuz it was too
> expensive. Think about that a minute...)

What is it with transponders? They have to be the least reliable part on
any aircraft I've flown. They don't have lots of moving parts like a
gyro, yet they fail for the fun of it. ATC should just reply by default,
"N12345, not getting your transponder" whenever someone calls up.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article <pDV8c.98339$Cb.1264816@attbi_s51>, Jay Honeck wrote:
> > I doubt things have improved much -- although, if your reproduction
rates
> > keep dropping, your welfare states will soon evaporate.
>
> There are *far* too many people on this planet - a drop in reproduction
> rates is a *good* thing. The oil isn't going to last forever,

Throughout history, such shortages were always a factor in humanit's
existance. Going al the way back to the ancient empires, copper, wood, coal,
whale oil, etc. always had a crisis. (Economics is the study creating plenty
out of scarcity).

> and our
> highly productive intensive agricultural systems

Highly _what_ intensive?

> are absolutely
> dependent on oil.

A hundred years ago it was manual labor intensive, using animal power.
Industry was coal fired/steam powered.

Who'd thunk just a few generations later...

> Humans need to downsize, or the Earth will downsize
> us.

Thomas Malthus said that over 200 years ago (IOW: I'm okay, you're okay,
everyone else is excess) when the earth population was, what, a fifth what
it is today? At the time, maybe 5% of people lived beyond a subsistence
existence. Well, fast forward 200 years and TADA!! more people, more
prosperity, higher living standards, longer life expectancy...

Paul Erlich has been a media darling for over twenty-five years making
predictions that not only didn't come true, but were 180 degrees wrong.

Maybe what we're running out of is creative genius...that wonderfully human
characteristic.

Tom
--
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions".

[Frank]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

>
> "Frank" > wrote in message ...

<snip>
>
>> And besides, by putting someone like this in charge of the commission
> could
>> conceivably do more to foster human rights because of the extra scrutiny.
>
> You're not serious, are you?

Sure, why not? You didn't miss the word 'conceivably' did you?

I at least consider the possiblity that someone who comes from a place that
has a history of human rights abuse might have the perspective and
motivation to effectivly oppose such abuses. For all I know he may have a
long history of opposing the Lybian government, which would probably make
him a hero to folks like us.


>
>>
>> Diplomat, former journalist? I've never heard of him, does he have some
>> record of human rights abuse? Or does he have a history of speaking out
>> against oppression?
>
> From Libya? You're not serious, are you?

Yeah I'm serious. I asked the question because I have never heard of this
person. Apparently you have since you are so sure he is absolutely the
wrong choice for such a position. I'm asking what he has done that should
disqualify him. I mean, as an educated, free thinking person you wouldn't
expect me to assume that a person is good or bad based solely on his
passport?


--
Frank....H

[Frank]

Wdtabor wrote:

> In article >, Frank > writes:
>
>>
>>Not all Arabs, specifically the ones that are interested in peace do not.
>>Hamas' support dries up as soon as this new state is created and the
>>people no longer have to pass thru Israeli checkpoints to get to work.
>>
>
>
> Since all the econimic activity is in Israel, and that is where the work
> is, a Palestinian state will still mean passing through Israeli
> checkpoints to get to work.
>
> Don
>

Thanks, I forgot to consider that after the creation of a new state there is
no possibility of anything else changing in the peoples lives. And those
principles of capitalism we usually apply everywhere else would never work
in a place like that.


--
Frank....H

[Paul Sengupta]

"Doug Carter" > wrote in message
...
> Paul Sengupta > wrote:
>
> > My cousin in India wanted to move to Canada and get a job in IT.
> > His other choice was somewhere in Europe. I told him he's nuts as
> > the only only place booming in IT at the moment is India. He's got
> > a far greater chance of getting a job there.
>
> What is the salary/cost of living ratio (for comparable U.S. conditions)
> in India? Clearly there are a lot of software writers in India but I've
> heard they don't make a lot.
>
> Asked another way, what are his prospects for achieving a comparable
> standard of living in India to what he might be able to do in the U.S.?

Not really sure. It's difficult to equate standard of living in different
places. Houses are different, roads are different, shops are different.
In India, it's quite easy for a normal middle class family to employ:
1) A driver
2) Someone to look after the kids
3) A maid to cook and clean.

This would be pretty unthinkable for someone in the US. Food and
restaurants are much cheaper, but luxury goods are on a par. So it
depends what you want. An Indian lady I spoke to who'd spent a
few months in the UK complained she didn't like it here so much, as
no one had the time to do dinner for big groups of friends every other
night. People came home from work and just ate with their families...
a dinner party was a big thing, as the host had to shop, cook, serve,
do the washing up, etc, whereas in India you had your servants do
all that for you.

On the other hand, you are pretty much unable to afford a big car.

The GA scene is pretty dire in India too. Of the flying clubs I've been
to, they had between 1 and 3 working planes, and very few of the
emerging wealthy had any interest in flying these old, slow Cessna
things, let alone the old Pushpaks (like Aeronca Chiefs).
(description here: http://aero.iisc.ernet.in/~flight/flight.html#pus )

Paul

[Paul Sengupta]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
> >
> > Well, George, you've obviously got:
> > a) An alternate source of income
>
> The unemployment ran out last Summer.
>
> > b) A gigantic bank account
>
> I have enough to last about 4 more months at the current deficit rate. Can
I
> interest you in a Maule? That will build it back up pretty nicely.
>
> > c) An incredibly inexpensive lifestyle
>
> I try to keep it as cheap as possible.

If you and your wife want a cheapish holiday, you can get a cheap
flight to the UK and stay at my place! You're quite welcome. Only
35 mins from London on the train.

I seem to remember someone else in IT on this newsgroup having to
sell his plane (Mr F?). Sad. One of my ex-bosses is now reduced to
trying to sell some American pyramid thing for some Polynesian wonder
tonic.

Still, that was one of my "outs". If I lost my job, first thing I'd do
would be to sell the plane.

Paul

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>> are absolutely
>> dependent on oil.
>
> A hundred years ago it was manual labor intensive, using animal power.
> Industry was coal fired/steam powered.

There were also fewer people to feed. Labour is also a renewable
resource.

Oil, however, isn't. I don't know when it's going to become more scarce,
but some day it will. Hopefully, it won't in my lifetime, but I somehow
doubt it - the early signs are showing, oil companies are no longer oil
companies but energy companies, Shell has not once but twice announced
that it has significantly less oil than it thought. Large nations like
China will have a greater demand for oil as their prosperity increases,
same goes for places like India.

But it also begs the question - isn't six billion enough already?

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Paul Sengupta]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> why Austria in particular? have you sometimes checked what Austria,
although it
> is such a small country, has done and achieved (and when seen in relation
to
> what we are able to do)?

Heh, this reminds me. I was with my friend Ed (ex-PPL) at Heathrow,
I think it was. We saw an Austrian airliner with pictures of Austria's
most famous people through history...

We both noticed one glaring omission.

:-)

Sorry, not a pilotical (sorry, political...geniune spelling mistake there!)
comment, just thought I'd relate this!

(there's a picture here: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/330100/L/ )

Paul

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> >> are absolutely
> >> dependent on oil.
> >
> > A hundred years ago it was manual labor intensive, using animal power.
> > Industry was coal fired/steam powered.
>
> There were also fewer people to feed. Labour is also a renewable
> resource.

You just inverted your argument.


>
> Oil, however, isn't.

Isn't what?

> I don't know when it's going to become more scarce,
> but some day it will. Hopefully, it won't in my lifetime, but I somehow
> doubt it - the early signs are showing, oil companies are no longer oil
> companies but energy companies,

Good, that's called diversification. Only an idiot puts all their eggs in
one basket.

> Shell has not once but twice announced
> that it has significantly less oil than it thought.

You know, they've had these very complaints ging back over 100 years, that
we're running out. And somehow...

> Large nations like
> China will have a greater demand for oil as their prosperity increases,
> same goes for places like India.

And what happens when demand goes up? Think how much demand has gone up over
the past several generations.

> But it also begs the question - isn't six billion enough already?

Well, 200 years ago, Malthus said 800 million was enough already.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Frank" > wrote in message ...
> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>
> >
> > "Frank" > wrote in message ...
>
> <snip>
> >
> >> And besides, by putting someone like this in charge of the commission
> > could
> >> conceivably do more to foster human rights because of the extra
scrutiny.
> >
> > You're not serious, are you?
>
> Sure, why not? You didn't miss the word 'conceivably' did you?
>
> I at least consider the possiblity that someone who comes from a place
that
> has a history of human rights abuse might have the perspective and
> motivation to effectivly oppose such abuses. For all I know he may have a
> long history of opposing the Lybian government, which would probably make
> him a hero to folks like us.

Don't you know his track record? Does Libya have a track record of harboring
disidents? Recall, too, that Sudan was also on the Human Rights Council.

Here's a hint- The UN is clueless regarding human rights.

> >> Diplomat, former journalist? I've never heard of him, does he have some
> >> record of human rights abuse? Or does he have a history of speaking out
> >> against oppression?
> >
> > From Libya? You're not serious, are you?
>
> Yeah I'm serious. I asked the question because I have never heard of this
> person. Apparently you have since you are so sure he is absolutely the
> wrong choice for such a position.

Given Libya's history, that's a pretty fair assumption.

> I'm asking what he has done that should
> disqualify him. I mean, as an educated, free thinking person you wouldn't
> expect me to assume that a person is good or bad based solely on his
> passport?

If they worked for the Libyan government, it's a pretty safe bet.

I don't know anything of him personally, but what I did hear is that he's
declared Israel has no right to exist, so take it from there.

[Tony Cox]

"Paul Sengupta" > wrote in message
...
>
> We both noticed one glaring omission.

That would be Kurt Waldheim, right?

[Wdtabor]

In article >, Frank > writes:

>>
>>
>> Since all the econimic activity is in Israel, and that is where the work
>> is, a Palestinian state will still mean passing through Israeli
>> checkpoints to get to work.
>>
>> Don
>>
>
>Thanks, I forgot to consider that after the creation of a new state there is
>no possibility of anything else changing in the peoples lives. And those
>principles of capitalism we usually apply everywhere else would never work
>in a place like that.
>
>

If they were working there, the West Bank and Gaza would be self sufficient
now, and no one would be crossing into Israel proper already.

Probably the worst thing we could do to the 'Palestinains' would be to let them
wipe out Israel, since without the Israelies providing them employment they
would all starve to death.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Newps]

Dylan Smith wrote:
> In article <pDV8c.98339$Cb.1264816@attbi_s51>, Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>I doubt things have improved much -- although, if your reproduction rates
>>keep dropping, your welfare states will soon evaporate.
>
>
> There are *far* too many people on this planet - a drop in reproduction
> rates is a *good* thing. The oil isn't going to last forever, and our
> highly productive intensive agricultural systems are absolutely
> dependent on oil. Humans need to downsize, or the Earth will downsize
> us.

No problem. When the oil runs out in a few hundred years, if ever, we
will have already been using a different technology for awhile. There
are already electric cars. Hydrogen fuel cells are being used by a few
cities now, etc.

[S Green]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:DCn8c.84520$Cb.1106337@attbi_s51...
> > > > If a conversation about world politics so upsets your delicate
nature,
> I
> > > can
> > > > only wonder how you survive in the real world.
> > > Jerk!
> >
> > Wow -- you must've thought long and hard on that one before pushing
> > "Send"...
>
> Yes...for him.
> >
> > Why is it that people of your ilk can't seem to discuss world events
like
> > gentlemen?
>
> Probably because he's NOT a gentleman, and he certainly doesn't seem
mature.
> Petulant brat is more the indication. No wonder so many not only _want_ a
> welfare state, but NEED one.
>
Redneck

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Dylan Smith
> wrote:

> > Have you watched any TV in the UK? 'nuff said.
>
> Even worse, have you watched TV in the US? :-)

less and less.

(>-{

--
Bob Noel

[Jay Honeck]

> > Last week I heard that 70% of the Brits approved of the war. Was this
> > in error?

> I think that was Iraqis.

NPR mentioned today that the Iraqi people have imported over half a million
new cars since the war's end -- the highest amount ever -- and they now face
a gasoline shortage for the first time. And oil exports have now rebounded
to a higher level than before the war, bringing over $1 billion per month
into the Iraqi treasury. .

Their economy is booming.

Of course, NPR mentioned this only in passing, with great reluctance. It
was almost like they were apologizing to their listeners for reporting
something good from Iraq. (They, of course, ended with reports of more
sabotage in the oil fields, just to placate the faithful...)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> What is it with transponders? They have to be the least reliable part on
> any aircraft I've flown. They don't have lots of moving parts like a
> gyro, yet they fail for the fun of it. ATC should just reply by default,
> "N12345, not getting your transponder" whenever someone calls up.

I hear you!

That's why I sprang for the solid state Garmin GTX-327. Even LESS moving
parts.

Maybe it'll last a few years. So far it's been awesome. (By the time I've
punched in the fourth number of my squawk code, they are saying "radar
contact"...)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Rosspilot]

>That's why I sprang for the solid state Garmin GTX-327. Even LESS moving
>parts.
>
>Maybe it'll last a few years. So far it's been awesome.

I love mine.


www.Rosspilot.com

[G.R. Patterson III]

Paul Sengupta wrote:
>
> If you and your wife want a cheapish holiday, you can get a cheap
> flight to the UK and stay at my place! You're quite welcome. Only
> 35 mins from London on the train.

I thank you very much. We want to be sure to get there when The Globe is open.

> Still, that was one of my "outs". If I lost my job, first thing I'd do
> would be to sell the plane.

Yep. I've hung on a year longer than perhaps I should have.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Paul Sengupta wrote:
>
> We saw an Austrian airliner with pictures of Austria's
> most famous people through history...
>
> We both noticed one glaring omission.

Well, they did say *famous*, not *infamous*.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dylan Smith wrote:
>
> In article >,
> Bob Noel wrote:
> > Have you watched any TV in the UK? 'nuff said.
>
> Even worse, have you watched TV in the US? :-)

Not in the last 24 years.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Dylan Smith
> > wrote:
>
> > > Have you watched any TV in the UK? 'nuff said.
> >
> > Even worse, have you watched TV in the US? :-)
>
> less and less.
>
The local cable company has one month long trials of new channels here. One
month it was the BBC. They got 4 request's to keep the channel. That's out
of a subscribership of 600,000.

IAC, "200 channels and there's nothing on!!" . Good thing for DVD's or our
54" wide-screen TV's would be useless.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Sg39c.104446$po.762988@attbi_s52...
> > What is it with transponders? They have to be the least reliable part on
> > any aircraft I've flown. They don't have lots of moving parts like a
> > gyro, yet they fail for the fun of it. ATC should just reply by default,
> > "N12345, not getting your transponder" whenever someone calls up.
>
> I hear you!
>
> That's why I sprang for the solid state Garmin GTX-327. Even LESS moving
> parts.
>
> Maybe it'll last a few years. So far it's been awesome. (By the time
I've
> punched in the fourth number of my squawk code, they are saying "radar
> contact"...)

Transponder? Or telepathy?

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Martin Hotze
> wrote:

> Bob Noel > wrote:
>
> > > yeah, but we don't have to spend one billion dollar per week for
> > > wargames.
> >
> > Who is going to invade Austria?
>
> we = Europe

so you claim to speak for Europe?

>
> > What other country would Austria help?
>
> well (speaking of Austria), AFAIK the 4 nations that signed the treaty
> would
> have to (UK, France, US, Russia).

Austria would help the UK, France, US, and Russia? do what?

(I think you might have misunderstood, I wasn't asking who
would help Austria).

--
Bob Noel

[Tom Sixkiller]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Dylan Smith wrote:
> >
> > In article >,
> > Bob Noel wrote:
> > > Have you watched any TV in the UK? 'nuff said.
> >
> > Even worse, have you watched TV in the US? :-)
>
> Not in the last 24 years.
>
Ya ain't missed nothin'!!

[S Green]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Dylan Smith
> > wrote:
>
> > > Have you watched any TV in the UK? 'nuff said.
> >
> > Even worse, have you watched TV in the US? :-)
>
> less and less.

Cannot get used to commercials every 5 minutes

[Dan Luke]

"Rosspilot" wrote:
> >That's why I sprang for the solid state Garmin GTX-327.
> > Even LESS moving parts.
> >
> >Maybe it'll last a few years. So far it's been awesome.
>
> I love mine.

Ditto. What a great piece of gear.

Garmin should pay me a commission. After seeing mine in action, the
flying club's maintenance officer replaced three B/K units in the club's
Cessnas with 327s.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[Dan Luke]

"Paul Sengupta" wrote:
>
> We both noticed one glaring omission.
>
> :-)
>
Haw-haw!

That cracked me up, Paul, thanks.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[Dan Luke]

"Wdtabor" wrote:
> we'll ...install a government there
> that will keep its fanatics in line.

Had that already in Iran. Remember how well that worked?

The idea that we can barge around the world installing puppet
governments by force and thereby create a secure situation for ourselves
is lunacy.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[Jay Honeck]

> The idea that we can barge around the world installing puppet
> governments by force and thereby create a secure situation for ourselves
> is lunacy.

Well, we've seen what happens when the Islamo-fascists are allowed to set up
a government without any outside interference. Can you say "Taliban?"

Their radical religious beliefs dictate a society that is diametrically
opposed to freedom and democracy. Worse, they feel it is their duty to
assimilate -- or destroy -- non-believers.

Can you say "The Borg?"

Personally, I'd just as soon hunker down behind our oceans, and tell them
all to get screwed -- but I don't think that works anymore. I just don't
see a viable alternative to Don's scenario, Dan.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bob Noel]

In article <yCf9c.106480$_w.1340711@attbi_s53>, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

> Personally, I'd just as soon hunker down behind our oceans, and tell them
> all to get screwed -- but I don't think that works anymore. I just don't
> see a viable alternative to Don's scenario, Dan.

we have to continue the search for a viable approach. Experience
has shown that installing puppet governments isn't good, experience
has shown that trying to buy goodwill or safety doesn't work
(e.g., North Korea), and our experience with letting dangers
develop in other nations unchecked leads to attacks within the US.
But we can't give up. We must find solutions.

--
Bob Noel

[Jay Honeck]

> we have to continue the search for a viable approach. Experience
> has shown that installing puppet governments isn't good, experience
> has shown that trying to buy goodwill or safety doesn't work
> (e.g., North Korea), and our experience with letting dangers
> develop in other nations unchecked leads to attacks within the US.
> But we can't give up. We must find solutions.

Well, we established "puppet governments" in Germany and Japan -- and *they*
seem to be doing okay.

I think the trick is to plant the seeds of freedom, and then carefully,
slowly get the hell out of the way.

People like having the vote, and the power to change things. Democracy can
be -- and should be -- contagious.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Doug Carter]

Paul Sengupta wrote:
> In India, it's quite easy for a normal middle class family to employ:
> 1) A driver
> 2) Someone to look after the kids
> 3) A maid to cook and clean.
>
> This would be pretty unthinkable for someone in the US. Food and
> restaurants are much cheaper, but luxury goods are on a par.

Seems to imply that either the U.S. middle class elects to
spend more of their
income on material goods (leaving less for servents) or
India has cheaper
servents (lower underclass).

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> "Wdtabor" wrote:
> > we'll ...install a government there
> > that will keep its fanatics in line.
>
> Had that already in Iran. Remember how well that worked?
>
> The idea that we can barge around the world installing puppet
> governments by force and thereby create a secure situation for ourselves
> is lunacy.

Yeah!! Look at how our puppet governments in S. Korea, Japan and Germany
turned on us.

[Dan Luke]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
> I just don't see a viable alternative to Don's scenario, Dan.

So because we don't perceive a simple answer, we should pursue a policy
that history has already proven to be a failure? Have we forgotten the
Soviet experience in Afghanistan? Don's simplistic scenario belongs in
a Tom Clancy novel; it's fantasy.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article <yCf9c.106480$_w.1340711@attbi_s53>, "Jay Honeck"
> > wrote:
>
> > Personally, I'd just as soon hunker down behind our oceans, and tell
them
> > all to get screwed -- but I don't think that works anymore. I just
don't
> > see a viable alternative to Don's scenario, Dan.
>
> we have to continue the search for a viable approach. Experience
> has shown that installing puppet governments isn't good, experience
> has shown that trying to buy goodwill or safety doesn't work
> (e.g., North Korea), and our experience with letting dangers
> develop in other nations unchecked leads to attacks within the US.
> But we can't give up. We must find solutions.

Workable solutions, not politically popular or expedient solutions.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:kRf9c.106292$Cb.1307989@attbi_s51...
> > we have to continue the search for a viable approach. Experience
> > has shown that installing puppet governments isn't good, experience
> > has shown that trying to buy goodwill or safety doesn't work
> > (e.g., North Korea), and our experience with letting dangers
> > develop in other nations unchecked leads to attacks within the US.
> > But we can't give up. We must find solutions.
>
> Well, we established "puppet governments" in Germany and Japan -- and
*they*
> seem to be doing okay.
>
> I think the trick is to plant the seeds of freedom, and then carefully,
> slowly get the hell out of the way.

