Re: What shall we do with a bad government...
On Thursday, March 20, 2003, at 03:23 PM, Bill Stewart wrote: At 01:50 PM 03/20/2003 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote: The other one we hear is You should be ashamed which brings a chorus of No, we're proud or Have you forgotten about Sept. 11th? We did have some older fellow stopped at the redlight ranting about us needing to go back to Russia, which was pretty amusing. Amazing how red in the face some of those people get. Then there's the old America: Love it or Leave it line, from folks who got really really upset when people _did_ leave it to avoid Selective Slavery during the Vietnam Police Action. Not only were people prosecuted for attempting to leave these beknighted states, but look into what happens if one tries to get his _money_ out. The American Empire now treats attempts to transfer money out exactly the same way the Soviets treated money transfers. In any case, the whole notion that unconstitutional measures are best dealt with be fleeing one's property is absurd. Those who violate the Constitution should be the ones fleeing, ahead of a firing squad. But most of the world is corrupt. The 40 nations in the Axis of Greed are not supported by their citizens, in nearly all cases (as our subscribers from Europe have noted). The leaders and politicians of these nations are being bribed by U.S. taxpayer money. Witness Turkey, which is a direct neighbor of Iraq and thus presumably has the most to fear if Iraq is in fact a threat. But not only is Turkey not _sending troops_, it is not even _paying_ the Hessians, er, the Americans. In fact, Turkey is shaking down the U.S. for $30 billion in grants and aid and loan guarantees. A big chunk of this is presumably going into private bank accounts, just as with the billions in tax transfers to Egypt and the Zionist Entity and Jordan. Shrubya doesn't care, as he just raises taxes. (Or he squawks and whines as Congress raises taxes, same difference.) $100 billion to rebuild and nation-build Iraq is $1000 per average taxpayer (or about zero for most of the basic brown types and about $10,000 for the upper 10% of taxpayers). Throw in $30 billion for Turkey, countless billions for the Zionist Entity, Jordan, Syria, etc., and the pricetag for this Splendid Little War is going to be back-breaking for our already-overtaxed economy. Shrubya sez: We gonna open a can of nucular whoop-ass on them bad boys! Illiteracy meets mendacity. --Tim May
Re: Journalists, Diplomats, Others Urged to Evacuate City
At 02:03 PM 3/20/03 +, Ken Brown wrote: Of all the places in the world you ought not to go if you want to not be shot at, a war with 8 sides (Residual Lebanese govt. vs Palestinians vs. Israel vs Islamist Shia militias vs. non-Islamist Shia militias vs. Sunni militias vs Maronite militias vs Druze - with interference from Iran Syria) at least 3 of whom hate /all/ the others, and /all/ of whom have a history of shooting at each other, is hardly at the top of the list. If you go to where the vultures and the jackals are disputing over a corpse that isn't actually dead, you have yourself to blame if you get bitten. So, I don't suppose you've heard about our more recent forays into the Balkans, Somalia, and Afghanistan --John Kelsey, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: What shall we do with a bad government...
On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Tim Meehan wrote: Vancouver is nice, but the economy sucks (except if you're growing). Toronto has an okay economy but too many yuppies and climbers (and crappy pot). Montreal is the best, but you're better off if you speak Freedom -- and like hash. Yeah, I can speak Freedom enough to ask for hash. but I like the mountains of Vancouver. I guess I better learn to grow! Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: Libertarian Party expresses concern over war -- but does not
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 07:52:30PM -0800, Tim May wrote: Given that their platform, and Ralph Nader, calls for 90% tax rates for those with excessive wealth or income, they're far more statist than anyone else out there. Yep -- their platform is extreme. Like I said, I'm not a GP voter. As for the LP, I gave up on it many years ago. Going to one State Convention was enough. (Of course, people are basically interested in using government to help them out, so statism tends to expand. This is why there is virtually no chance that the LP will