Those seeds have got to be philospohical, not financial or political.
>
> People like having the vote, and the power to change things. Democracy
can
> be -- and should be -- contagious.

It is, but without a proper foundation it just institutionalizes the same
(in this case) Dark Ages mentality under a new name. Note how the old Soviet
Union is running headlong back to the old Stalinist "good old days".

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:yCf9c.106480$_w.1340711@attbi_s53...
> > The idea that we can barge around the world installing puppet
> > governments by force and thereby create a secure situation for ourselves
> > is lunacy.
>
> Well, we've seen what happens when the Islamo-fascists are allowed to set
up
> a government without any outside interference. Can you say "Taliban?"
>
> Their radical religious beliefs dictate a society that is diametrically
> opposed to freedom and democracy. Worse, they feel it is their duty to
> assimilate -- or destroy -- non-believers.
>
> Can you say "The Borg?"

Can you say "suicidal"?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Honeck" wrote:
> > I just don't see a viable alternative to Don's scenario, Dan.
>
> So because we don't perceive a simple answer, we should pursue a policy
> that history has already proven to be a failure? Have we forgotten the
> Soviet experience in Afghanistan? Don's simplistic scenario belongs in
> a Tom Clancy novel; it's fantasy.


How much have our proposed solutions in many areas been conditioned by
Hollyweird?

[Dan Luke]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
> Well, we established "puppet governments" in Germany and Japan
> -- and *they* seem to be doing okay.

People keep bringing those situations up as models, but they are not
analogous to the situation in Iraq or Afghanistan. In Germany, the
population faced the alternative of absorbtion by the Soviet Union;
pretty easy choice to make. In Japan, there was already a well
disciplined, homogenous population obedient to the emperor, and he
cooperated with our aims. In neither Germany and Japan were there
multiple, imbedded groups of armed, organized opponents to the
installed regimes, with worldwide networks of financial and logistical
support.

> I think the trick is to plant the seeds of freedom, and then
> carefully, slowly get the hell out of the way.

That is our intent in Iraq. My prediction is that it will not work.
More likely, one of two scenarios will eventuate: 1) We will declare
success and withdraw and the government we installed will quickly be
toppled or 2) we will be stuck for years propping up an ever more
corrupt and unpopular puppet regime, mired in a no-win struggle with
terrorists and gerrillas. I'm praying I'm wrong about this, but history
speaks pretty plainly about what we can expect.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[Dan Luke]

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote:
>
> How much have our proposed solutions in many areas been
> conditioned by Hollyweird?

Lot's of 'em. Americans believe what they see in the movies.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[Dan Luke]

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote:
> Yeah!! Look at how our puppet governments in S. Korea, Japan
> and Germany turned on us.

We installed a puppet gov't in S. Korea?

I pointed out to Jay some reasons why the situations in Japan and
Germany are not analogous to our situation WRT Iraq. In neither case
was there any organized, armed internal opposition.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Doug Carter" > wrote in message
...
> Paul Sengupta wrote:
> > In India, it's quite easy for a normal middle class family to employ:
> > 1) A driver
> > 2) Someone to look after the kids
> > 3) A maid to cook and clean.
> >
> > This would be pretty unthinkable for someone in the US. Food and
> > restaurants are much cheaper, but luxury goods are on a par.
>
> Seems to imply that either the U.S. middle class elects to
> spend more of their
> income on material goods (leaving less for servents) or
> India has cheaper
> servents (lower underclass).

In talking with some computer types from India, Ed Yourdon was told "I can
get a dishwasher for $25". Yourdon was appalled, thinking he was talking
about an appliance until the fellow said that was someone to do the dishes.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" wrote:
> >
> > How much have our proposed solutions in many areas been
> > conditioned by Hollyweird?
>
> Lot's of 'em. Americans believe what they see in the movies.

Yup, including the notion that the intelligence services information is nice
and clean, just like in the 007 movies.

A better perspective would be the story of Cmdr. Joe Rochefort and the Navy
breaking the Japanese codes just prior to the battle of Midway.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" wrote:
> > Yeah!! Look at how our puppet governments in S. Korea, Japan
> > and Germany turned on us.
>
> We installed a puppet gov't in S. Korea?

Are we installing a puppet government in Iraq? What's your definition of a
"puppet government"?

> I pointed out to Jay some reasons why the situations in Japan and
> Germany are not analogous to our situation WRT Iraq. In neither case
> was there any organized, armed internal opposition.

Did we install puppets in Germany? Sure we did. As for armed opposition, not
in Japan, who accepted the decree of the Emperor, but in Germany there was.
In Iraq, the Iraqi's will have take on the opposition.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jay Honeck" wrote:
> > Well, we established "puppet governments" in Germany and Japan
> > -- and *they* seem to be doing okay.
>
> People keep bringing those situations up as models, but they are not
> analogous to the situation in Iraq or Afghanistan. In Germany, the
> population faced the alternative of absorbtion by the Soviet Union;
> pretty easy choice to make.

And Iraq faces re-absorption by the same tyrants who oppressed them for the
past generations.

[Martin Hotze]

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 20:17:53 GMT, Tony Cox wrote:

>> We both noticed one glaring omission.
>
>That would be Kurt Waldheim, right?

Kurt Waldheim only made it up to be listed on the 'not wanted list' in the
US [due to big efforts of the (jewish owned) press in the US].

His time as president was not thrilling, I bet his best time was while
serving at the UN.

#m

--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 03:00:30 GMT, Bob Noel wrote:

>> we = Europe
>
>so you claim to speak for Europe?

I only speak for myself.

#m
--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 03:00:30 GMT, Bob Noel wrote:

>(I think you might have misunderstood,

yes

>I wasn't asking who
>would help Austria).

with what? with invasions? hopefully never.
as part of the UN: anytime.
as part of joint forces within the EU: well, personally I doubt that you
can find a clear line between NATO and these forces. And I personally would
not like our (few) soldiers be affiliated within NATO. But if this
separation is doable I still doubt that we can keep our neutrality.

#m
--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

[Martin Hotze]

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 07:36:58 -0700, Tom Sixkiller wrote:

>> Who is going to invade Austria?
>
>Well, Germany did...but Austria then bent over and spread its cheeks.

I bet you would have done the same during the time, and I bet I would have,
too. The situation back then was really set and everybody awaited a strong
man. I doubt that there was or will be such a situation again.

#m

--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

[Tony Cox]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 20:17:53 GMT, Tony Cox wrote:
>
> >> We both noticed one glaring omission.
> >
> >That would be Kurt Waldheim, right?
>
> Kurt Waldheim only made it up to be listed on the 'not wanted list' in the
> US [due to big efforts of the (jewish owned) press in the US].
>
> His time as president was not thrilling, I bet his best time was while
> serving at the UN.

Surely his best time was serving with the SS execution squads
in Serbia, wasn't it? Or do you think that was all made up by the
Jews?

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Tom Sixkiller"
> wrote:

> > But we can't give up. We must find solutions.
>
> Workable solutions, not politically popular or expedient solutions.

yes. That is an excellent clarification.

--
Bob Noel

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 17:03:00 GMT, Tony Cox wrote:

>> >That would be Kurt Waldheim, right?

>> His time as president was not thrilling, I bet his best time was while
>> serving at the UN.
>
>Surely his best time was serving with the SS execution squads
>in Serbia, wasn't it?

Idiot!

>Or do you think that was all made up by the
>Jews?

I don't have first hand (!) facts. It probably was true (as it was for so
many other people, but this is no excuse.).
I only wonder why there has been no trial.

#m

--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>> There were also fewer people to feed. Labour is also a renewable
>> resource.
>
> You just inverted your argument.

No I didn't.

[labour is a renewable resource...]
>> Oil, however, isn't.
>
> Isn't what?

A renewable resource - sorry, I thought that was obvious from the
context.

>> But it also begs the question - isn't six billion enough already?
>
> Well, 200 years ago, Malthus said 800 million was enough already.

In my opinion, Malthus was right. IMHO, the world would be a better
place had the population levelled at 800M.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dan Luke]

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote:
> Are we installing a puppet government in Iraq?

That is not our intent, I am sure, but that will be the result if we
stay long.

> "puppet government"?

One that requires an alien government's intimate support and direction
to survive.

> but in Germany there was.

Nothing significant or persistent; certainly not as much as there still
is in Afghanistan.

> In Iraq, the Iraqi's will have take on the opposition.

Indeed. But Iraqis ARE the opposition, too, with the help of all sorts
of foreign scoundrels that have flocked to Iraq since the war.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[Dylan Smith]

In article <7Q09c.11753$gA5.178465@attbi_s03>, Newps wrote:
> No problem. When the oil runs out in a few hundred years, if ever, we
> will have already been using a different technology for awhile. There
> are already electric cars.

....which ultimately are powered by gas/coal fired power stations.

> Hydrogen fuel cells are being used by a few
> cities now, etc.

Hydrogen is an energy storage medium, not a source. The hydrogen comes
from oil, and you lose some of the oil's energy in the process.

People have been raving about biodiesel, but guess what - biodiesel is
95% dead dinosaur and only 5% rape seed oil.

Not until we get over our hang-ups over nuclear energy will we have any
chance of kicking our oil habit, and we have to make a lot of big
improvements in nuclear energy first as well. Sort of hard since with
every passing year, society gets even more anti-nuclear power.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, S Green wrote:
>> less and less.
>
> Cannot get used to commercials every 5 minutes

When I first went to the States, I was surprised the Simpsons took a
whole half hour slot. BBC2 gets two episodes into half an hour by not
having ads.

Then there was the increasing Clear Channel radio hegemony. Thank $DEITY
for the local college radio station (which actually played decent music,
even if the presenters were obvious newbies). And the BBC website.

Anyway, who needs TV when you have the Internet.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

In article <ed39c.101758$_w.1314500@attbi_s53>, Jay Honeck wrote:
> Of course, NPR mentioned this only in passing, with great reluctance. It
> was almost like they were apologizing to their listeners for reporting
> something good from Iraq. (They, of course, ended with reports of more
> sabotage in the oil fields, just to placate the faithful...)

The BBC quite happily reports the improvements, as well as the bad
stuff.

For the record, I'm pro kicking-out-Saddam Hussein. I think many of the
anti-war lot seem to like to conveniently forget he actually used
weapons of mass destruction on his own people. I was appalled when we
didn't kick him out in the first war. What I don't like is how our
politicians - if not outright lied, were economic with the truth to try
and justify the war. I think the war would have enjoyed broader support
if politicians hadn't been such weasels over it. Although I support the
war, I don't support the way in which our politicians tried to justify
it.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dan Luke]

"Dylan Smith" wrote:
>
> In my opinion, Malthus was right. IMHO, the world would be a
> better place had the population levelled at 800M.

I agree. The more the population grows, the more conflict and violence
will grow with it. Enlightenment and brotherly cooperation are not
becoming more evident as the planet becomes more crowded.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[Doug Carter]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

> How much have our proposed solutions in many areas been conditioned by
> Hollyweird?

More importantly, how has the perception of the U.S. by
the rest of the
world been formed?

There seems to be a popular theory (in the U.S. anyway)
that the rest of
the world hates us because we are imperialists -- despite
the obvious opposite
reality. Perhaps this comes from NPR (more properly,
National Guilt Radio)
and the needs of dictators to keep their population
diverted.

I suspect the dominate effect it not our foreign policy
but the perception created
by Hollywood.

While I have not dug into the numbers yet, I bet that the
ratio of people in the
rest of the world that have seen U.S. produced films and
listened to U.S. gangsta
rap to those who have actually been to the U.S. and
observed 'normal' people is
many tens of millions to one.


The primary images these people have to produce their
perception of the U.S. is
based on the beliefs portrayed by the likes of Michael
Moore, Ludacris and
Dan Rather.

(the reference to Dan Rather is not accidental...there is
little material difference
between the U.S. entertainment and news industries at this
point.)

[Doug Carter]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> In talking with some computer types from India, Ed
Yourdon was told "I can
> get a dishwasher for $25". Yourdon was appalled, thinking he was talking
> about an appliance until the fellow said that was someone to do the dishes.
>

The CIA World Fact Book (don't laugh) has the India per
capita purchasing
power parity at $2,600 compared to the U.S.A. at $36,300.
So, a computer
programmer in India making 1/10th of a comparable U.S.
wage could probably
afford several dishwashers!

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> >> There were also fewer people to feed. Labour is also a renewable
> >> resource.
> >
> > You just inverted your argument.
>
> No I didn't.
>
> [labour is a renewable resource...]

That's the dumbest thing I've read this year (well, it's only March).

> >> But it also begs the question - isn't six billion enough already?
> >
> > Well, 200 years ago, Malthus said 800 million was enough already.
>
> In my opinion, Malthus was right. IMHO, the world would be a better
> place had the population levelled at 800M.

Well, why don't you volunteer to go first?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> "Dylan Smith" wrote:
> >
> > In my opinion, Malthus was right. IMHO, the world would be a
> > better place had the population levelled at 800M.
>
> I agree. The more the population grows, the more conflict and violence
> will grow with it.

Like the Middle Ages?

> Enlightenment and brotherly cooperation are not
> becoming more evident as the planet becomes more crowded.

Boy, what an dismal outlook you have!!

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> "Tom Sixkiller" wrote:
> > Are we installing a puppet government in Iraq?
>
> That is not our intent, I am sure, but that will be the result if we
> stay long.

How long did we occupy Germany, Japan, South Korea? And only SK had
conflicts afterward?
>
> > "puppet government"?
>
> One that requires an alien government's intimate support and direction
> to survive.

That would be half the world outside the US.

>
> > but in Germany there was.
>
> Nothing significant or persistent;

Correct, many went to the eastern bloc and rasied hell from the other side
of the Iron Curtain.

> certainly not as much as there still
> is in Afghanistan.

Did we wage war in Afghanistan in the same manner we did in WW2?

> > In Iraq, the Iraqi's will have take on the opposition.
>
> Indeed. But Iraqis ARE the opposition, too, with the help of all sorts
> of foreign scoundrels that have flocked to Iraq since the war.

Nice lumping them all together. I thought that's what conservatives are
supposed to do?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article <7Q09c.11753$gA5.178465@attbi_s03>, Newps wrote:
> > No problem. When the oil runs out in a few hundred years, if ever, we
> > will have already been using a different technology for awhile. There
> > are already electric cars.
>
> ...which ultimately are powered by gas/coal fired power stations.
>
> > Hydrogen fuel cells are being used by a few
> > cities now, etc.
>
> Hydrogen is an energy storage medium, not a source.
> The hydrogen comes
> from oil, and you lose some of the oil's energy in the process.

Misleading and/or just plain wrong.

>
> People have been raving about biodiesel, but guess what - biodiesel is
> 95% dead dinosaur and only 5% rape seed oil.

Big whoop...so is cold fusion.


>
> Not until we get over our hang-ups over nuclear energy will we have any
> chance of kicking our oil habit, and we have to make a lot of big
> improvements in nuclear energy first as well.

Improvements being stiffled all the time.

> Sort of hard since with
> every passing year, society gets even more anti-nuclear power.

Due to propaganda from the left/environuts.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, S Green wrote:
> >> less and less.
> >
> > Cannot get used to commercials every 5 minutes
>
> When I first went to the States, I was surprised the Simpsons took a
> whole half hour slot. BBC2 gets two episodes into half an hour by not
> having ads.

So they cram in twice the crap. Hell, our commercials are better then BBC
TV.

> Anyway, who needs TV when you have the Internet.

Who needs TV when you have BOOKS!!

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article <ed39c.101758$_w.1314500@attbi_s53>, Jay Honeck wrote:
> > Of course, NPR mentioned this only in passing, with great reluctance.
It
> > was almost like they were apologizing to their listeners for reporting
> > something good from Iraq. (They, of course, ended with reports of more
> > sabotage in the oil fields, just to placate the faithful...)
>
> The BBC quite happily reports the improvements, as well as the bad
> stuff.

Absolute Bull****!!!

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Doug Carter" > wrote in message
...
> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>
> > How much have our proposed solutions in many areas been conditioned by
> > Hollyweird?
>
> More importantly, how has the perception of the U.S. by
> the rest of the
> world been formed?

Their local media (often state sponsored) for one; their academia for two.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>
> Who needs TV when you have BOOKS!!

Amen.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[Dan Luke]

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote:
> How long did we occupy Germany, Japan, South Korea? And only SK had
> conflicts afterward?

Not analogous. It is a gross oversimplification to compare the defeated
Axis powers with Iraq.

> That would be half the world outside the US.

You're just making stuff up, now.

> > > but in Germany there was.
> >
> > Nothing significant or persistent;
>
> Correct, many went to the eastern bloc and rasied hell from the
> other side of the Iron Curtain.

Whom are you talking about, SS fanatics? Raised hell? Are you trying to
say they (whoever "they" are) supported guerilla warfare in West Germany
to overthrow the government?

> > certainly not as much as there still
> > is in Afghanistan.
>
> Did we wage war in Afghanistan in the same manner we did in WW2?

Mmm, let's see: we dropped a bunch of ordnance on the bad guys and then
invaded, so I guess the answer would be "yes."

> > > In Iraq, the Iraqi's will have take on the opposition.
> >
> > Indeed. But Iraqis ARE the opposition, too, with the help
> > of all sorts of foreign scoundrels that have flocked to Iraq
> > since the war.
>
> Nice lumping them all together. I thought that's what conservatives
> are supposed to do?

What? You're the one that lumped them all together. I pointed out that
there are Iraqis on both sides. And what does "I thought that's what
conservatives are supposed to do?" mean?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[G.R. Patterson III]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>
> Their local media (often state sponsored) for one; their academia for two.

And in the Middle East at least, their priests.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[Jay Honeck]

> In neither Germany and Japan were there
> multiple, imbedded groups of armed, organized opponents to the
> installed regimes, with worldwide networks of financial and logistical
> support.

The Germans still managed to run a very efficient and effective underground,
smuggling ex-Nazi officials to South America, and the Japanese managed to
retain their system of economic favoritism, which amounted to an economic
underground.

German and Japanese acquiescence was due partly to the fact that they were
so thoroughly and utterly defeated that there was simply no "fight" left in
them. Maybe that's what will be necessary in this war, too?

> That is our intent in Iraq. My prediction is that it will not work.

I fear you may be right, but it is our duty to try. The alternatives are
simply not acceptable.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> So because we don't perceive a simple answer, we should pursue a policy
> that history has already proven to be a failure? Have we forgotten the
> Soviet experience in Afghanistan? Don's simplistic scenario belongs in
> a Tom Clancy novel; it's fantasy.

In Afghanistan the Soviets couldn't accomplish in a decade what we
accomplished in a few months, so this may not be the best comparison.

Occupying a country and setting up a friendly (or "puppet") government is
not something to be taken lightly, nor should "success" necessarily be
measured by simply measuring the longevity of that particular government.
Often "success" is something far less measurable, and may not be discernible
for decades.

For example, Viet Nam, broadly seen as a failure of foreign policy in its
time, is more and more seen as a long, painful -- but necessary -- chapter
in the eventual defeat of Communism. And, with even longer perspective,
Viet Nam can be viewed as simply a continuation of the Korean Conflict --
another proxy war between America, the Soviet Union, and China.

Heck, I imagine in 200 years Korea and Viet Nam will be simply noted as
being "after-shocks" of World War II -- which itself is now being seen as a
HUGE "after-shock" of World War I.

Even our "failed" puppet governments in South America during the 70s and 80s
are now being viewed as battle-fronts of the Cold War. Installing a corrupt
leader in Guatemala may have appeared awful at the time, but in the titanic
struggle against the Soviet Union, even these "defeats" may have contributed
decisively to our ultimate victory.

History is fluid, and we are only in the earliest stages of what will be a
very long and nasty war. Don't be too hasty to declare our defeat.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" wrote:
> > How long did we occupy Germany, Japan, South Korea? And only SK had
> > conflicts afterward?
>
> Not analogous. It is a gross oversimplification to compare the defeated
> Axis powers with Iraq.
>
> > That would be half the world outside the US.
>
> You're just making stuff up, now.
>
> > > > but in Germany there was.
> > >
> > > Nothing significant or persistent;
> >
> > Correct, many went to the eastern bloc and rasied hell from the
> > other side of the Iron Curtain.
>
> Whom are you talking about, SS fanatics? Raised hell? Are you trying to
> say they (whoever "they" are) supported guerilla warfare in West Germany
> to overthrow the government?

Not guerilla warfare, but guess who was behind groups like Badder-Meinhof,
and others all over the world.

> > > certainly not as much as there still
> > > is in Afghanistan.
> >
> > Did we wage war in Afghanistan in the same manner we did in WW2?
>
> Mmm, let's see: we dropped a bunch of ordnance on the bad guys and then
> invaded, so I guess the answer would be "yes."

Limited vs total war. Now YOU'RE making stuff up (or spinning).

>
> > > > In Iraq, the Iraqi's will have take on the opposition.
> > >
> > > Indeed. But Iraqis ARE the opposition, too, with the help
> > > of all sorts of foreign scoundrels that have flocked to Iraq
> > > since the war.
> >
> > Nice lumping them all together. I thought that's what conservatives
> > are supposed to do?
>
> What? You're the one that lumped them all together. I pointed out that
> there are Iraqis on both sides. And what does "I thought that's what
> conservatives are supposed to do?" mean?

You said, and I quote "But Iraqis ARE the opposition, too, with the help
of all sorts of foreign scoundrels that have flocked to Iraq
since the war." Sounds like your lumping ALL Iraqi's together (or did you
snip too much?).

I see our present situation more like South Korea from 1953 onward.

[Jay Honeck]

> Not until we get over our hang-ups over nuclear energy will we have any
> chance of kicking our oil habit, and we have to make a lot of big
> improvements in nuclear energy first as well. Sort of hard since with
> every passing year, society gets even more anti-nuclear power.

I don't worry too much about this.

For the moment, the anti-nuke crowd controls the dialogue, simply because
there is no compelling reason to adapt nuclear energy. For 95% of the
population, the energy debate is a non-starter, and totally off of their
radar screens, because energy is cheap and plentiful.

Just wait until their lights and air conditioners start clicking off, one by
one, however. THEN you will see how truly weak the anti-nuclear crowd is --
and nuclear power plants will start popping up all over the planet once
again.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Tom Sixkiller]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> >
> > Their local media (often state sponsored) for one; their academia for
two.
>
> And in the Middle East at least, their priests.
>
Quite so; a most nefarious triad.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:ain9c.107645$1p.1536341@attbi_s54...
> > In neither Germany and Japan were there
> > multiple, imbedded groups of armed, organized opponents to the
> > installed regimes, with worldwide networks of financial and logistical
> > support.
>
> The Germans still managed to run a very efficient and effective
underground,
> smuggling ex-Nazi officials to South America, and the Japanese managed to
> retain their system of economic favoritism, which amounted to an economic
> underground.
>
> German and Japanese acquiescence was due partly to the fact that they were
> so thoroughly and utterly defeated that there was simply no "fight" left
in
> them. Maybe that's what will be necessary in this war, too?

Which is why I obliquely pointed out (in another post) the difference
between the "total war" of WW2 and the limited war we're fighting today.

>
> > That is our intent in Iraq. My prediction is that it will not work.
>
> I fear you may be right, but it is our duty to try. The alternatives are
> simply not acceptable.

I'd give the odds at no better than 10:1 until there's a significant
cultural change in the Middle East.

[Dylan Smith]

In article <yCf9c.106480$_w.1340711@attbi_s53>, Jay Honeck wrote:
> opposed to freedom and democracy. Worse, they feel it is their duty to
> assimilate -- or destroy -- non-believers.

I think that's generally been true of most religions, at least at one
time or other. Religious fanaticisim of nearly any kind is usually not a
good thing.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:LAn9c.107772$1p.1537022@attbi_s54...
> > Not until we get over our hang-ups over nuclear energy will we have any
> > chance of kicking our oil habit, and we have to make a lot of big
> > improvements in nuclear energy first as well. Sort of hard since with
> > every passing year, society gets even more anti-nuclear power.
>
> I don't worry too much about this.
>
> For the moment, the anti-nuke crowd controls the dialogue, simply because
> there is no compelling reason to adapt nuclear energy. For 95% of the
> population, the energy debate is a non-starter, and totally off of their
> radar screens, because energy is cheap and plentiful.
>

Much the same perspective about power cells. The technology is there and
growing, but the stimulus of shortages will give it a boost.

From Ballard Power Systems FAQ: http://www.ballard.com/faq.asp?#2
----------------
When will fuel cell cars be available to the general public?
Ballard’s automotive customers have said they will begin market introduction
of commercial hydrogen-fueled fuel cell vehicles, in limited volumes,
between 2010 and 2012.

We are already seeing the limited introduction of fuel cell vehicles into
fleet demonstrations in the United States, Europe and Japan. These vehicles
will need to demonstrate their ability to compete against the internal
combustion engine in terms of performance, reliability and durability before
being available to the public.
---------------------

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article <yCf9c.106480$_w.1340711@attbi_s53>, Jay Honeck wrote:
> > opposed to freedom and democracy. Worse, they feel it is their duty to
> > assimilate -- or destroy -- non-believers.
>
> I think that's generally been true of most religions, at least at one
> time or other. Religious fanaticisim of nearly any kind is usually not a
> good thing.

Except in the Hadith and Qur’an, it's EXPLICIT!

[Dan Luke]

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote:
> You said, and I quote "But Iraqis ARE the opposition, too, with
> the help of all sorts of foreign scoundrels that have flocked to Iraq
> since the war." Sounds like your lumping ALL Iraqi's together (or
> did you snip too much?).

I'm sorry, I just don't see how pointing out that there are Iraqis on
two different sides of a conflict lumps them all together. Perhaps you
could explain.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>> Hydrogen is an energy storage medium, not a source.
>> The hydrogen comes
>> from oil, and you lose some of the oil's energy in the process.
>
> Misleading and/or just plain wrong.

Why is it wrong?

If hydrogen is an energy source, where are the hydrogen wells/collection
facilities? Answer: there are none.
Hydrogen either must be obtained by breaking chemical bonds in oil
(therefore using oil), or breaking the chemical bonds in water (with,
for example, electrolysis). Breaking chemical bonds takes energy and
resources. There just isn't a bunch of hydrogen floating around for us
to extract - the hydrogen is all bonded to some other atom (bummer).

Or do you have a marvellous scheme for breaking the laws of
thermodynamics?

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> So they cram in twice the crap. Hell, our commercials are better then BBC
> TV.

Well, I have to wonder why US tv has had to buy so many show formats
from the BBC, then.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>> The BBC quite happily reports the improvements, as well as the bad
>> stuff.
>
> Absolute Bull****!!!

If that's absolute bull****, why did the PM programme on Radio 4 last
week have a substantial article on how things have improved in Iraq last
week? Why have they been mentioning improvements in the general life of
Iraqis, including interviews with people living there on several
occasions over the last few weeks?

You are clueless, I'm afraid.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[S Green]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> >> The BBC quite happily reports the improvements, as well as the bad
> >> stuff.
> >
> > Absolute Bull****!!!
>
> If that's absolute bull****, why did the PM programme on Radio 4 last
> week have a substantial article on how things have improved in Iraq last
> week? Why have they been mentioning improvements in the general life of
> Iraqis, including interviews with people living there on several
> occasions over the last few weeks?
>
> You are clueless, I'm afraid.
>
Dylan,

Have you only just worked that out or have you just been taking the **** out
of him.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" wrote:
> > You said, and I quote "But Iraqis ARE the opposition, too, with
> > the help of all sorts of foreign scoundrels that have flocked to Iraq
> > since the war." Sounds like your lumping ALL Iraqi's together (or
> > did you snip too much?).
>
> I'm sorry, I just don't see how pointing out that there are Iraqis on
> two different sides of a conflict lumps them all together. Perhaps you
> could explain.

I'm guessing you meant (if you did't have such a propensity for sniiping
EVERYTHING that sets context we wouldn't have the issue) that "But Iraqis
ARE the opposition, too," means they are on both side of the battle. Now,
we might as well close because the origin of discussion is lost and it's
down to vauge, obtuse snippets.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> > So they cram in twice the crap. Hell, our commercials are better then
BBC
> > TV.
>
> Well, I have to wonder why US tv has had to buy so many show formats
> from the BBC, then.

"Has" to? It's called a free market. The only ones who buy them is our
Public TV (PBS) and they come in down around 87th in ratings (Unless it's
Monty Python).

Geez...how far would the BBC go without a state monopoly? No wonder you
can't figure out why things are getting better.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> >> Hydrogen is an energy storage medium, not a source.
> >> The hydrogen comes
> >> from oil, and you lose some of the oil's energy in the process.
> >
> > Misleading and/or just plain wrong.
>
> Why is it wrong?
>
> If hydrogen is an energy source, where are the hydrogen wells/collection
> facilities? Answer: there are none.
> Hydrogen either must be obtained by breaking chemical bonds in oil
> (therefore using oil), or breaking the chemical bonds in water (with,
> for example, electrolysis). Breaking chemical bonds takes energy and
> resources. There just isn't a bunch of hydrogen floating around for us
> to extract - the hydrogen is all bonded to some other atom (bummer).
>
How much hyrogen is can be obtained from petroleum relative to the energy
required for fueld cells?

> Or do you have a marvellous scheme for breaking the laws of
> thermodynamics?

Do you have anything other than weaseling?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> >> The BBC quite happily reports the improvements, as well as the bad
> >> stuff.
> >
> > Absolute Bull****!!!
>
> If that's absolute bull****, why did the PM programme on Radio 4 last
> week have a substantial article on how things have improved in Iraq last
> week?

Last week, huh?

>Why have they been mentioning improvements in the general life of
> Iraqis, including interviews with people living there on several
> occasions over the last few weeks?

Wow...after a year of propaganda...

>
> You are clueless, I'm afraid.

And you're gullible...I'm sure.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Shiver Me Timbers" > wrote in message
...
> > Tom Sixkiller > wrote:
>
> > And you're gullible...I'm sure.
>
> And you talk too much... I've noticed

And what business is it of yours, SFB?

[G.R. Patterson III]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>
> How much hyrogen is can be obtained from petroleum relative to the energy
> required for fuel cells?

Auburn University has developed a method of separating the hydrogen from diesel
fuel. Preliminary results indicate that a truck using fuel cells fed by their
separator gets about 3 times as many miles per gallon as a conventional diesel
truck of the same size. I only saw the one AP article about it, however, and
who knows how accurate it is. One of the unanswered questions is what happens to
the carbon and sulphur which is separated out. The article also said that the
military is getting involved. That would slow down its availability in the
civilian market if the Army wants to keep a competitive advantage (which they
will).

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[Shiver Me Timbers]

> Tom Sixkiller > wrote:

> And you're gullible...I'm sure.

And you talk too much... I've noticed

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Jay Honeck" > writes:

> Even our "failed" puppet governments in South America during the 70s and 80s
> are now being viewed as battle-fronts of the Cold War. Installing a corrupt
> leader in Guatemala may have appeared awful at the time, but in the titanic
> struggle against the Soviet Union, even these "defeats" may have contributed
> decisively to our ultimate victory.

It's certainly possible. On the other hand, it's also possible that
those actions made *more* countries want to side with and support the
soviets. After all, it made siding with *us* seem unacceptable, and
what else was there? So perhaps it greatly strengthened the SU and
greatly extended the cold war.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>> Well, I have to wonder why US tv has had to buy so many show formats
>> from the BBC, then.
>
> "Has" to? It's called a free market. The only ones who buy them is our
> Public TV (PBS) and they come in down around 87th in ratings (Unless it's
> Monty Python).

I said "formats" not "shows". There are plenty of commercial TV stations
in the US which show programmes with US "cast" but which the format was
bought off the BBC.

> Geez...how far would the BBC go without a state monopoly? No wonder you
> can't figure out why things are getting better.

What monopoly? Last time I looked at my dad's digital TV channel
listing, the BBC had 4 of possibly 200 channels. Hardly a monopoly.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>> Hydrogen either must be obtained by breaking chemical bonds in oil
>> (therefore using oil), or breaking the chemical bonds in water (with,
>> for example, electrolysis). Breaking chemical bonds takes energy and
>> resources. There just isn't a bunch of hydrogen floating around for us
>> to extract - the hydrogen is all bonded to some other atom (bummer).
>>
> How much hyrogen is can be obtained from petroleum relative to the energy
> required for fueld cells?

It doesn't matter how much - energy will be lost in the process. If you
do make a more efficient system utilizing a fuel cell (which you should
be able to - for a vehicle, fuel cell + battery + regenerative braking
should be much more efficient than today's internal combustion engines +
friction brakes) you are still using a resource that is very definitely
finite. It still doesn't change the laws of thermodynamics (no free
lunch) and our burgeoning population is still dependent on oil to feed
itself.

All you've offered is vague insults, and you still haven't explained why
my belief in the laws of thermodynamics is somehow "misleading" or
"inaccurate".

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>>Why have they been mentioning improvements in the general life of
>> Iraqis, including interviews with people living there on several
>> occasions over the last few weeks?
>
> Wow...after a year of propaganda...

What propaganda? The BBC has broadcast both sides of the story on its
news programmes. The "Today" programme grills anti-war politicians just
as hard as it grills the pro-war politicians, and has done so over the
past year. The BBC reporting the improvement in life in Iraq is nothing
new.

But then again, to you, anything that doesn't purely output "pro-war" in
its programming is propaganda.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 22:52:27 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

>
>For the moment, the anti-nuke crowd controls the dialogue, simply because
>there is no compelling reason to adapt nuclear energy. For 95% of the
>population, the energy debate is a non-starter, and totally off of their
>radar screens, because energy is cheap and plentiful.
>
>Just wait until their lights and air conditioners start clicking off, one by
>one, however. THEN you will see how truly weak the anti-nuclear crowd is --
>and nuclear power plants will start popping up all over the planet once
>again.

Jay, you are mixing up your first paragraph with your second one.

Energy is cheap in your country (and widely available). There are many
regions on this planet where energy is either hardly available or expensive
(or both) or there are enough alternatives to nuclear power. Others are
very good in preserving and saving energy (without losing much comfort).

What might be a working solution for one geographic area might not be
useful for another one.

#m

--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 15:55:00 -0700, Tom Sixkiller wrote:

>> > That is our intent in Iraq. My prediction is that it will not work.
>>
>> I fear you may be right, but it is our duty to try. The alternatives are
>> simply not acceptable.
>
>I'd give the odds at no better than 10:1 until there's a significant
>cultural change in the Middle East.


there will be no cultural change in that area.

#m

--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 15:55:00 -0700, Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>
> >> > That is our intent in Iraq. My prediction is that it will not work.
> >>
> >> I fear you may be right, but it is our duty to try. The alternatives
> >> are
> >> simply not acceptable.
> >
> >I'd give the odds at no better than 10:1 until there's a significant
> >cultural change in the Middle East.
>
>
> there will be no cultural change in that area.

Then there will never be peace.

--
Bob Noel

[Doug Carter]

Dylan Smith wrote:
> It doesn't matter how much - energy will be lost in the process.

Of course it will, but don't neglect conversion
efficiencies and alternative energy sources.

The net efficiency of converting crude oil to gasoline,
distribution down to the individual car at a few gallons
at a time then to locomotion via the piston
engine/transmission/drive train is very poor.

In a fuel cell system, various materials including crude
oil, natural gas, etc. would be converted to hydrogen in
bulk then distributed with less evaporation loss and
converted to locomotion with fuel cell/electric motors
that have a much higher conversion efficiency than the
piston engine/transmission/drive train


Soup to nuts the net conversion of BTU's to mechanical
energy would be better. No violation of thermodynamics,
just modern engineering.

Neither crude oil nor natural gas have to be involved at
all. Solar panels or nucler reactors can supply the
energy to crack water directly.

Finally has been good progress on the Direct Methanol Fuel
Cell which has the advantage of using a low pressure
liquid in the car.

[Jay Honeck]

> It's certainly possible. On the other hand, it's also possible that
> those actions made *more* countries want to side with and support the
> soviets. After all, it made siding with *us* seem unacceptable, and
> what else was there? So perhaps it greatly strengthened the SU and
> greatly extended the cold war.

Interesting hypothesis.

Hard to tease the facts out of the fluff on that one, too.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> > there will be no cultural change in that area.
>
> Then there will never be peace.

Oh, there will be change.

Whoever wins this war will set up the predominant culture.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> What might be a working solution for one geographic area might not be
> useful for another one.

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

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 13:29:55 GMT, Bob Noel wrote:

>> >I'd give the odds at no better than 10:1 until there's a significant
>> >cultural change in the Middle East.
>>
>>
>> there will be no cultural change in that area.
>
>Then there will never be peace.

There might be something like peace within the area without outside
influence. But there will always be outside influence. Well, I am no
prophet, but I guess you are right with your assumption. There will never
be peace.

#m

--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

[Dan Luke]

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote:
> I'm guessing you meant (if you did't have such a propensity for
sniiping
> EVERYTHING that sets context we wouldn't have the issue)

Your reading comprehension difficulties are not my problem.

> Now, we might as well close because the origin of discussion is
> lost and it's down to vauge, obtuse snippets.

AMF

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" wrote:
> > I'm guessing you meant (if you did't have such a propensity for
> sniiping
> > EVERYTHING that sets context we wouldn't have the issue)
>
> Your reading comprehension difficulties are not my problem.

Maybe your writing skills?

>
> > Now, we might as well close because the origin of discussion is
> > lost and it's down to vauge, obtuse snippets.
>
> AMF
>
Later, SFB.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Doug Carter" > wrote in message
...
> Dylan Smith wrote:
> > It doesn't matter how much - energy will be lost in the process.
>
> Of course it will, but don't neglect conversion
> efficiencies and alternative energy sources.
>
> The net efficiency of converting crude oil to gasoline,
> distribution down to the individual car at a few gallons
> at a time then to locomotion via the piston
> engine/transmission/drive train is very poor.
>
> In a fuel cell system, various materials including crude
> oil, natural gas, etc. would be converted to hydrogen in
> bulk then distributed with less evaporation loss and
> converted to locomotion with fuel cell/electric motors
> that have a much higher conversion efficiency than the
> piston engine/transmission/drive train
>
>
> Soup to nuts the net conversion of BTU's to mechanical
> energy would be better. No violation of thermodynamics,
> just modern engineering.
>
> Neither crude oil nor natural gas have to be involved at
> all. Solar panels or nucler reactors can supply the
> energy to crack water directly.
>
> Finally has been good progress on the Direct Methanol Fuel
> Cell which has the advantage of using a low pressure
> liquid in the car.

BINGO! You've separated various methods of production (my point about
misleading). One other point is the efficiency of fuel cells (in utilizing
the energy) versus an internal combustion engine. Doomsayers absolutely HATE
that.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:e0B9c.114877$1p.1555417@attbi_s54...
> > It's certainly possible. On the other hand, it's also possible that
> > those actions made *more* countries want to side with and support the
> > soviets. After all, it made siding with *us* seem unacceptable, and
> > what else was there? So perhaps it greatly strengthened the SU and
> > greatly extended the cold war.
>
> Interesting hypothesis.

Maybe the sided with the SU because, wel, because they wanted the same kinds
of tyrannies?

> Hard to tease the facts out of the fluff on that one, too.

Key word: fluff. Is it becomming the writting style of choice?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Frank" > wrote in message ...
>
> Pick one.
>

Pick one? How can I know which negotiations you were referring to?


>
> Not all Arabs, specifically the ones that are interested in peace do not.
>

The ones interested in peace need to restrain those that are not.


>
> Hamas' support dries up as soon as this new state is created and
> the people no longer have to pass thru Israeli checkpoints to get to work.
>

Why was this new Arab state not created between 1948 and 1967?


>
> But if there are then these other would be on them? (That's a real
> question btw).
>

No. Of course not. Why would non-Jordanians appear on any Jordanian voting
roll?


>
>This discussion started about a question of whether one is a
> terrorist or a freedom fighter. To me a large part of that issue can be
> clarified by whether or not people in these refugee camps have the
> right to vote somewhere.
>

How so? Is it the terrorist or the freedom fighter that has the right to
vote somewhere?


>
> But there supposedly is one coming if agreement can be reached, right?
>

Yes. Of course, the Israelis would have to agree to die for that agreement
to be reached.


>
> My point/question is that if the Arabs in question are not citizens of
> Israel and they are not citizens of Jordan and they have some legitimate
> (by agreement) claim on the land then that would support the "freedom
> fighter" label.
>

There is no agreement.


>
> Has it been that long? You'd think they could've made more progress.
>

Well, when one side is dedicated to the extermination of the other....


>
> But you seem to be saying that there is a basis for these people to
> believe they are Palestinians, unless this second Arab state the
> Jews agreed to is to be called something else. In which case they
> would be something-else-ians.
>

You're using "Palestinian" as if it was a nationality. It's not, and never
was. The citizens of the second Arab state in Palestine could have chosen
any name for their new state. The citizens of the new Jewish state in
Palestine chose to call their state "Israel", and themselves "Israelis",
instead of Palestinians.


>
> What Arafat turned down was a Swiss cheese map that didn't have a
> continuous border to be found. Kinda like saying Chicago and
> St. Louis are one country but everything in between is something else.
>

What Arafat turned down was nearly everything he had been demanding. His
bluff was called. He has no interest in a peaceful Arab state alongside
Israel, he wants all of the Palestine region west of the Jordan River.


>
> You describe it as a starting point. Maybe it was. If so, it strikes me as
> not a very good one.
>

Not very good for whom? Arafat? How can an opening offer of nearly
everything you've demanded not be a good starting point?


>
> To me it looks like a way for Israel to appear to
> offer something and then be able say it was the other sides fault for not
> taking it. Even though it was a deal they themselves would never agree to
> were the situations reversed.
>

What do you base that on? Israel agreed to a much less advantageous deal 57
years ago.


>
> Either way, Israel has shown it is no more interested in peace than
> the Arabs.
>

Actually, Israel has shown it's far more interested in peace than the Arabs.
You need to study the actual history of the region and conflict, not just
the propaganda.


>
> It is definitely in Sharon's interest to keep provoking more
> attacks. His power comes from NOT giving up any land.
>

What land are you referring to? Israeli territory or the "occupied lands"?


>
> It's a shame groups
> like Hamas play right into his hands. But ultimately Israel has more
> opportunity to resolve this.
>

What more could they do?


>
> What I find so ironic about this whole mess is that of all the peoples
> of the world, Jews should understand what it means to be displaced,
> occupied, and otherwise oppressed.
>

Have the Jews displaced or oppressed anyone?

[Dan Luke]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
> What Arafat turned down was nearly everything he had been
> demanding. His bluff was called. He has no interest in a peaceful
> Arab state alongside Israel,

Bingo. For the same reason, peace with various militant "Palestinian"
terrorist groups is impossible.

Neither do any of the local Arab states want such an arrangement. They
do not want to lose the boogieman they use to divert attention from
their domestic failures.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Doug Carter wrote:
> Neither crude oil nor natural gas have to be involved at
> all. Solar panels or nucler reactors can supply the
> energy to crack water directly.

And there's the rub - nuclear reactors, which the sheeple are so afraid
of! You can have the best, safest nuclear reactor design, that's
demonstrably less harmful by orders of magnitude than a coal-fired power
station, yet it'll never get built because people are too afraid. They
all think Chernobyl, when Chernobyl was really a product of abysmal
design. Or go on about Three Mile Island, despite not a single person
being injured in the TMI accident (thanks to reactor design that wasn't
anything remotely as atrocious as the Soviet ones).

Fuel cells are undoubtedly better than the ICE (for the reasons you
state, and you can realistically use regenerative braking in a vehicle
to get some of the energy back instead of dumping it as heat).
Additionally, the fuel cell is essentially an "abstraction layer" - once
you have your transport network powered by fuel cells, and, say, we
figure out nuclear fusion, you don't have to change everyone's cars -
you just make the H2 with your new energy source. But the rub is even
fusion contains that scary "N" word.

As for solar power, photovoltaic cells are still pretty inefficient, and
are a long way from being a viable way to get the hydrogen.

So the rub with the hydrogen economy that at least in the forseeable
future, it's just the oil economy in disguise. Hopefully what it will do
is allow us to diversify our energy sources...but we're still a long way
off from that.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dylan Smith wrote:
>
> And there's the rub - nuclear reactors, which the sheeple are so afraid
> of! You can have the best, safest nuclear reactor design, that's
> demonstrably less harmful by orders of magnitude than a coal-fired power
> station, yet it'll never get built because people are too afraid.

I saw accident figures for the U.S. back in the mid 70s. At that time, solar
power was the most dangerous power source in the country. This was due to the
fact that most of the installers were amateurs. Most of the accidents involved
someone falling off the roof of a house. At that time, there was an average of
two fatalities each year due to nuclear power, all construction accidents. Since
we don't seem to be building any more plants, I would assume the rate is now 0.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[Rob Perkins]

Martin Hotze > wrote:

>give me some examples where or why people suffer (materially) more in Austria,
>Italy, Switzerland, Germany, France, UK, Australia than in the USA.

Whoops!

Should I have said "the West", rather than the United States?

AFAIK, though, only Switzerland has a higher standard of living than
the U.S., with many of the EU countries otherwise in a practical tie
for that honor.

Rob, who has lived in Switzerland...

[Rob Perkins]

Frank > wrote:

>You may want to be a little careful here. That house you describe is no
>longer affordable unless you have 2 wage earners.

*I*BTD. One wage earner here, family of six. Gorgeous 4-bedroom home
in the Portland suburbs.

>Also, Europe does not have vast tracts of unused land next to cities to
>parcel off into 1/4 acre lots.

Actually, they do, but they cordon it off for silly things like
farming and forestry. Imagine that.

Rob

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 17:03:48 -0000, Dylan Smith wrote:

>And there's the rub - nuclear reactors, which the sheeple are so afraid
>of! You can have the best, safest nuclear reactor design, that's
>demonstrably less harmful by orders of magnitude than a coal-fired power
>station, yet it'll never get built because people are too afraid.

and you, no, the next couple of generations, have to deal with the waste.

>As for solar power, photovoltaic cells are still pretty inefficient, and
>are a long way from being a viable way to get the hydrogen.

so we have to make it more efficient.
efficience allone is not enough. You only have one planet to destroy.

#m
--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

[Rob Perkins]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

>Personally, our hotel business is up 30% over last year. Now part of that
>is the fact that we were brand new -- but do you REALLY think a luxury
>suites hotel would be doing so well if the U.S. economy was doing poorly?

I see it too, in one of the areas of the country where unemployment is
still relatively higher (it's what you get for tacking the minimum
wage to COLA, IMO.)

I have a friend who is a jeweler. He's doing much better this year
than last year. That tells me that people are spending discretionary
income. Poor people don't buy gold and diamonds, or get their settings
repaired.

In my own business (we supply a niche of the manufacturing industry
with vertically aligned software) our cash flow is up quite a bit.

>Don't believe everything you read. Anyone who is unemployed right now in
>the U.S. probably have a reason to be unemployed.

No, there are still areas of the economy where we're struggling. IS/IT
workers in the Pacific Northwest and California, especially
"contractors", whose rates are half now what they were just four years
ago. After all those dotcoms (and Y2K) died off, unemployed middle
management and executives were a dime a dozen. Manufacturing, too,
though I've got it on pretty good authority that pattern shops and
such have seen an increase in business in the last year or two, which
usually means there will be an increase in manfacturing.

Even so, we can't forget that overall in the last 30 years there is a
*lot* more wealth than ever before, and the U.S. safety net is very
strong, IMO.

Rob

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 18:48:16 GMT, Rob Perkins wrote:

>>give me some examples where or why people suffer (materially) more in Austria,
>>Italy, Switzerland, Germany, France, UK, Australia than in the USA.
>
>Whoops!
>
>Should I have said "the West", rather than the United States?

no.

>AFAIK, though, only Switzerland has a higher standard of living than
>the U.S.,

in what respect?

> with many of the EU countries otherwise in a practical tie
>for that honor.

I don't feel honored.

>Rob, who has lived in Switzerland...

#m
--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 18:50:16 GMT, Rob Perkins wrote:

>>Also, Europe does not have vast tracts of unused land next to cities to
>>parcel off into 1/4 acre lots.
>
>Actually, they do, but they cordon it off for silly things like
>farming and forestry. Imagine that.

What's silly about that in your opinion?

#m

--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

[Rob Perkins]

Bob Noel > wrote:

>otoh - it might be a symptom of idiots in the management of the
>large companies.

Don't we know it in my family. The company my father worked for had no
senior management person who wanted to invest in a sales and marketing
force to grow their business. Far easier and less risky to sell the
division they didn't care about, letting everyone go in the process
("You're welcome to apply to the new owners!")

Such a lazy way to fire older people, in favor of existing management
and cheap young labor.

Rob

[Rob Perkins]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote:

>Not true! If your murder someone you might get fired from a government job.

But not if you have sex with the interns in your office...

Rob

[G.R. Patterson III]

Martin Hotze wrote:
>
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 18:50:16 GMT, Rob Perkins wrote:
>
> >>Also, Europe does not have vast tracts of unused land next to cities to
> >>parcel off into 1/4 acre lots.
> >
> >Actually, they do, but they cordon it off for silly things like
> >farming and forestry. Imagine that.
>
> What's silly about that in your opinion?

He's being sarcastic, Martin.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[Rob Perkins]

"Paul Sengupta" > wrote:

>"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>> Unemployment is
>> about 7%, most of it is white collar, and it really grates to have someone
>try to
>> tell the world that anyone who wants a job can have one in the U.S.
>
>My cousin in India wanted to move to Canada and get a job in IT.
>His other choice was somewhere in Europe. I told him he's nuts as
>the only only place booming in IT at the moment is India. He's got
>a far greater chance of getting a job there.

He could probably work at McDonalds in Canada for more wealth than on
a telephone help desk in India.

Rob

[Wdtabor]

In article >, "Dan Luke"
> writes:

>
>> I think the trick is to plant the seeds of freedom, and then
>> carefully, slowly get the hell out of the way.
>
>That is our intent in Iraq. My prediction is that it will not work.
>More likely, one of two scenarios will eventuate: 1) We will declare
>success and withdraw and the government we installed will quickly be
>toppled or 2) we will be stuck for years propping up an ever more
>corrupt and unpopular puppet regime, mired in a no-win struggle with
>terrorists and gerrillas. I'm praying I'm wrong about this, but history
>speaks pretty plainly about what we can expect.
>--

I tend to agree that the chances of success are not good, but the alternative
is a nuclear exchange between our children and theirs that will kill millions
of Americans and HUNDREDS of millions of Moslems.

There can be no lasting peace with Islamofascism if they join the nuclear club.
With the Soviets we faced a RATIONAL enemy with no expectation of rewards after
death. Mutually assured destruction only works with people who want to succeed
in this life and not the next.

So I think giving cultural change the best chance of working we can is a really
good thing to do.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Rob Perkins]

Martin Hotze > wrote:

>"install a government that will do whatever we want them to do."

And what would you expect that would be, Martin?

Near as I can tell, the U.S. wants other governments to:

1 -- Not kill their own people (usually a conceded point)
2 -- Afford thier own people a certain set of inalienable rights (such
as those afforded the people in, say, Austria)
3 -- Not come over and kill Americans.
4 -- Trade with Americans.

Have I left anything off the list?

Rob

[Doug Carter]

Dylan Smith wrote:
> In article >, Doug Carter wrote:
>
>>Neither crude oil nor natural gas have to be involved at
>>all. Solar panels or nucler reactors can supply the
>>energy to crack water directly.
>
> And there's the rub - nuclear reactors, which the sheeple are so afraid
> of! You can have the best, safest nuclear reactor design, that's
> demonstrably less harmful by orders of magnitude than a coal-fired power
> station, yet it'll never get built because people are too afraid.

Sadly, you are quite right; at least in the U.S. Japan
doesn't seem afraid of reactors, China may not either.
Perhaps they will become the hydrogen OPEC (OHEC?) of the
next century.

[Doug Carter]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

> I saw accident figures for the U.S. back in the mid 70s. At that time, solar
> power was the most dangerous power source in the country.

"Bat fatalities have recently become an issue in the wind
power industry because fatalities have been documented at
wind power sites where post-construction bird studies have
been conducted." From
http://www.currykerlinger.com/bats.htm.

No traces of radioactive bats though.

[Dan Luke]

"Wdtabor" wrote:
>
> I tend to agree that the chances of success are not good, but the
> alternative is a nuclear exchange between our children and theirs
> that will kill millions of Americans and HUNDREDS of millions
> of Moslems.

A chillingly believable scenario. In Pakistan we are a heartbeat away
from a preview of that future. In the event of a coup there by
religionists, I believe we would have no alternative but immediate
attack.

> There can be no lasting peace with Islamofascism if they join the
> nuclear club. With the Soviets we faced a RATIONAL enemy with
> no expectation of rewards after death. Mutually assured destruction
> only works with people who want to succeed in this life and not the
next.

It is probable that the current leaders like Bin Laden and Zawahiri,
whom I believe are sincere fanatics, would be replaced by cynical
dictators, just as happened in Russia after the revolution. Perhaps
such characters would fear MAD. The question is, would the world survive
long enough to achieve that uneasy stability?

> So I think giving cultural change the best chance of working we can is
> a really good thing to do.

For once, Don, I agree with you right down the line. I just think we
started in the wrong place in Iraq.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Martin Hotze wrote:
>>And there's the rub - nuclear reactors, which the sheeple are so afraid
>>of! You can have the best, safest nuclear reactor design, that's
>>demonstrably less harmful by orders of magnitude than a coal-fired power
>>station, yet it'll never get built because people are too afraid.
>
> and you, no, the next couple of generations, have to deal with the waste.

OK, so how many generations have to deal with coal waste? At least with
nuclear waste it can be put in one specific place. Coal waste, such as
mercury poisoning in fish, is global.

> so we have to make it more efficient.
> efficience allone is not enough. You only have one planet to destroy.

Exactly - and I believe that nuclear power is far less destructive than
coal/gas if done properly.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Rob Perkins]

Martin Hotze > wrote:

>>AFAIK, though, only Switzerland has a higher standard of living than
>>the U.S.,
>
>in what respect?

Not sure. I only know that it's been put forth as such, so I assumed
it had to do with things like lifespan, percent of population at or
below the poverty level, and literacy rates. Stuff like that.

>> with many of the EU countries otherwise in a practical tie
>>for that honor.
>
>I don't feel honored.

Then, with all respect due you, move to Congo. Don't forget to leave
your money behind, you don't have to leave it with me.

Rob

[Rob Perkins]

Martin Hotze > wrote:

>>Actually, they do, but they cordon it off for silly things like
>>farming and forestry. Imagine that.
>
>What's silly about that in your opinion?

A response so obtuse that it didn't recognize the sarcasm inherent in
the statements?

'Course I could have added the smiley, but I forgot (quite
unintentionally) to do it.

Rob, who likes the way Europe manages its lands

[Rob Perkins]

Martin Hotze > wrote:

>"S Green" > wrote:
>
>> How many Americans register to vote and how many actually do? Democracy
>> means fig all when you are struggling to survive when others get fat through
>> abusing the democratic processes.
>
>democracy is dictatorship of the majority.

Wow. You actually said something true, there, Martin.

Now have a look again at the U.S. Constitution and take your seat next
to Hamilton, becauase you're now in favor of the Electoral College
system that got Bush into office on a minority vote...

:-)

Rob

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Rob Perkins" > wrote in message
...
>
> Now have a look again at the U.S. Constitution and take your seat next
> to Hamilton, becauase you're now in favor of the Electoral College
> system that got Bush into office on a minority vote...
>

Minority vote? Bush had a majority of the electoral vote, as is required by
the Constitution or the election goes to the House.

[Tony Cox]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 17:03:00 GMT, Tony Cox wrote:
>
> >> >That would be Kurt Waldheim, right?
>
> >> His time as president was not thrilling, I bet his best time was while
> >> serving at the UN.
> >
> >Surely his best time was serving with the SS execution squads
> >in Serbia, wasn't it?
>
> Idiot!

My mistake. That should have been Bosnia. I hang my
head in shame.

[Rob Perkins]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>
>"Rob Perkins" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Now have a look again at the U.S. Constitution and take your seat next
>> to Hamilton, becauase you're now in favor of the Electoral College
>> system that got Bush into office on a minority vote...
>>
>
>Minority vote? Bush had a majority of the electoral vote, as is required by
>the Constitution or the election goes to the House.

Now, Steven, I know that. But the popular vote, the one all Bush's
enemies keep harping on, is the one he got a bare minority on.

At the time, I could have handled Gore as President. (People aren't
really that stupid, America would have just given Gore a Congress that
hated him) It was the atrocious politically opportunistic behavior in
Florida, and all the swirling sophistries connected with it, which
made me a bit ill.

Here's to a clear and honorable decision, this time around, no matter
who takes the prize.

Rob, who will cast the vote but not hold out much hope for honor among
thiev^H^H^H^H^Hpoliticians...

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Rob Perkins" > wrote in message
...
>
> Now, Steven, I know that. But the popular vote, the one all Bush's
> enemies keep harping on, is the one he got a bare minority on.
>

How does one get a "bare minority" of the popular vote? Gore received a
higher popular vote than Bush, but neither received a majority of the vote.
Bush won more states and more counties than Gore, something the Democrats
seem to forget.

[Gig Giacona]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Rob Perkins" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Now, Steven, I know that. But the popular vote, the one all Bush's
> > enemies keep harping on, is the one he got a bare minority on.
> >
>
> How does one get a "bare minority" of the popular vote? Gore received a
> higher popular vote than Bush, but neither received a majority of the
vote.
> Bush won more states and more counties than Gore, something the Democrats
> seem to forget.
>
>

And more importantly, Bush won the only thing that counts. The Electoral
College.

[Rob Perkins]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>
>"Rob Perkins" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Now, Steven, I know that. But the popular vote, the one all Bush's
>> enemies keep harping on, is the one he got a bare minority on.
>>
>
>How does one get a "bare minority" of the popular vote? Gore received a
>higher popular vote than Bush, but neither received a majority of the vote.

Ah me. I can't seem to abridge these days.

I voted for Bush and for the Democrat congressional candidate for my
House district. But he didn't get the most popular votes.

Rob, who supports the EC system

[Alex]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message >...
> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Tom Sixkiller"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > _NOBODY_ EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISTION!!!
> >
> > *finally*... gosh I was waiting for it...
> >
> NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is
> surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are
> fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are
> fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion
> to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our
> weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.

Sorry, I stopped reading this thread after I told Jay he was beyond
rescue. But I *have* to comment on this one, so you know that I am not
against everything american... I am a BIG FAN of Monty Phyton and this
is one of my favorite sketches! I laugh to tears each time I watch
it... Hey, wait a minute! Monty Phyton was not american! Ah, well...

[Alex]

Tom, I can't believe you honestly believe your own comments.

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote
> > Shell has not once but twice announced
> > that it has significantly less oil than it thought.
>
> You know, they've had these very complaints ging back over 100 years, that
> we're running out. And somehow...

Are you really trying to say that oil is a renewable resource? That
there's no reason to look for alternatives and that we should all just
relax and mindlessly keep burning oil in our cars and industries?

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote
> > I agree. The more the population grows, the more conflict and violence
> > will grow with it.
>
> Like the Middle Ages?

And here are you actually proposing that the negative aspects of the
Middle Ages were a result of the size of the world population?

[Alex]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote
> Personally, our hotel business is up 30% over last year. Now part of that
> is the fact that we were brand new -- but do you REALLY think a luxury
> suites hotel would be doing so well if the U.S. economy was doing poorly?

Jay, in ANY country you will find quite a lot of people with enough
money to fill the most expensive restaurants, hotels, etc. The tip of
the pyramid, as tiny as it looks on paper, is still a lot of people.

> Don't believe everything you read. Anyone who is unemployed right now in
> the U.S. probably have a reason to be unemployed.

Yikes! I'm sure you don't know this (you have no reason to), but in a
certain country tens of thouthands of innocent people were killed by
the government. Their neighbors used to say "he must have done
something". This line of thought has been proven extremely
shortsighted and plain wrong. People in this country, although their
democracy is relatively new, have learned a lesson you seem lacking.
My perception is that you are used to such a nice living standard in
such a nice neighborhood, that you simply lost contact with the rest
of the world, who usually suffers unjustly. (By "you" I also mean most
americans, and by "neighborhood" I also mean the world).

[Newps]

Alex wrote:
> Tom, I can't believe you honestly believe your own comments.
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote
>
>>> Shell has not once but twice announced
>>>that it has significantly less oil than it thought.
>>
>>You know, they've had these very complaints ging back over 100 years, that
>>we're running out. And somehow...
>
>
> Are you really trying to say that oil is a renewable resource? That
> there's no reason to look for alternatives and that we should all just
> relax and mindlessly keep burning oil in our cars and industries?

In the early 1900's either the federal government or maybe it was an
executive from an oil company came out and said we had something like 9
years and 6 months of oil left in the ground. And that was when we
didn't hardly use any oil at all. Now we know of more oil in the ground
than the world has used to date. So yes it is not a renewable resource
but it also is not even remotley scarce. Having said that we already
are developing other means of propelling ourselves around. None make
economic sense yet, but eventually they will.

[Alex]

Doug Carter > wrote in message >...
> While I have not dug into the numbers yet, I bet that the ratio of people
> in the rest of the world that have seen U.S. produced films and listened
> to U.S. gangsta rap to those who have actually been to the U.S. and observed
> 'normal' people is many tens of millions to one.

Well, I don't like rap, but I would belong to the "one" category.

> The primary images these people have to produce their perception of the
> U.S. is based on the beliefs portrayed by the likes of Michael Moore,
> Ludacris and Dan Rather.

I don't think so. I, for one, get my impressions of the US from a lot
of sources: news (both US and foreign), political analysts (both US
and foreign), having been there, having friends and family there, and
from direct experience of the effects of US intervention in my
country. But I don't just believe everything I hear or read: as
farfetched as this idea may seem (even to me), I do have a mind of my
own. I do my best to process all this information and take what seems
to be true, just like everybody else does. For example, I've seen
"Bowling for Columbine", and I've also read about how Moore distorted
certain facts. I can see shades of gray and I can cope with
conflicting information. And I don't think I am fundamentaly different
from millons over the world. Don't underestimate people just because
they don't live next to you. Doing so is equal to bigotry.

[Alex]

Rob Perkins > wrote
> Near as I can tell, the U.S. wants other governments to:
>
> 1 -- Not kill their own people (usually a conceded point)
> 2 -- Afford thier own people a certain set of inalienable rights (such
> as those afforded the people in, say, Austria)
> 3 -- Not come over and kill Americans.
> 4 -- Trade with Americans.
>
> Have I left anything off the list?
>
> Rob

Let's see:

> 1 -- Not kill their own people (usually a conceded point)

In Southamerica the US supported government killing of innocents in
concentration camps without trials of any kind. They trained the local
military and turned a blind eye to the tortures and killings.

> 2 -- Afford thier own people a certain set of inalienable rights

Like the right to live? Or to know who you are? Or to vote?

> 3 -- Not come over and kill Americans.

Southamerican people had no interest, motive or means to do such a
thing.

> 4 -- Trade with Americans.

Only Chile has a trade agreement with the US, and that's decades after
they defeated the US-puppet Pinochet.

> Have I left anything off the list?

Yes: "5 -- None of the above."

Rob, you have watched too many Hollywood movies.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:Mpsac.41867$K91.110288@attbi_s02...
>
>
> Alex wrote:
> > Tom, I can't believe you honestly believe your own comments.
> >
> > "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote
> >
> >>> Shell has not once but twice announced
> >>>that it has significantly less oil than it thought.
> >>
> >>You know, they've had these very complaints ging back over 100 years,
that
> >>we're running out. And somehow...
> >
> >
> > Are you really trying to say that oil is a renewable resource? That
> > there's no reason to look for alternatives and that we should all just
> > relax and mindlessly keep burning oil in our cars and industries?
>
> In the early 1900's either the federal government or maybe it was an
> executive from an oil company came out and said we had something like 9
> years and 6 months of oil left in the ground. And that was when we
> didn't hardly use any oil at all.

Try the 1880's or so when the conversion to petroleum was in full swing.
America's first "Oil Crisis" was WHALE oil, not petroleum.

During the Civil War (shortly after the transition from whale oil to
petroleum, oil was selling for $2.50 a barrel, or about $100 a bbl in todays
$$.

Before that, it was the timber crisis...which made coal mining economically
feasible....which led in part to the whale oil crisis, which lead to the
petro-oil crisis, whcihc led to OPEC, which from the start kept collapsing
after a lot of fist waving.

I'd recommend (for simiplicities sake) "The Doomsday Myth": 10,000 Year of
Economic Crisis" by Maurice & Smithson, and then some of the works of Julian
Simon. I could offer long quotes, but I've NEVER found anyone embroiled in
crisis-mongering that it could sink into (Alex, in this case possibly).


> Now we know of more oil in the ground
> than the world has used to date. So yes it is not a renewable resource
> but it also is not even remotley scarce. Having said that we already
> are developing other means of propelling ourselves around. None make
> economic sense yet, but eventually they will.

Indeed!! (See above)

[Doug Carter]

Alex wrote:
>>The primary images these people have to produce their perception of the
>>U.S. is based on the beliefs portrayed by the likes of Michael Moore,
>>Ludacris and Dan Rather.
>
> I don't think so. I, for one, get my impressions of the US from a lot
> of sources: news (both US and foreign), political analysts (both US
> and foreign), having been there, having friends and family there, and
> from direct experience of the effects of US intervention in my
> country.

You disagree, but are exceptional in that you have been to
the U.S. Direct experience is hard to come by and new
analysts are clearly suspect because they most of them are
very biased towards an ideology (pro or con) if not
directly controlled by government. I wish everyone had
more channels like CSPAN and more direct contact so we
could form our own opinion.

I am curious about the "effects of US intervention in my
country." The U.S. has a macro track record of rebuilding
and withdrawing from defeated countries (Marshall Plan)
compared to Russia (Soviet Union). I presume there are
exceptions, but is this a "glass half empty vs. half full"
perception problem?

> I do have a mind of my own. I do my best to process all this
> information and take what seems to be true,

Clearly. Never said or meant to imply you did not. My
gripe is with the U.S. entertainment/news industry.

> And I don't think I am fundamentaly different from millons over the world.

There are billions of people in the world and I think you
are over estimating the fraction of people who have the
access you do.

> Don't underestimate people just because they don't live next to you. Doing so is equal to bigotry.

I did not estimate people; rather I estimated peoples
access to direct experience compared to relegated to
depending on the somewhat suspect opinions of others.

[Paul Sengupta]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> People have been raving about biodiesel, but guess what - biodiesel is
> 95% dead dinosaur and only 5% rape seed oil.

Not in Llanelli.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,807299,00.html
http://www.dawn.com/2002/10/22/int17.htm

Paul

[Paul Sengupta]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:LAn9c.107772$1p.1537022@attbi_s54...
> Just wait until their lights and air conditioners start clicking off, one
by
> one, however. THEN you will see how truly weak the anti-nuclear crowd
is --
> and nuclear power plants will start popping up all over the planet once
> again.

Already happening in North Korea. They're short of electricity.
They want oil. The US imposes sanctions on North Korea,
restricting the amount of oil sold to them. North Korea hence
builds a nuclear power station to try to make up a bit of the
electricity shortfall. The US are really happy about that idea...

Paul

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Paul Sengupta" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:LAn9c.107772$1p.1537022@attbi_s54...
> > Just wait until their lights and air conditioners start clicking off,
one
> by
> > one, however. THEN you will see how truly weak the anti-nuclear crowd
> is --
> > and nuclear power plants will start popping up all over the planet once
> > again.
>
> Already happening in North Korea. They're short of electricity.
> They want oil. The US imposes sanctions on North Korea,
> restricting the amount of oil sold to them. North Korea hence
> builds a nuclear power station to try to make up a bit of the
> electricity shortfall. The US are really happy about that idea...

Hmmm...the United States GAVE North Korea, what, 500 million bbls of oil?
How much of that went to their military? They gave them enormous quantities
of food, the vast majority went, you guessed it, to the military.

IIRC, Korea's nuclear capacity is NOT geared towards primarily electrical
generation, but towards creating of bomb making material.

[Alex]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message >...
> I'd recommend (for simiplicities sake) "The Doomsday Myth": 10,000 Year of
> Economic Crisis" by Maurice & Smithson, and then some of the works of Julian
> Simon. I could offer long quotes, but I've NEVER found anyone embroiled in
> crisis-mongering that it could sink into (Alex, in this case possibly).

And possibly not. I have a very superficial knowledge of the oil
crisis; I was just stating that oil is not renewable. I will search
for the book and read it if I find it.

[Rob Perkins]

(Alex) wrote:

>Let's see:
>
>> 1 -- Not kill their own people (usually a conceded point)
>
>In Southamerica the US supported government killing of innocents in
>concentration camps without trials of any kind. They trained the local
>military and turned a blind eye to the tortures and killings.

I don't know much about that, to be honest. But it doesn't sound like
the stated policies of any administration in the last 20 years, let
alone the normative American approach to things.

I'm afraid you'll have to prove this one with a bit more than
something like the shrill content of "FSTV".

>> 4 -- Trade with Americans.
>
>Only Chile has a trade agreement with the US, and that's decades after
>they defeated the US-puppet Pinochet.

What? I thought we'd extended NAFTA to South America, and joined GATT
and the WTO... We've been buying Mexican and Venezuelan oil for
decades, etc, etc, etc...

>Rob, you have watched too many Hollywood movies.

Doesn't follow. I'm more unique than virtually every American in the
respect that I've actually lived overseas.

Rob

[Alex]

Doug Carter > wrote in message >...
> Alex wrote:
> >>The primary images these people have to produce their perception of the
> >>U.S. is based on the beliefs portrayed by the likes of Michael Moore,
> >>Ludacris and Dan Rather.
> >
> > I don't think so. I, for one, get my impressions of the US from a lot
> > of sources: news (both US and foreign), political analysts (both US
> > and foreign), having been there, having friends and family there, and
> > from direct experience of the effects of US intervention in my
> > country.
>
> You disagree, but are exceptional in that you have been to
> the U.S. Direct experience is hard to come by and new

You don't need to go to the US to see what the effect of the US
foreign policy has been around the world. On the contrary, you need to
get out of the US to see it. Within the US you may see only benefits.
Outside of it, the story is quite different in most cases.

> analysts are clearly suspect because they most of them are
> very biased towards an ideology (pro or con) if not
> directly controlled by government. I wish everyone had
> more channels like CSPAN and more direct contact so we
> could form our own opinion.

You can read between the lines. If you understand the bias in each
media you have the elements to separate the truth from the propaganda.
And if you read opposing media you get an even clearer picture.

> I am curious about the "effects of US intervention in my
> country." The U.S. has a macro track record of rebuilding
> and withdrawing from defeated countries (Marshall Plan)
> compared to Russia (Soviet Union). I presume there are
> exceptions, but is this a "glass half empty vs. half full"
> perception problem?

You seem to speak about countries bombed by the US / Allies. I am
speaking about countries where the US played behind the scenes and
helped in the country's destruction, not of their buildings, but of
their people. And being unofficial and behind the scenes, and there
being no bombed buildings, there is no rebuilding involved. It's not
even half empty. It's empty. Period.

> > And I don't think I am fundamentaly different from millons over the world.
>
> There are billions of people in the world and I think you
> are over estimating the fraction of people who have the
> access you do.

How many people have access to the internet and/or cable TV? Granted,
not a big fraction of the world population, but still millons.

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Alex wrote:
>> The primary images these people have to produce their perception of the
>> U.S. is based on the beliefs portrayed by the likes of Michael Moore,
>> Ludacris and Dan Rather.
>
> I don't think so. I, for one, get my impressions of the US from a lot
> of sources: news (both US and foreign), political analysts (both US
> and foreign)

And those of us who can get BBC Radio 4, let's not forget Alistair
Cook's "Letter From America", which was a regular programme from 1946
until 2004. Sadly, Alistair Cook died this week. Letter from America was
always very insightful.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Doug Carter]

Alex wrote:
> You seem to speak about countries bombed by the US / Allies. I am
> speaking about countries where the US played behind the scenes and
> helped in the country's destruction, not of their buildings, but of
> their people. And being unofficial and behind the scenes, and there
> being no bombed buildings, there is no rebuilding involved. It's not
> even half empty. It's empty. Period.

I was sort of hoping for specific cases with verifiable
assertions of fact instead of vague demogarary.

Direct U.S. foreign aid runs about $15-20b/year (before
special accounts like Iraq). Unless the U.S. is
endeavoring to destroy "most" countries out of pure malice
then this wanton destruction would seem to be rather short
sighted economics.

[Jay Honeck]

> My perception is that you are used to such a nice living standard in
> such a nice neighborhood, that you simply lost contact with the rest
> of the world, who usually suffers unjustly. (By "you" I also mean most
> americans, and by "neighborhood" I also mean the world).

Well, I enjoy a nice standard of living, true enough. Although my yearly
income is currently far less than that of an entry-level grade school
teacher.

But I got here by working since I was 13. This is now the third business
I've started from scratch, and working 80 hour weeks is the norm, not the
exception.

The only thing that separates people like me from the rest of the world's
population is the fact that America lets someone who works hard succeed --
period. THAT is what makes the United States the envy of the world.
Work hard, be persistent, and success will likely follow.

Right now I employ several excellent people who, had they made better
choices in the past, would be working in higher-paying jobs. But they are
*working* and succeeding, some are attending university classes to better
themselves (and make themselves more employable) and eventually they will
work their way up to a better, higher paying position, probably in another
company. They haven't given up, and they -- unlike so many people I talk to
and have interviewed -- do not feel that the world "owes" them a nice
standard of living.

In my experience, there are two types of failures. The first kind are
involved with drugs and alcohol, or who suffer a mental illness. They are
basket cases for a myriad of reasons, and I don't regard them as anything
but sick people.

The second group are folks who truly worry me. They are the ones who burn
with resentment that "the Man" has denied them something, who portray
themselves as "victims," and who feel "entitled" to a better life. In my
experience, these are the same workers who routinely show up late, cheat on
their timecards, steal and lie.

Does this mean regular working people don't suffer occasional set-backs? Of
course not. George, and millions just like him, will find work, eventually,
and they will get on with their lives. And I've had more than my share of
ups and downs, too.

It's called "life"... And no one gets off of this planet alive.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination

[Alex]

Rob Perkins > wrote in message >...
> (Alex) wrote:
>
> >Let's see:
> >
> >> 1 -- Not kill their own people (usually a conceded point)
> >
> >In Southamerica the US supported government killing of innocents in
> >concentration camps without trials of any kind. They trained the local
> >military and turned a blind eye to the tortures and killings.
>
> I don't know much about that, to be honest. But it doesn't sound like
> the stated policies of any administration in the last 20 years, let
> alone the normative American approach to things.

Of course it never was the "stated policies" of any administration.
But the documents have been declasified, so it's more that just a
theory. Yes, it happened more than 20 years ago, but the effects of it
are still shaking southamerican societies. Today the US foreign policy
is more bold and blunt, but I don't think its moral quality has
improved.

> I'm afraid you'll have to prove this one with a bit more than
> something like the shrill content of "FSTV".

Rob, honestly. Just because you ignore something doesn't mean I have
to prove it to you. Search for the information yourself. For example,
do the following search in google: ["Plan Condor" "CIA"] THere

> >> 4 -- Trade with Americans.
> >
> >Only Chile has a trade agreement with the US, and that's decades after
> >they defeated the US-puppet Pinochet.
>
> What? I thought we'd extended NAFTA to South America, and joined GATT
> and the WTO... We've been buying Mexican and Venezuelan oil for
> decades, etc, etc, etc...

Ok, I was talking about southamerican countries where the US installed
dictatorships. Trade was not the motivation and the current lack of
trade agreements in those countries proves it.

> >Rob, you have watched too many Hollywood movies.
>
> Doesn't follow. I'm more unique than virtually every American in the
> respect that I've actually lived overseas.

South America is overseas?

[Alex]

Doug Carter > wrote in message >...
> Alex wrote:
> > You seem to speak about countries bombed by the US / Allies. I am
> > speaking about countries where the US played behind the scenes and
> > helped in the country's destruction, not of their buildings, but of
> > their people. And being unofficial and behind the scenes, and there
> > being no bombed buildings, there is no rebuilding involved. It's not
> > even half empty. It's empty. Period.
>
> I was sort of hoping for specific cases with verifiable
> assertions of fact instead of vague demogarary.

As I said to Rob, go search google. There you can find verifiable
assertions. I don't know where you can read your government's
declasified documents to actually verify what you find in the net, but
I'm sure you know.

> Direct U.S. foreign aid runs about $15-20b/year (before
> special accounts like Iraq). Unless the U.S. is
> endeavoring to destroy "most" countries out of pure malice
> then this wanton destruction would seem to be rather short
> sighted economics.

I never said the motivation was pure malice. I'm sure Nixon and
Kissinger thought it was very rational to plant puppet dictatorships
in South America, and I'm sure Bush had a very rational reason to
invade Irak (whatever that reason is). I'm just saying that their
decissions have usually dreadful effects on people around the world.
The image of US as the good guy, as Hollywood pretends to portray
movie after movie, as the US propaganda, is simply false.

Also, countries are not monolitic entities that always act rationally.
For example, one theory of why Bush invaded Irak is that his father's
friends are making loads of money getting the reconstruction
contracts. They say they even signed up those contracts before the
bombs fell! So, in other words, it doesn't have to make economic sense
for the US, as long as it benefits the individuals in power.

[Doug Carter]

Well said.

There are doers and whiners. These are synonyms for
winners and losers.


Jay Honeck wrote:

> Well, I enjoy a nice standard of living, true enough. Although my yearly
> income is currently far less than that of an entry-level grade school
> teacher.
> But I got here by working since I was 13. This is now the third business
> I've started from scratch, and working 80 hour weeks is the norm, not the
> exception.
>
> The only thing that separates people like me from the rest of the world's
> population is the fact that America lets someone who works hard succeed --
> period. THAT is what makes the United States the envy of the world.
> Work hard, be persistent, and success will likely follow.
>
> Right now I employ several excellent people who, had they made better
> choices in the past, would be working in higher-paying jobs. But they are
> *working* and succeeding, some are attending university classes to better
> themselves (and make themselves more employable) and eventually they will
> work their way up to a better, higher paying position, probably in another
> company. They haven't given up, and they -- unlike so many people I talk to
> and have interviewed -- do not feel that the world "owes" them a nice
> standard of living.
>
> In my experience, there are two types of failures. The first kind are
> involved with drugs and alcohol, or who suffer a mental illness. They are
> basket cases for a myriad of reasons, and I don't regard them as anything
> but sick people.
>
> The second group are folks who truly worry me. They are the ones who burn
> with resentment that "the Man" has denied them something, who portray
> themselves as "victims," and who feel "entitled" to a better life. In my
> experience, these are the same workers who routinely show up late, cheat on
> their timecards, steal and lie.
>
> Does this mean regular working people don't suffer occasional set-backs? Of
> course not. George, and millions just like him, will find work, eventually,
> and they will get on with their lives. And I've had more than my share of
> ups and downs, too.
>
> It's called "life"... And no one gets off of this planet alive.

[Doug Carter]

Alex wrote:
> Doug Carter > wrote in message >...
>>
>>I was sort of hoping for specific cases with verifiable
>>assertions of fact instead of vague demogarary.
>
>
> As I said to Rob, go search google. There you can find verifiable
> assertions. I don't know where you can read your government's
> declasified documents to actually verify what you find in the net, but
> I'm sure you know.
>

I understand; you have no actual data, just emotional
outrage driven by the last vague collection of "facts" you
picked up somewhere.

>
> I never said the motivation was pure malice. I'm sure Nixon and
> Kissinger thought it was very rational to plant puppet dictatorships
> in South America,

You are sure, *but* you have no data, no facts, no clue
other than what you pick up on www.black.helicopter.com.

> For example, one theory of why Bush invaded Irak is that his father's
> friends are making loads of money getting the reconstruction
> contracts. They say they even signed up those contracts before the
> bombs fell!

I suppose you are referring to the famous "Dick Cheny's"
Halliburton. The Johnson family has a far greater
interest in Halliburton than Dick Cheny ever hoped to.
Perhaps Dick is actually a mole for the Democratic party
and power base!

By the way, do you have a mailto address for *They*?

[Doug Carter]

Alex wrote:

>>What? I thought we'd extended NAFTA to South America, and joined GATT
>>and the WTO... We've been buying Mexican and Venezuelan oil for
>>decades, etc, etc, etc...
>
>
> Ok, I was talking about southamerican countries where the US installed
> dictatorships. Trade was not the motivation and the current lack of
> trade agreements in those countries proves it.
>

In 2002 the U.S. exported commodities worth some $29
billions to South America and imported $48 billions worth.
See:
http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/industry/otea/usfth/geoarea/rsamer.html

If trade is not the motivation to install dictatorships
what was it?

[Dylan Smith]

In article <c9Wac.155168$Cb.1606465@attbi_s51>, Jay Honeck wrote:
> It's called "life"... And no one gets off of this planet alive.

Well, not quite. I get off this planet as regularly as possible. Sure I
might not escape the atmosphere, but I do get off the planet.

Oh, and tell that to someone like Buzz Aldrin :-)

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Alex]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<c9Wac.155168$Cb.1606465@attbi_s51>...
> The only thing that separates people like me from the rest of the world's
> population is the fact that America lets someone who works hard succeed --
> period. THAT is what makes the United States the envy of the world.
> Work hard, be persistent, and success will likely follow.

Get off your horse, Jay! In most places, if you work hard, you
succeed. I don't think you can say the US is the envy of the world.
Maybe Canada. But definetely not the US! There's a lot of positive
things about the US, but then again there's lot of negative things
about it too... I wouldn't be so patronizing if I were you.

> The second group are folks who truly worry me. They are the ones who burn
> with resentment that "the Man" has denied them something, who portray
> themselves as "victims," and who feel "entitled" to a better life. In my
> experience, these are the same workers who routinely show up late, cheat on
> their timecards, steal and lie.

I'm not sure why you bought this into the discussion. If you are
implying that third world coutries expect to be saved by the US, look
again. Quite on the contrary, most contries are happy to live without
US "help". The only thing that makes the US attractive is the big
market.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Doug Carter" > wrote in message
...
> Well said.
>
> There are doers and whiners. These are synonyms for
> winners and losers.
>
>

Quite!
And, as I've quoted before:

--
"It's said that criminals behave as they do
because of their lack of economic opportunities.
Actually, it's more that they have no economic
opportunities BECAUSE they are criminals."

[Rob Perkins]

(Alex) wrote:

>> I'm afraid you'll have to prove this one with a bit more than
>> something like the shrill content of "FSTV".
>
>Rob, honestly. Just because you ignore something doesn't mean I have
>to prove it to you. Search for the information yourself. For example,
>do the following search in google: ["Plan Condor" "CIA"] THere

Nosir. Packing me off to guerillanews.com does not prove your point.
At best, it will parrot your point, maybe supply some supporting
information.

>> Doesn't follow. I'm more unique than virtually every American in the
>> respect that I've actually lived overseas.
>
>South America is overseas?

I can see where this is going, and I'm just not interested in that
kind of conversation.

Rob

[Alex]

Doug Carter > wrote in message >...
> Alex wrote:
>
> >>What? I thought we'd extended NAFTA to South America, and joined GATT
> >>and the WTO... We've been buying Mexican and Venezuelan oil for
> >>decades, etc, etc, etc...
> >
> >
> > Ok, I was talking about southamerican countries where the US installed
> > dictatorships. Trade was not the motivation and the current lack of
> > trade agreements in those countries proves it.
>
> In 2002 the U.S. exported commodities worth some $29
> billions to South America and imported $48 billions worth.
> See:
> http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/industry/otea/usfth/geoarea/rsamer.html

Doug, please!!! I said there are no trade AGREEMENTS, not that there
was no trade whatsoever! I was answering Rob's totally naive
assumption that the US would only interfere with foreign governments
to help people, enhance their living standard, make trade agreements,
etc.

> If trade is not the motivation to install dictatorships
> what was it?

Do you really need me to spell it out for you?

The US installed numerous dictatorships in South America for one
reason: the fear that somehow communism would take hold of what US
considered its "backyard". Your dear politicians decided it was better
to have tens of thousands of innocent people tortured and killed so
you could live comfortably in your cozy homes. Even when there was no
intention of these countries of turning "Cuba".

Have you ever heard of a movie called "Missing"? This is a 1982
nonfiction movie, with Jack Lemmon and Sissy Spacek. Unless you fear
your beliefs can be shaken by a simple movie, I dare you to watch it.

Before you tell me that a movie can lie, please remember that you are
talking with a witness of the kind of horror that this movie shows.
And it doesn't even show all that happened. Once you have seen it, add
torture and violation of pregnant women, appropriation of babies and
denial of their true identity... I live in a country that has gone
through that. I have been personally affected.

And just to show you how futile the US tactics regarding "lefties"
were, the current president of Argentina is precisely the kind of
"lefty" the US was most worried about back in the 70's. He survived
the US backed local military and now is in power. Does that represent
a threat to the US? Of course not, as it didn't 30 years ago, but your
politicians were so paranoid about it that they went along with the
killings.

McCarthy was considered crazy and you all still remember how it hurt
the US. We were killed by the thousands by that very same paranoia,
yet you managed to convince yourself that it didn't happen, that the
US stands only for freedom and peace. Even in the face of current
events, where literally the same "preventive attack" tactics are being
used, you still defend it.

It makes me sick.

[Alex]

Rob Perkins > wrote in message >...
> (Alex) wrote:
>
> >> I'm afraid you'll have to prove this one with a bit more than
> >> something like the shrill content of "FSTV".
> >
> >Rob, honestly. Just because you ignore something doesn't mean I have
> >to prove it to you. Search for the information yourself. For example,
> >do the following search in google: ["Plan Condor" "CIA"] THere
>
> Nosir. Packing me off to guerillanews.com does not prove your point.
> At best, it will parrot your point, maybe supply some supporting
> information.

You're incredible, Rob. Google returns 2130 hits and you pick the one
that has less credibility to rub it on my face. Like I'm responsible
for each and every freaking site that Google indexes. You're
priceless!

Ok, I'll do your work for you. The second and fourth sites found in
Google (the first one being the gerrillanews site), are:

http://www.counterpunch.org/solo10012003.html
http://www.crimesofwar.org/special/condor.html

From the first:

"Argentina--30,000 reasons to cry Three years after destroying
democracy by instigating the military coup against Salvador Allende in
Chile in 1973, Henry Kissinger was in Santiago for a meeting of the
Organization of American States. There he met the Argentinian military
junta's foreign minister. According to Robert Hill, then U.S.
Ambassador in Argentina, "Kissinger asked how long it would take ...
to clean up the (terrorist) problem....Kissinger gave the Argentines
the green light ... The Secretary wanted Argentina to finish its
terrorist plan before year end." [2] Hill should know. It was he who
served as intermediary between organizers of the Guatemalan death
squads and leading figures in the Argentinian government.[3]"

"Between 1976 and 1983, under the military dictatorship, the
Argentinian armed forces killed over 30,000 civilian members of the
country's political opposition. Around 500 babies of women who gave
birth in detention were distributed among their parents' murderers. In
over 300 camps and detention centres, victims were tortured to death
and then dumped in mass graves or flown out to be dropped into the
Atlantic from military transport planes. Their property and goods were
divided up among their torturers and murderers--over US$70m worth."

From the second:

"Recently declassified documents add weight to the thesis that U.S.
forces secretly aided and facilitated Condor operations. The U.S.
government considered the Latin American militaries to be allies in
the Cold War, worked closely with their intelligence organizations,
and promoted coordinated action and modernization of their
capabilities. As shown here, U.S. executive agencies at least
condoned, and sometimes actively assisted, some Condor
"countersubversive" operations."

And that's without leaving the first page of results. You are one lazy
person, Rob.

[Doug Carter]

Alex wrote:

> Doug, please!!! I said there are no trade AGREEMENTS, not that there
> was no trade whatsoever!

TRICK QUESTION: what pays the bills, trade, or trade
agreements?


THE ASSERTION:
> The US installed numerous dictatorships in South America for one
> reason: the fear that somehow communism would take hold of what US
> considered its "backyard".


THE EVIDENCE:
> Have you ever heard of a movie called "Missing"? This is a 1982
> nonfiction movie, with Jack Lemmon and Sissy Spacek. Unless you fear
> your beliefs can be shaken by a simple movie, I dare you to watch it.

[Martin Hotze]

On 3 Apr 2004 15:51:26 -0800, Alex wrote:

>The US installed numerous dictatorships in South America for one
>reason: the fear that somehow communism would take hold of what US
>considered its "backyard". Your dear politicians decided it was better
>to have tens of thousands of innocent people tortured and killed so
>you could live comfortably in your cozy homes. Even when there was no
>intention of these countries of turning "Cuba".

uhhh. you are so unamerican.

#m

--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 19:15:50 -0600, Doug Carter wrote:

>THE ASSERTION:
>> The US installed numerous dictatorships in South America for one
>> reason: the fear that somehow communism would take hold of what US
>> considered its "backyard".

well, this is not really anything new. The US holds the whole world as its
backyard, at least they try to.

>THE EVIDENCE:
>> Have you ever heard of a movie called "Missing"? This is a 1982
>> nonfiction movie, with Jack Lemmon and Sissy Spacek. Unless you fear
>> your beliefs can be shaken by a simple movie, I dare you to watch it.

nice to not quote the next sentence he wrote. I quote it for you:

<begin quote>
| Before you tell me that a movie can lie, please remember that you are
| talking with a witness of the kind of horror that this movie shows.
<end quote>

#m
--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

[pacplyer]

Alex, is one sick puppy. Just because he finds someone's ramblings
searching google doesn't make it true. His poison pen diatribes are
really deluded. All he can say is: the U.S. is bad bad bad bad bad.
The U.S., you moron, is nearly 300 million people. Ninety-Nine
percent who have nothing to do with the freqently up to 100
wars/conflicts being waged around the world. These struggles would
occur with or without our involvement. All nations have problems with
operatives in the field. Don't blame us because human life is worth
nothing below Texas. Kissinger was trying to stabilize the situation.
Sometimes it works out, other times it doesn't. The falacy of Alex's
assertion that domestic U.S. standards must exist outside the U.S. is
very very naive.

pacplyer - out

(Alex) wrote in message >...
> Rob Perkins > wrote in message >...
> > (Alex) wrote:
> >
> > >> I'm afraid you'll have to prove this one with a bit more than
> > >> something like the shrill content of "FSTV".
> > >
> > >Rob, honestly. Just because you ignore something doesn't mean I have
> > >to prove it to you. Search for the information yourself. For example,
> > >do the following search in google: ["Plan Condor" "CIA"] THere
> >
> > Nosir. Packing me off to guerillanews.com does not prove your point.
> > At best, it will parrot your point, maybe supply some supporting
> > information.
>
> You're incredible, Rob. Google returns 2130 hits and you pick the one
> that has less credibility to rub it on my face. Like I'm responsible
> for each and every freaking site that Google indexes. You're
> priceless!
>
> Ok, I'll do your work for you. The second and fourth sites found in
> Google (the first one being the gerrillanews site), are:
>
> http://www.counterpunch.org/solo10012003.html
> http://www.crimesofwar.org/special/condor.html
>
> From the first:
>
> "Argentina--30,000 reasons to cry Three years after destroying
> democracy by instigating the military coup against Salvador Allende in
> Chile in 1973, Henry Kissinger was in Santiago for a meeting of the
> Organization of American States. There he met the Argentinian military
> junta's foreign minister. According to Robert Hill, then U.S.
> Ambassador in Argentina, "Kissinger asked how long it would take ...
> to clean up the (terrorist) problem....Kissinger gave the Argentines
> the green light ... The Secretary wanted Argentina to finish its
> terrorist plan before year end." [2] Hill should know. It was he who
> served as intermediary between organizers of the Guatemalan death
> squads and leading figures in the Argentinian government.[3]"
>
> "Between 1976 and 1983, under the military dictatorship, the
> Argentinian armed forces killed over 30,000 civilian members of the
> country's political opposition. Around 500 babies of women who gave
> birth in detention were distributed among their parents' murderers. In
> over 300 camps and detention centres, victims were tortured to death
> and then dumped in mass graves or flown out to be dropped into the
> Atlantic from military transport planes. Their property and goods were
> divided up among their torturers and murderers--over US$70m worth."
>
> From the second:
>
> "Recently declassified documents add weight to the thesis that U.S.
> forces secretly aided and facilitated Condor operations. The U.S.
> government considered the Latin American militaries to be allies in
> the Cold War, worked closely with their intelligence organizations,
> and promoted coordinated action and modernization of their
> capabilities. As shown here, U.S. executive agencies at least
> condoned, and sometimes actively assisted, some Condor
> "countersubversive" operations."
>
> And that's without leaving the first page of results. You are one lazy
> person, Rob.

[Alex]

Martin Hotze > wrote in message >...
> On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 19:15:50 -0600, Doug Carter wrote:
>
> >THE ASSERTION:
> >> The US installed numerous dictatorships in South America for one
> >> reason: the fear that somehow communism would take hold of what US
> >> considered its "backyard".
>
> well, this is not really anything new. The US holds the whole world as its
> backyard, at least they try to.
>
> >THE EVIDENCE:
> >> Have you ever heard of a movie called "Missing"? This is a 1982
> >> nonfiction movie, with Jack Lemmon and Sissy Spacek. Unless you fear
> >> your beliefs can be shaken by a simple movie, I dare you to watch it.
>
> nice to not quote the next sentence he wrote. I quote it for you:
>
> <begin quote>
> | Before you tell me that a movie can lie, please remember that you are
> | talking with a witness of the kind of horror that this movie shows.
> <end quote>
>
> #m

Vielen Dank, Martin! Ich hätte es nicht besser sagen können.
Tschüss!

[S Green]

WASHINGTON, DC


- A tragic fire on Monday destroyed the personal library
of President George W. Bush.

Both of his books have been lost.

- Presidential spokesman Scott McLelland said the president was devastated,
as he had not finished colouring the second one.

[Doug Carter]

Martin Hotze > wrote

>nice to not quote the next sentence he wrote. I quote it for you:

>>Before you tell me that a movie can lie, please remember that you are
>>talking with a witness of the kind of horror that this movie shows.


We find many witnesses in South America:

http://www.rense.com/general32/abduct.htm
http://www.labyrinthina.com/contact.htm
http://www.barbelith.com/topic/7409
http://www.para-normal.com/compendium/550.htm
http://www.ufoorganisation.com/Reports/AAbduction-d09m02y2003No001.htm

[Peter Gottlieb]

The "evidence" is far too vague and weak to be consistent with the reported
quantity and quality of aledged encounters.

I'm not saying this is all false, just that there is not nearly enough to
convince me otherwise.


"Doug Carter" > wrote in message
...
> Martin Hotze > wrote
>
> >nice to not quote the next sentence he wrote. I quote it for you:
>
> >>Before you tell me that a movie can lie, please remember that you are
> >>talking with a witness of the kind of horror that this movie shows.
>
>
> We find many witnesses in South America:
>
> http://www.rense.com/general32/abduct.htm
> http://www.labyrinthina.com/contact.htm
> http://www.barbelith.com/topic/7409
> http://www.para-normal.com/compendium/550.htm
> http://www.ufoorganisation.com/Reports/AAbduction-d09m02y2003No001.htm

[Alex]

(pacplyer) wrote in message >...
> Alex, is one sick puppy. Just because he finds someone's ramblings
> searching google doesn't make it true.

Ok, so you say Kissinger and Nixon had nothing to do with
southamerican dictatorships and their crimes. Ok, I can accept your
disagreement. I have no proof myself, I am only saying what I found,
and I do believe it because it is consistently mentioned throughout a
lot of very different sources. But it could be false, of course, like
anything else.

> His poison pen diatribes are
> really deluded. All he can say is: the U.S. is bad bad bad bad bad.
> The U.S., you moron, is nearly 300 million people. Ninety-Nine
> percent who have nothing to do with the freqently up to 100
> wars/conflicts being waged around the world. These struggles would
> occur with or without our involvement. All nations have problems with
> operatives in the field. Don't blame us because human life is worth
> nothing below Texas.

Firtly, I never blamed all of US population. I blamed the succesive US
governments for their foreign policy. I'm blaming politicians, not
farmers or salesmen! The sub-human military we got in southamerica are
our own. That we did to ourselves. I never said otherwise. I only said
the US backed it up and helped.

> Kissinger was trying to stabilize the situation.
> Sometimes it works out, other times it doesn't. The falacy of Alex's
> assertion that domestic U.S. standards must exist outside the U.S. is
> very very naive.

Now you're saying Kissinger *did* have something to do with
southamerican dictatorships and their crimes. Okey...

So, Pacplayer, you are making exactly my point! US foreign policy is
not guided by domestic standards, but hey, it was Rob who said it was,
not me! I am trying to tell him and Doug that they are deluded if they
believe the US acts acording to law, human rights, etc, in their
foreign policy. The whole point of this discussion is to show that by
doing so, the US has earned a lot of enemies and a lot of hatred. I
don't think it turned out so well in the long run for your country.
And the rest of the world is paying for that also. And that's a shame.

[Alex]

Doug Carter > wrote in message >...
> Alex wrote:
>
> > Doug, please!!! I said there are no trade AGREEMENTS, not that there
> > was no trade whatsoever!
>
> TRICK QUESTION: what pays the bills, trade, or trade
> agreements?

Doug, you seem to suffer from short-term memory loss. Let me refresh
it for you: Rob said the US interfered for, amongst other things,
trade agreements. I countered that by pointing out that in South
America they had interfered, and there was no trade agreement until 30
years later. Now you tell me that there is trade, which is true, but
completely misses the point.

[Alex]

Doug Carter > wrote
> THE ASSERTION:
> > The US installed numerous dictatorships in South America for one
> > reason: the fear that somehow communism would take hold of what US
> > considered its "backyard".
>
> THE EVIDENCE:
> > Have you ever heard of a movie called "Missing"? This is a 1982
> > nonfiction movie, with Jack Lemmon and Sissy Spacek. Unless you fear
> > your beliefs can be shaken by a simple movie, I dare you to watch it.

Look, I feel like I'm talking to brainwashed zombies here. You'll
obviously resort to the lowest means just to avoid a straight answer.
You don't want to listen to other points of view? You don't want to
know what it is like outside of the US? Fine. Have it your way. You're
gona have it anyway, because you can come to my home to kill me and be
a hero at the same time. Good for you. Bye.

[Alex]

Doug Carter > wrote
> >>I was sort of hoping for specific cases with verifiable
> >>assertions of fact instead of vague demogarary.
> >
> > As I said to Rob, go search google. There you can find verifiable
> > assertions. I don't know where you can read your government's
> > declasified documents to actually verify what you find in the net, but
> > I'm sure you know.
>
> I understand; you have no actual data, just emotional
> outrage driven by the last vague collection of "facts" you
> picked up somewhere.

Neither did I say I had actual data, nor did you demand it. You asked
for "specific cases with verifiable assertions of fact". I gave you
one:

http://www.crimesofwar.org/special/condor.html

There you can find verifiable data. Do your verification. Search for
the declasified documents mentioned in this site and many others. You
asked for verifiable data, I gave it to you. Now you say I have no
actual data?

The truth is you don't want to listen.

[Alex]

Doug Carter > wrote in message >...
> >>Before you tell me that a movie can lie, please remember that you are
> >>talking with a witness of the kind of horror that this movie shows.
>
> We find many witnesses in South America:
> http://www.rense.com/general32/abduct.htm
> http://www.labyrinthina.com/contact.htm
> http://www.barbelith.com/topic/7409
> http://www.para-normal.com/compendium/550.htm
> http://www.ufoorganisation.com/Reports/AAbduction-d09m02y2003No001.htm

Doug, my sister has been tortured by the military while she was
"missing". She gave birth in jail. She and her son are exceptional in
that she survived and he wasn't taken away. Nobody in the world denies
this kind of things happened, not even the militaries. The democratic
government that followed recognized the state did wrong and payed her
and countless outher survivers money in damages. Last week our
president publicly asked for forgiveness in the name of the State.

You compare my country's well documented and universally accepted
history and my own family's history to a bunch of ufo sighters, which,
by the way, are by no means exclusive of South America?

Doug: you are a despicable asshole.

[Doug Carter]

Alex wrote:
> You compare my country's well documented and universally accepted
> history and my own family's history to a bunch of ufo sighters...

The point of that post was to satire the rather persistant
lack of documentation. With what you have presented so
far you may be correct and accurate or a Turing machine

>Doug: you are a despicable asshole.

With a sense of humor.

[pacplyer]

(Alex) wrote in message >...
> (pacplyer) wrote in message >...
> > Alex, is one sick puppy. Just because he finds someone's ramblings
> > searching google doesn't make it true.
>
> Ok, so you say Kissinger and Nixon had nothing to do with
> southamerican dictatorships and their crimes. Ok, I can accept your
> disagreement. I have no proof myself, I am only saying what I found,
> and I do believe it because it is consistently mentioned throughout a
> lot of very different sources. But it could be false, of course, like
> anything else.

I never said either way. But giving support to people in charge to
influence their behaviors is something that happens when you are
Secretary of State. My government frequently has to deal with
unsavory characters who wield power in a particular region. I'm just
pointing out that it seems like to me you are oversimplifying
everything. When you walk into a pig sty and have to deal with a
pig, you're going to get dirty. Your other choice is Isolationism.
Stay home and tell yourself that the murders are not happening and
that you won't find any mass graves if you go down there.

>
> > His poison pen diatribes are
> > really deluded. All he can say is: the U.S. is bad bad bad bad bad.
> > The U.S., you moron, is nearly 300 million people. Ninety-Nine
> > percent who have nothing to do with the frequently up to 100
> > wars/conflicts being waged around the world. These struggles would
> > occur with or without our involvement. All nations have problems with
> > operatives in the field. Don't blame us because human life is worth
> > nothing below Texas.
>
> Firtly, I never blamed all of US population. I blamed the succesive US
> governments for their foreign policy. I'm blaming politicians, not
> farmers or salesmen! The sub-human military we got in southamerica are
> our own. That we did to ourselves. I never said otherwise. I only said
> the US backed it up and helped.

I don't think you'll reach many politicians on this website. Where do
you live Alex? in Latin America? Are you a German immigrant?

>
> > Kissinger was trying to stabilize the situation.
> > Sometimes it works out, other times it doesn't. The fallacy of Alex's
> > assertion that domestic U.S. standards must exist outside the U.S. is
> > very very naive.
>
> Now you're saying Kissinger *did* have something to do with
> southamerican dictatorships and their crimes. Okey...
>
> So, Pacplayer, you are making exactly my point! US foreign policy is
> not guided by domestic standards, but hey, it was Rob who said it was,
> not me!

Rob is right. So is Doug. The U.S. objective is always to stabilize
the region so commerce can flourish and standards of living can come
up. The disagreement arises for me when we ask: whose standards of
living come up? Corporate CEO's or the people?

>I am trying to tell him and Doug that they are deluded if they
> believe the US acts acording to law, human rights, etc, in their
> foreign policy.

Contrary to what law? International law? Local law? Religious law?
Martial law? Again, this old saw about the U.S. breaking laws is a
play on words. War is legal. If you can't rid your own country of
despots, and your countryman's cries reach the U.S. media…look out!
Our do-gooders will get everybody upset and before you know it, the
U.S. intel or war machine may start on the way down to clean up these
perceived injustices. And odds are: they're going to screw it up big
time. And guys like you are going to bitch and moan about how unfair
we are. Well I'm tired of your sad sad song. You want to convince
people here of U.S. oppression, post pictures of people being tossed
out of C-130's by U.S troops and then I'll believe it. Until you do,
I say it's bull****, and that you are one impressionable young man for
only believing one side of the argument. I try to keep an open mind.
I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I believe U.S.
corporate CEO's are morally bankrupt, and cause most of these hard
feelings by abusing int'l labor and trashing the third world for
profit. These assholes are the guys that prop up dictators with cushy
oil/drug/lumber kickbacks and then economically enslave the local
workers. After a number of years of this the workers get fed up.
They join guerrilla movements and start shooting up villages. Police
are called out. The national Military gets involved. The CEO's
convince the president/dictator/despot to call Washington and ask for
assistance.

Citizens like me are going to try to vote out Bush and other
incombants this November to pay for this misbehavior. But can the
U.S. gov just decree that the whole world must obey human rights? No!
All we can do is take out a few of the biggest offenders. And during
that process there's going to be some heartbreak. People are going to
get killed. Human rights are going to be violated. Half of the
strongmen we support are going to stab us in the back later. That is
the nature of intervention.

It's legal to kill your wife in Argentina if she embarrasses you. Do
we like that law? (divorced guys don't answer this one.) No, of
course not. But we can not impose all our domestic American standards
on the rest of the world just because we want to. Is it legal for the
president of Columbia to declare war on his own citizens and ask for
military help from the U.S. to stop drug farms? Yes it is. Do I like
it? No. Do I want to pay for it? No. Can I do anything about it?
I'm voting against all incumbents this November.

If I understand you Alex, you're basically blaming the U.S. government
for picking sides, right? Well, they're often forced to pick between
two evils. Support Sadamn Hussein or a radical Iattola or Sheik?
They all murder, bomb, rape and wage war. We hope that the thug we
support will eventually mend his ways and give in to our pressure to
treat his subjects better. But guess what Alex? We can't dictate
this. Not unless we show up with warships. Which, we actually hate
to do. And then everybody loses.

pacplyer - over

[S Green]

"pacplyer" > wrote in message
om...
> (Alex) wrote in message
>...
> > (pacplyer) wrote in message
>...
> > > Alex, is one sick puppy. Just because he finds someone's ramblings
> > > searching google doesn't make it true.
> >
> > Ok, so you say Kissinger and Nixon had nothing to do with
> > southamerican dictatorships and their crimes. Ok, I can accept your
> > disagreement. I have no proof myself, I am only saying what I found,
> > and I do believe it because it is consistently mentioned throughout a
> > lot of very different sources. But it could be false, of course, like
> > anything else.
>
> I never said either way. But giving support to people in charge to
> influence their behaviors is something that happens when you are
> Secretary of State. My government frequently has to deal with
> unsavory characters who wield power in a particular region. I'm just
> pointing out that it seems like to me you are oversimplifying
> everything. When you walk into a pig sty and have to deal with a
> pig, you're going to get dirty. Your other choice is Isolationism.
> Stay home and tell yourself that the murders are not happening and
> that you won't find any mass graves if you go down there.
>
> >
> > > His poison pen diatribes are
> > > really deluded. All he can say is: the U.S. is bad bad bad bad bad.
> > > The U.S., you moron, is nearly 300 million people. Ninety-Nine
> > > percent who have nothing to do with the frequently up to 100
> > > wars/conflicts being waged around the world. These struggles would
> > > occur with or without our involvement. All nations have problems with
> > > operatives in the field. Don't blame us because human life is worth
> > > nothing below Texas.
> >
> > Firtly, I never blamed all of US population. I blamed the succesive US
> > governments for their foreign policy. I'm blaming politicians, not
> > farmers or salesmen! The sub-human military we got in southamerica are
> > our own. That we did to ourselves. I never said otherwise. I only said
> > the US backed it up and helped.
>
> I don't think you'll reach many politicians on this website. Where do
> you live Alex? in Latin America? Are you a German immigrant?
>
> >
> > > Kissinger was trying to stabilize the situation.
> > > Sometimes it works out, other times it doesn't. The fallacy of
Alex's
> > > assertion that domestic U.S. standards must exist outside the U.S. is
> > > very very naive.
> >
> > Now you're saying Kissinger *did* have something to do with
> > southamerican dictatorships and their crimes. Okey...
> >
> > So, Pacplayer, you are making exactly my point! US foreign policy is
> > not guided by domestic standards, but hey, it was Rob who said it was,
> > not me!
>
> Rob is right. So is Doug. The U.S. objective is always to stabilize
> the region so commerce can flourish and standards of living can come
> up. The disagreement arises for me when we ask: whose standards of
> living come up? Corporate CEO's or the people?
>
> >I am trying to tell him and Doug that they are deluded if they
> > believe the US acts acording to law, human rights, etc, in their
> > foreign policy.
>
> Contrary to what law? International law? Local law? Religious law?
> Martial law? Again, this old saw about the U.S. breaking laws is a
> play on words. War is legal. If you can't rid your own country of
> despots, and your countryman's cries reach the U.S. media.look out!
> Our do-gooders will get everybody upset and before you know it, the
> U.S. intel or war machine may start on the way down to clean up these
> perceived injustices. And odds are: they're going to screw it up big
> time. And guys like you are going to bitch and moan about how unfair
> we are. Well I'm tired of your sad sad song. You want to convince
> people here of U.S. oppression, post pictures of people being tossed
> out of C-130's by U.S troops and then I'll believe it. Until you do,
> I say it's bull****, and that you are one impressionable young man for
> only believing one side of the argument. I try to keep an open mind.
> I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I believe U.S.
> corporate CEO's are morally bankrupt, and cause most of these hard
> feelings by abusing int'l labor and trashing the third world for
> profit. These assholes are the guys that prop up dictators with cushy
> oil/drug/lumber kickbacks and then economically enslave the local
> workers. After a number of years of this the workers get fed up.
> They join guerrilla movements and start shooting up villages. Police
> are called out. The national Military gets involved. The CEO's
> convince the president/dictator/despot to call Washington and ask for
> assistance.
>
> Citizens like me are going to try to vote out Bush and other
> incombants this November to pay for this misbehavior. But can the
> U.S. gov just decree that the whole world must obey human rights? No!
> All we can do is take out a few of the biggest offenders. And during
> that process there's going to be some heartbreak. People are going to
> get killed. Human rights are going to be violated. Half of the
> strongmen we support are going to stab us in the back later. That is
> the nature of intervention.

"All we can do is take out a few of the biggest offenders."

You mean we take out those where we can steal their oil or other assets and
leave the worst offenders who would crush us if we tried it in their
country.

One rule for Iraq, another for China. Iraq with no WMD, China full of them
and both with human rights abuses.

The fact is China would whip the ass of the US if it tried to do anything.
You guys are so one eyed

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote:
>
> > The "evidence" is far too vague and weak to be consistent with the
reported
> > quantity and quality of aledged encounters.
> >
> > I'm not saying this is all false, just that there is not nearly enough
to
> > convince me otherwise.
> >
>
>
> what do you need more than the witness? ok, you can doubt his credibility.
>

A witness may be completely credible, yet still wrong.

Here's one thing that would completely convince me - bring me a piece of the
visiting craft and let me have it analyzed by a credible lab of my choice,
under peer (and other) supervision. No BS rocks or other junk, I'm talking
a piece of their frame or other technology.

[pacplyer]

"S Green" > wrote

> "All we can do is take out a few of the biggest offenders."
>
> You mean we take out those where we can steal their oil or other assets and
> leave the worst offenders who would crush us if we tried it in their
> country.

What dumb comments! We import 80% of all our oil from Saudi Arabia.
Iraq is not producing squat. It is not even a drop in the bucket.
The war is costing us hundreds of Billions. There are no "assets"
worth that much that we could have stolen. We invaded Iraq because
they were menacing and disruptive to the region. Now if their tyranny
had spread out of Iraq into the real oilfields then our economy would
be jeopardized.

>
> One rule for Iraq, another for China. Iraq with no WMD, China full of them
> and both with human rights abuses.

Apples and Oranges. I've been going to mainland China since 87'.
It's clear to me you've never been there. They are one of the U.S.'s
biggest trading partners. We get along fine with them as long as they
stay away from Taiwan. Since you obviously don't read the papers you
wouldn't know that we parked two aircraft carriers in the Formosa
Straight to prevent them from abusing the people of Formosa. China is
massively over populated. Years ago the Chinese gov issued a law that
all female babies must be killed. If they hadn't done that massive
famine would surely have followed. As it is now they have over 2
billion people in poverty over there right now. Human rights concepts
have been seeded by the British in Hong Kong and western style
business is succeeding in Scezen and Shanghai and other places. It's
slow but they are making progress, where old Sadamizer in Baghdad was
regressing. So we clobbered him again because he was asking for it.
Suddenly Libya got real friendly. Can you figure out why Momar Kadafi
has renounced terrorism Mr.Green?

>
> The fact is China would whip the ass of the US if it tried to do anything.
> You guys are so one eyed

Naw, we use both eyes. You see, even you'd be pushing up daisies
where you live after a full China/US thermonuclear exchange. Ever
hear of Nuclear Winter? I have a suggestion for you Green: Try going
to college instead of just parroting headlines. You'll learn a lot
more.

pacplyer - out






in message >...
> "pacplyer" > wrote in message
> om...
> > (Alex) wrote in message
> >...
> > > (pacplyer) wrote in message
> >...
> > > > Alex, is one sick puppy. Just because he finds someone's ramblings
> > > > searching google doesn't make it true.
> > >
> > > Ok, so you say Kissinger and Nixon had nothing to do with
> > > southamerican dictatorships and their crimes. Ok, I can accept your
> > > disagreement. I have no proof myself, I am only saying what I found,
> > > and I do believe it because it is consistently mentioned throughout a
> > > lot of very different sources. But it could be false, of course, like
> > > anything else.
> >
> > I never said either way. But giving support to people in charge to
> > influence their behaviors is something that happens when you are
> > Secretary of State. My government frequently has to deal with
> > unsavory characters who wield power in a particular region. I'm just
> > pointing out that it seems like to me you are oversimplifying
> > everything. When you walk into a pig sty and have to deal with a
> > pig, you're going to get dirty. Your other choice is Isolationism.
> > Stay home and tell yourself that the murders are not happening and
> > that you won't find any mass graves if you go down there.
> >
> > >
> > > > His poison pen diatribes are
> > > > really deluded. All he can say is: the U.S. is bad bad bad bad bad.
> > > > The U.S., you moron, is nearly 300 million people. Ninety-Nine
> > > > percent who have nothing to do with the frequently up to 100
> > > > wars/conflicts being waged around the world. These struggles would
> > > > occur with or without our involvement. All nations have problems with
> > > > operatives in the field. Don't blame us because human life is worth
> > > > nothing below Texas.
> > >
> > > Firtly, I never blamed all of US population. I blamed the succesive US
> > > governments for their foreign policy. I'm blaming politicians, not
> > > farmers or salesmen! The sub-human military we got in southamerica are
> > > our own. That we did to ourselves. I never said otherwise. I only said
> > > the US backed it up and helped.
> >
> > I don't think you'll reach many politicians on this website. Where do
> > you live Alex? in Latin America? Are you a German immigrant?
> >
> > >
> > > > Kissinger was trying to stabilize the situation.
> > > > Sometimes it works out, other times it doesn't. The fallacy of
> Alex's
> > > > assertion that domestic U.S. standards must exist outside the U.S. is
> > > > very very naive.
> > >
> > > Now you're saying Kissinger *did* have something to do with
> > > southamerican dictatorships and their crimes. Okey...
> > >
> > > So, Pacplayer, you are making exactly my point! US foreign policy is
> > > not guided by domestic standards, but hey, it was Rob who said it was,
> > > not me!
> >
> > Rob is right. So is Doug. The U.S. objective is always to stabilize
> > the region so commerce can flourish and standards of living can come
> > up. The disagreement arises for me when we ask: whose standards of
> > living come up? Corporate CEO's or the people?
> >
> > >I am trying to tell him and Doug that they are deluded if they
> > > believe the US acts acording to law, human rights, etc, in their
> > > foreign policy.
> >
> > Contrary to what law? International law? Local law? Religious law?
> > Martial law? Again, this old saw about the U.S. breaking laws is a
> > play on words. War is legal. If you can't rid your own country of
> > despots, and your countryman's cries reach the U.S. media.look out!
> > Our do-gooders will get everybody upset and before you know it, the
> > U.S. intel or war machine may start on the way down to clean up these
> > perceived injustices. And odds are: they're going to screw it up big
> > time. And guys like you are going to bitch and moan about how unfair
> > we are. Well I'm tired of your sad sad song. You want to convince
> > people here of U.S. oppression, post pictures of people being tossed
> > out of C-130's by U.S troops and then I'll believe it. Until you do,
> > I say it's bull****, and that you are one impressionable young man for
> > only believing one side of the argument. I try to keep an open mind.
> > I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I believe U.S.
> > corporate CEO's are morally bankrupt, and cause most of these hard
> > feelings by abusing int'l labor and trashing the third world for
> > profit. These assholes are the guys that prop up dictators with cushy
> > oil/drug/lumber kickbacks and then economically enslave the local
> > workers. After a number of years of this the workers get fed up.
> > They join guerrilla movements and start shooting up villages. Police
> > are called out. The national Military gets involved. The CEO's
> > convince the president/dictator/despot to call Washington and ask for
> > assistance.
> >
> > Citizens like me are going to try to vote out Bush and other
> > incombants this November to pay for this misbehavior. But can the
> > U.S. gov just decree that the whole world must obey human rights? No!
> > All we can do is take out a few of the biggest offenders. And during
> > that process there's going to be some heartbreak. People are going to
> > get killed. Human rights are going to be violated. Half of the
> > strongmen we support are going to stab us in the back later. That is
> > the nature of intervention.
>

[Alex]

Pacplayer, thanks for a reasonable answer. Comments inserted.

> ... When you walk into a pig sty and have to deal with a
> pig, you're going to get dirty. Your other choice is Isolationism.
> Stay home and tell yourself that the murders are not happening and
> that you won't find any mass graves if you go down there.

Ok, but in this case the mass graves came after US intervention, not
before.

> I don't think you'll reach many politicians on this website. Where do
> you live Alex? in Latin America? Are you a German immigrant?

Guilty on both accounts.

> Rob is right. So is Doug. The U.S. objective is always to stabilize
> the region so commerce can flourish and standards of living can come
> up. The disagreement arises for me when we ask: whose standards of
> living come up? Corporate CEO's or the people?

This sounds nice, but I am too cynical to believe it. I think a
country's objective is mostly what benefits the people in power, be it
politicians, military or CEOs.

> >I am trying to tell him and Doug that they are deluded if they
> > believe the US acts acording to law, human rights, etc, in their
> > foreign policy.
>
> Contrary to what law? International law? Local law? Religious law?
> Martial law? Again, this old saw about the U.S. breaking laws is a
> play on words. War is legal. If you can't rid your own country of
> despots, and your countryman's cries reach the U.S. media?look out!

There were no countryman's cries reaching the US in South America.

> Our do-gooders will get everybody upset and before you know it, the
> U.S. intel or war machine may start on the way down to clean up these
> perceived injustices. And odds are: they're going to screw it up big
> time. And guys like you are going to bitch and moan about how unfair
> we are. Well I'm tired of your sad sad song. You want to convince
> people here of U.S. oppression, post pictures of people being tossed
> out of C-130's by U.S troops and then I'll believe it. Until you do,
> I say it's bull****, and that you are one impressionable young man for
> only believing one side of the argument.

There are no such pictures because it wasn't US soldiers but local
ones. I never said the US did that. I said the US knew about it and
supported it. Again, I have no proof other than Kissinger's own
declasified words, which you should be able to find documented. That
should be as good as pictures, in my opinion.

> I try to keep an open mind.
> I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I believe U.S.
> corporate CEO's are morally bankrupt, and cause most of these hard
> feelings by abusing int'l labor and trashing the third world for
> profit. These assholes are the guys that prop up dictators with cushy
> oil/drug/lumber kickbacks and then economically enslave the local
> workers. After a number of years of this the workers get fed up.
> They join guerrilla movements and start shooting up villages. Police
> are called out. The national Military gets involved. The CEO's
> convince the president/dictator/despot to call Washington and ask for
> assistance.

Which, when they come, create more hatred and people start blaming the
US. Yes, it's an irrational spiral of violence, and there is not one
guilty side. As I said, we have our share of responsibility for it was
our own military who held the turture instruments. It was Saddam who
decided to gas his own people. It was Bin Laden who decided (maybe not
directly) to hit the towers. And it was the US foreign policy that
helped it happen, directly and knowingly as in South America or
indirectly and unknowingly (but should have known) in other cases.

I'm not saying "the US is bad, bad, bad"... I'm only trying to shed
some light into the heads of people in this newsgroup who candidly
believe in the Hollywod message that the US is marvelous and who can't
imagine why so many people throughout the world don't agree. I am
trying to balance the somewhat monotone and unrealistic chant of "the
US is right, everybody else is wrong".

> Citizens like me are going to try to vote out Bush and other
> incombants this November to pay for this misbehavior.

Thank you for that!

> But can the
> U.S. gov just decree that the whole world must obey human rights? No!
> All we can do is take out a few of the biggest offenders. And during
> that process there's going to be some heartbreak. People are going to
> get killed. Human rights are going to be violated. Half of the
> strongmen we support are going to stab us in the back later. That is
> the nature of intervention.

Yes, but again, that is not what happened here, and I can't avoid the
suspicion that it neither is the case in other US interventions.

> It's legal to kill your wife in Argentina if she embarrasses you. Do
> we like that law? (divorced guys don't answer this one.) No, of
> course not. But we can not impose all our domestic American standards
> on the rest of the world just because we want to. Is it legal for the
> president of Columbia to declare war on his own citizens and ask for
> military help from the U.S. to stop drug farms? Yes it is. Do I like
> it? No. Do I want to pay for it? No. Can I do anything about it?
> I'm voting against all incumbents this November.

Hey, these are almost exactly my words a few weeks earlier in this
thread!

> If I understand you Alex, you're basically blaming the U.S. government
> for picking sides, right? Well, they're often forced to pick between
> two evils. Support Sadamn Hussein or a radical Iattola or Sheik?
> They all murder, bomb, rape and wage war. We hope that the thug we
> support will eventually mend his ways and give in to our pressure to
> treat his subjects better. But guess what Alex? We can't dictate
> this. Not unless we show up with warships. Which, we actually hate
> to do. And then everybody loses.

Agreed.

[Alex]

"S Green" > wrote
> "All we can do is take out a few of the biggest offenders."
>
> You mean we take out those where we can steal their oil or other assets and
> leave the worst offenders who would crush us if we tried it in their
> country.
>
> One rule for Iraq, another for China. Iraq with no WMD, China full of them
> and both with human rights abuses.
>
> The fact is China would whip the ass of the US if it tried to do anything.
> You guys are so one eyed

Well, I don't blame the US for not going into China. But I still
haven't seen a credible justification for invading Iraq. Hussein was
not a threat to the US (inspectors were not finding WMD and the Scuds
couldn't reach the US), when he gased his people the US did not send
troops, even oil doesn't seem to be the cause (apparently the cost of
war is greater than oil revenues even if the production was up to
100%, which it is not)... The rush to invade in spite of UN wanting to
wait makes me wonder. What would have happened to the reconstrucion
contracts if the UN invaded Irak instead of the US? I'm asking out of
ignorance, I'm not trying to prove this was the real cause. It's just
a question, ok?

[S Green]

"pacplyer" > wrote in message
om...
> "S Green" > wrote
>
> > "All we can do is take out a few of the biggest offenders."
> >
> > You mean we take out those where we can steal their oil or other assets
and
> > leave the worst offenders who would crush us if we tried it in their
> > country.
>
> What dumb comments! We import 80% of all our oil from Saudi Arabia.
> Iraq is not producing squat. It is not even a drop in the bucket.
> The war is costing us hundreds of Billions. There are no "assets"
> worth that much that we could have stolen. We invaded Iraq because
> they were menacing and disruptive to the region. Now if their tyranny
> had spread out of Iraq into the real oilfields then our economy would
> be jeopardized.
>
> >
> > One rule for Iraq, another for China. Iraq with no WMD, China full of
them
> > and both with human rights abuses.
>
> Apples and Oranges. I've been going to mainland China since 87'.
> It's clear to me you've never been there. They are one of the U.S.'s
> biggest trading partners. We get along fine with them as long as they
> stay away from Taiwan. Since you obviously don't read the papers you
> wouldn't know that we parked two aircraft carriers in the Formosa
> Straight to prevent them from abusing the people of Formosa. China is
> massively over populated. Years ago the Chinese gov issued a law that
> all female babies must be killed. If they hadn't done that massive
> famine would surely have followed. As it is now they have over 2
> billion people in poverty over there right now. Human rights concepts
> have been seeded by the British in Hong Kong and western style
> business is succeeding in Scezen and Shanghai and other places. It's
> slow but they are making progress, where old Sadamizer in Baghdad was
> regressing. So we clobbered him again because he was asking for it.
> Suddenly Libya got real friendly. Can you figure out why Momar Kadafi
> has renounced terrorism Mr.Green?
>
> >
> > The fact is China would whip the ass of the US if it tried to do
anything.
> > You guys are so one eyed
>
> Naw, we use both eyes. You see, even you'd be pushing up daisies
> where you live after a full China/US thermonuclear exchange. Ever
> hear of Nuclear Winter? I have a suggestion for you Green: Try going
> to college instead of just parroting headlines. You'll learn a lot
> more.
>
> pacplyer - out

You just proved my point - thanks

[S Green]

"Alex" > wrote in message
om...
> "S Green" > wrote
> > "All we can do is take out a few of the biggest offenders."
> >
> > You mean we take out those where we can steal their oil or other assets
and
> > leave the worst offenders who would crush us if we tried it in their
> > country.
> >
> > One rule for Iraq, another for China. Iraq with no WMD, China full of
them
> > and both with human rights abuses.
> >
> > The fact is China would whip the ass of the US if it tried to do
anything.
> > You guys are so one eyed
>
> Well, I don't blame the US for not going into China. But I still
> haven't seen a credible justification for invading Iraq. Hussein was
> not a threat to the US (inspectors were not finding WMD and the Scuds
> couldn't reach the US), when he gased his people the US did not send
> troops, even oil doesn't seem to be the cause (apparently the cost of
> war is greater than oil revenues even if the production was up to
> 100%, which it is not)... The rush to invade in spite of UN wanting to
> wait makes me wonder. What would have happened to the reconstrucion
> contracts if the UN invaded Irak instead of the US? I'm asking out of
> ignorance, I'm not trying to prove this was the real cause. It's just
> a question, ok?

Well Bush has not brought much stability to Iraq so far. Now he's in he
cannot get out. Before any other countries are going to go in and help, he
is going to have to admit that he has ****ed it up.
I am sure the French and others will only be too pleased to bail him out
then.

[Jay Honeck]

> >Doug: you are a despicable asshole.
>
> With a sense of humor.

Wow -- THIS thread is still alive? This may be a new record! I'd
forgotten all about it...

(Of course, I'm not sure the tone of this series of posts counts as
"life"... ;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Get off your horse, Jay! In most places, if you work hard, you
> succeed.

Interesting. I see people working 80 hour weeks all over the world, just
like me -- except they are living in huts and drinking filthy water from
open sewers.

Why aren't they succeeding? Is it their Karma? Their destiny? Their
breath?

Or is it, just maybe, the structure of their government and society?

> I don't think you can say the US is the envy of the world.
> Maybe Canada. But definetely not the US!

Check out the applications for visas some day, my friend. I don't see lines
forming to get into Argentina.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Tom Sixkiller]

> > I don't think you can say the US is the envy of the world.
> > Maybe Canada. But definetely not the US!

Canada has roughly the same population as the black/negro/African-American
population in the US (about 38 million) and they have virtually the same
GNP/net worth.

Canada is doing as good as America's "underclass".

We have to put of guard towers around our borders to keep people OUT.

Yeah...the envy is that apparent.

[Alex]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> > Get off your horse, Jay! In most places, if you work hard, you
> > succeed.
>
> Interesting. I see people working 80 hour weeks all over the world, just
> like me -- except they are living in huts and drinking filthy water from
> open sewers.
> Why aren't they succeeding? Is it their Karma? Their destiny? Their
> breath?

So, you say that because there are places where hard work won't get
you a decent living standard, the obvious conclusion is that the US is
the only place that happens? Do you know there are actually other
countries besides the US and Somalia? I didn't say "everywhere"; I
said "in most places".

> > I don't think you can say the US is the envy of the world.
> > Maybe Canada. But definetely not the US!
>
> Check out the applications for visas some day, my friend. I don't see lines
> forming to get into Argentina.

So, your point is...?

[Alex]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote:
> We have to put of guard towers around our borders to keep people OUT.
> Yeah...the envy is that apparent.

Mexico is not "the world", you meant in "the US is the envy of the
world".
I live in a much poorer country than Mexico, and I know very few
people who would like to live in the US. Most would rather be poor
down here, thank you.

[Alex]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<rvUcc.210901$Cb.1815024@attbi_s51>...
> > >Doug: you are a despicable asshole.
> >
> > With a sense of humor.
>
> Wow -- THIS thread is still alive? This may be a new record! I'd
> forgotten all about it...
>
> (Of course, I'm not sure the tone of this series of posts counts as
> "life"... ;-)

I'm sorry, it's my fault. I promise I'll let this "zombie" rest in peace! ;)
Over and out.

[Newps]

Alex wrote:

Most would rather be poor
> down here, thank you.

Yeah, right.

[Bob Noel]

In article <GUCec.125100$JO3.82648@attbi_s04>, Newps
> wrote:

> Alex wrote:
>
> Most would rather be poor
> > down here, thank you.
>
> Yeah, right.

A lot of people have great fondness for their native land.

--
Bob Noel

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article <GUCec.125100$JO3.82648@attbi_s04>, Newps
> > wrote:
>
> > Alex wrote:
> >
> > Most would rather be poor
> > > down here, thank you.
> >
> > Yeah, right.
>
> A lot of people have great fondness for their native land.

....but they're still here.

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Alex wrote:
> I live in a much poorer country than Mexico, and I know very few
> people who would like to live in the US. Most would rather be poor
> down here, thank you.

Dangle a Green Card in front of them, and see how fast they suddenly
change their minds. A lot of people are very US-hostile until someone
dangles either an H-1 visa or green card in front of them.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Alex]

Dylan Smith > wrote in message >...
> In article >, Alex wrote:
> > I live in a much poorer country than Mexico, and I know very few
> > people who would like to live in the US. Most would rather be poor
> > down here, thank you.
>
> Dangle a Green Card in front of them, and see how fast they suddenly
> change their minds. A lot of people are very US-hostile until someone
> dangles either an H-1 visa or green card in front of them.

I speak for myself and the people I know. I've been in the US and I
have family and friends there, so I know what it would be like. I
wouldn't live there, no matter what. I would never rise my child
there.

For whom do you speak, Dylan?

[Alex]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote:
> "Bob Noel" > wrote:
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > Alex wrote:
> > >
> > > Most would rather be poor
> > > > down here, thank you.
> > >
> > > Yeah, right.
> >
> > A lot of people have great fondness for their native land.
>
> ...but they're still here.

Wow! All this time I thougth most people in this planet lived in
countries other than the US... What an idiot! Thanks, Tom, for opening
my eyes to the reality: All the people in the world want to live in
the US so badly that the only ones that don't are the poor souls who
couldn't affort to get to the US or who died trying! It may shock you,
Tom, but there are quite a lot of people happily living in the rest of
the world.

The US may be a rich country, it may be the most powerful country, but
by no means the best or most desirable to live in. I can accept that
people with low or no incomes and little chance to improve would like
to move to a better country, but that is hardly the only consideration
when deciding to migrate. Guess what, Tom: money is not the only
factor. I would never live there, no matter how bad the economy in my
country goes.

And believe me, the economy in my country has gone incredibly bad the
last couple of years. Most people I know lost the savings of their
lives, we can no longer afford buying computers or videocameras or
making a trip to Europe. Quite a lot of people decided they had enough
and emigrated. Most went to Spain, some to Canada, some to the US. Of
course language is a factor for choosing Spain, but most educated
people here speak english and you don't really need english to live
in, say, Miami.

Also, my sister works with refugees in Austria, mostly people from the
east block. Almost 95% of them are rejected by the Austrian
government, and they have to go back and face whatever they were
running from. So you see, Austria is similar to the US in that huge
numbers of people want to live there and the natives want them out.
But these people don't choose Austria because it is so beautifull or
because the living standard is so high. They don't really choose
Austria: it just happens to be the first EU country they step into,
because it is the nearest. Any EU country would do.

I don't want to hurt your feelings, Tom, but the US is not the
prefered emigrant destination. It just happens to be near poor
countries.

[S Green]

"Alex" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote:
> > "Bob Noel" > wrote:
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Alex wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Most would rather be poor
> > > > > down here, thank you.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, right.
> > >
> > > A lot of people have great fondness for their native land.
> >
> > ...but they're still here.
>
> Wow! All this time I thougth most people in this planet lived in
> countries other than the US... What an idiot! Thanks, Tom, for opening
> my eyes to the reality: All the people in the world want to live in
> the US so badly that the only ones that don't are the poor souls who
> couldn't affort to get to the US or who died trying! It may shock you,
> Tom, but there are quite a lot of people happily living in the rest of
> the world.
>
> The US may be a rich country, it may be the most powerful country, but
> by no means the best or most desirable to live in. I can accept that
> people with low or no incomes and little chance to improve would like
> to move to a better country, but that is hardly the only consideration
> when deciding to migrate. Guess what, Tom: money is not the only
> factor. I would never live there, no matter how bad the economy in my
> country goes.
>
> And believe me, the economy in my country has gone incredibly bad the
> last couple of years. Most people I know lost the savings of their
> lives, we can no longer afford buying computers or videocameras or
> making a trip to Europe. Quite a lot of people decided they had enough
> and emigrated. Most went to Spain, some to Canada, some to the US. Of
> course language is a factor for choosing Spain, but most educated
> people here speak english and you don't really need english to live
> in, say, Miami.
>
> Also, my sister works with refugees in Austria, mostly people from the
> east block. Almost 95% of them are rejected by the Austrian
> government, and they have to go back and face whatever they were
> running from. So you see, Austria is similar to the US in that huge
> numbers of people want to live there and the natives want them out.
> But these people don't choose Austria because it is so beautifull or
> because the living standard is so high. They don't really choose
> Austria: it just happens to be the first EU country they step into,
> because it is the nearest. Any EU country would do.
>
> I don't want to hurt your feelings, Tom, but the US is not the
> prefered emigrant destination. It just happens to be near poor
> countries.

Yeh, countries ripped off by US corporates

[Wdtabor]

In article >,
(pacplyer) writes:

>
>What dumb comments! We import 80% of all our oil from Saudi Arabia.

No, we don't.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Steven P. McNicoll]

(pacplyer) wrote in message >...
>
> What dumb comments! We import 80% of all our oil from Saudi Arabia.
>

No, we do not. Since 60% of all our oil is imported, it's obvious
that we do not import 80% of all our oil from Saudi Arabia.

[TD]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message >...

> Canada is doing as good as America's "underclass".
>
> We have to put of guard towers around our borders to keep people OUT.
>
> Yeah...the envy is that apparent.

Yeah, you must be right. Canada sucks. Please keep out. :)

Tien
PP-MEI
Montreal (CANADA)

[Tom Sixkiller]

"TD" > wrote in message
m...
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
>...
>
> > Canada is doing as good as America's "underclass".
> >
> > We have to put of guard towers around our borders to keep people OUT.
> >
> > Yeah...the envy is that apparent.
>
> Yeah, you must be right. Canada sucks. Please keep out. :)
>
> Tien
> PP-MEI
> Montreal (CANADA)

[Tom Sixkiller]

"TD" > wrote in message
m...
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
>...
>
> > Canada is doing as good as America's "underclass".
> >
> > We have to put of guard towers around our borders to keep people OUT.
> >
> > Yeah...the envy is that apparent.
>
> Yeah, you must be right. Canada sucks. Please keep out. :)
>
> Tien
> PP-MEI
> Montreal (CANADA)

Oh, PWWWTTTT, ya hockey puck!! Eh?

[Rob Perkins]

(Steven P. McNicoll) wrote:

(pacplyer) wrote in message >...
>>
>> What dumb comments! We import 80% of all our oil from Saudi Arabia.
>>
>
>No, we do not. Since 60% of all our oil is imported, it's obvious
>that we do not import 80% of all our oil from Saudi Arabia.

Most of it comes from Mexico and Venezuela, a simple side effect of
the fact that *they're closer!*

However, if you disrupt the Middle East oil production, you raise the
global price of the stuff.

Rob

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 16:08:37 GMT, Rob Perkins wrote:

>>> What dumb comments! We import 80% of all our oil from Saudi Arabia.
>>>
>>
>>No, we do not. Since 60% of all our oil is imported, it's obvious
>>that we do not import 80% of all our oil from Saudi Arabia.
>
>Most of it comes from Mexico and Venezuela, a simple side effect of
>the fact that *they're closer!*

http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html#imports (old data -> 1999)
and
http://api-ec.api.org/industry/index.cfm (current)


>However, if you disrupt the Middle East oil production, you raise the
>global price of the stuff.

true.
or try to use less ( --> less demand --> lower price )

>Rob

#m
--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

[G.R. Patterson III]

Martin Hotze wrote:
>
> >However, if you disrupt the Middle East oil production, you raise the
> >global price of the stuff.
>
> true.
> or try to use less ( --> less demand --> lower price )

If you're trying to reduce dependency on foreign oil, that tactic really doesn't work
well here. The EPA regulations have shut down many of the domestic wells that used to
produce. The general idea behind the regulations is that a well that doesn't produce
for some period of time must be capped. The capping method prescribed is rather
permanent. Once capped, the price of oil would have to triple to make it economical
to re-drill the well.

One of the results is that, every time OPEC drops prices and maintains that lower
price for more than a year, a few more marginal producers go out of business in this
country. Permanently. If you reduce demand and OPEC does, in fact, react by cutting
prices, you will actually *increase" dependency on foreign oil.

George Patterson
This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to
play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home
a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".

[Doug Carter]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:
>
> Martin Hotze wrote:
>>true.
>>or try to use less ( --> less demand --> lower price )
>
>
> If you're trying to reduce dependency on foreign oil, that tactic really doesn't work
> well here.

I really, really hate to agree with Martin, but, if we (in
the U.S.) would put a full court press on reducing oil
consumption then prices would go down. Clearly we should
strongly encourage domestic production, but either, by
itself will not be enough.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Doug Carter wrote:
>
> I really, really hate to agree with Martin, but, if we (in
> the U.S.) would put a full court press on reducing oil
> consumption then prices would go down.

Yes, prices would. And that would permanently reduce the amount of available domestic
oil. Which would *increase* the dependency on imports from other countries. Re-read
my post.

George Patterson
This marriage is off to a shaky start. The groom just asked the band to
play "Your cheatin' heart", and the bride just requested "Don't come home
a'drinkin' with lovin' on your mind".

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

> Doug Carter wrote:
> >
> > I really, really hate to agree with Martin, but, if we (in
> > the U.S.) would put a full court press on reducing oil
> > consumption then prices would go down.
>
> Yes, prices would. And that would permanently reduce the amount of
> available domestic
> oil. Which would *increase* the dependency on imports from other
> countries. Re-read
> my post.

It's not a simple system, driving down the price of
oil isn't simply a matter of only reducing consumption.
Other aspects have to be addressed such as, as mentioned
above, getting the EPA on board instead of having them
(the EPA) creating even more counterproductive regulations.
In addition, the consumption in other nations will have
to be considered.

--
Bob Noel

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 21:00:45 -0500, Doug Carter wrote:

>>>true.
>>>or try to use less ( --> less demand --> lower price )
>>
>>
>> If you're trying to reduce dependency on foreign oil, that tactic really doesn't work
>> well here.
>
>I really, really hate to agree with Martin,

oh. you don't have to feel bad about that :-))

>but, if we (in
>the U.S.) would put a full court press on reducing oil
>consumption then prices would go down. Clearly we should
>strongly encourage domestic production, but either, by
>itself will not be enough.

well, one point was not counted in:
use less oil -> less demand -> prices will fall -> OPEC will decrease
oil-output -> less oil on market -> higher prices (or the same before the
price reduction). the only winner would be our environment, but this would
be worth to give it a try, IMHO.

#m

--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

[pacplyer]

(Steven P. McNicoll) wrote in message >...
> (pacplyer) wrote in message >...
> >
> > What dumb comments! We import 80% of all our oil from Saudi Arabia.
> >
>
> No, we do not. Since 60% of all our oil is imported, it's obvious
> that we do not import 80% of all our oil from Saudi Arabia.

I meant to say: We import 80% of all our *gulf* oil from from Saudi
Arabia. But even that figure fluctuates yearly. So, my statistical
error. Would you agree that pre-war Iraq produced less than 10% of
U.S. imported oil? Post-war it is minimal so far. I doubt the output
has been restored to any comprable pre-war level. My point was that
stealing oil from Iraq was not a motive for the invasion. We should
pick another target, say the Spratly islands (a cache of oil the size
of the whole Persian Gulf) in the South China Sea if we are willing to
spend 170 billion dollars for military action, if the real motive is
oil conquest. I suspect the motives for invading Iraq centered
around a former "employee" (S.H.) publicly defying the Bush Dynasty
(O'niel allusions.) It would be easy then, to justify the action
based on providing stability for the region. IMHO.

pac

[S Green]

"pacplyer" > wrote in message
om...
> (Steven P. McNicoll) wrote in message
>...
> > (pacplyer) wrote in message
>...
> > >
> > > What dumb comments! We import 80% of all our oil from Saudi Arabia.
> > >
> >
> > No, we do not. Since 60% of all our oil is imported, it's obvious
> > that we do not import 80% of all our oil from Saudi Arabia.
>
> I meant to say: We import 80% of all our *gulf* oil from from Saudi
> Arabia. But even that figure fluctuates yearly. So, my statistical
> error. Would you agree that pre-war Iraq produced less than 10% of
> U.S. imported oil? Post-war it is minimal so far. I doubt the output
> has been restored to any comprable pre-war level. My point was that
> stealing oil from Iraq was not a motive for the invasion.

Iraqi oil production was minimal because of the sanctions and if any oil did
make its way to the US it would have probably been a mistake. The only oil
that was allowed to be exported was for humanitarian supplies. Therefore US
imports of oil from Iraq were zero before the war. Because Iraqi oil
production has been held back for 14 odd years the Iraqis have some of the
biggest oil reserves known.
So going to war to steal Iraq's oil is not an unreasonable assumption. It is
not just a matter of current production it is about access to future
production and the control of the reserves.
Its of no consequence to the US whether the Iraqi oil production is high or
low at the moment as their is a glut of oil. In fact I suspect that the US
is happy for it to take some time before Iraqi oil production is up to pre
Gulf War I levels. Its like keeping money in the bank.

Mind you some Iraqi people might like to see production and exports rise and
try and get living standards back to what they used to be.

[pacplyer]

"S Green" > wrote <snip>
>
> Iraqi oil production was minimal because of the sanctions and if any oil did
> make its way to the US it would have probably been a mistake. The only oil
> that was allowed to be exported was for humanitarian supplies. Therefore US
> imports of oil from Iraq were zero before the war. Because Iraqi oil
> production has been held back for 14 odd years the Iraqis have some of the
> biggest oil reserves known.
> So going to war to steal Iraq's oil is not an unreasonable assumption. It is
> not just a matter of current production it is about access to future
> production and the control of the reserves.

Sure it's an unreasonable assumption. The burden of proof is upon the
person making the charge of stealing (that would be you, Green.) I see
no evidence that spending 170 billion was a secret plot to steal such
a small (5% of total U.S. import) oil. Future undeveloped oil fields
cost a fortune in development, require regional stability, and their
future output is theroretical at best. But this charge of stealing is
a moot point anyway. Once we hand over control, that oil can go to the
world market (not just the U.S.) The difference will be that the oil
proceeds this time will go more towards improving the standard of
living for common Iraqies instead of all to a madman building secret
"superguns" (1991) and other military hardware to support more 8-year
wars on his neighbors (e.g. the Iran-Iraq war.) Looking for WMD is
what the Bush Admin did. Just because they didn't discover
functioning a-bombs or bugs doesn't mean those things didn't slip into
Syria before we got there. Saddam = weapon purchases and regional
war. USA/handover = oil production and money spread to more
individuals (we hope.)

> Its of no consequence to the US whether the Iraqi oil production is high or
> low at the moment as their is a glut of oil. In fact I suspect that the US
> is happy for it to take some time before Iraqi oil production is up to pre
> Gulf War I levels.

Hmmm, you said pre war production was zero (see your quote above.)
Martin posted a link that in 1999 it was 8% of all US imports (isn't
that pre Gulf War II ? I guess you meant the immediate period before
invasion?


>Its like keeping money in the bank.
>
> Mind you some Iraqi people might like to see production and exports rise and
> try and get living standards back to what they used to be.

But again, who is all this revenue going to go to? Warlords? Madmen?
Some long lost royal familly? Radical terrorists? I betcha none of
them want it to go to their people. I want us to pull out, but I
realize it's going to be a disaster any way we do it.

I supported both invasions, but I am against this occupation. Our
attempts at helping these people achieve freedom is unappreciated.
There is no way to convert oppressed peoples who have not the courage
to throw off their oppressors themselves. Believing that all people
on this earth deserve freedom is where Bush screwed up. The guy is
too big-hearted. Our reconstruction efforts also appear to be
unappreciated. My conclusion is that some people just don't deserve
to be liberated. We should pull out and let the place fall into civil
war. If it spreads into the other oilfields then we'll come back and
bomb them again.

Is this what you want, Green?

pacplyer

[[email protected]]

this guy is a net troll, he's using at least (6) other usernames,
killfile him ASAP, below is his posting history

http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?enc_author=aLo_UhMAAACqeZKH24Ly4UNtt449SfjF WMj6vob75xS36mXc24h6ww


see the link above, he is using
at least (10) other usernames on Usenet, they include


MARCO R
ROBERT J. KOLKER
ROBERT MORIEN
NEWPS
ASK A DIFFERENT
ROBERT KOLKER
EARL KIOSTERUD
therefore, he has no credibility- merely another net troll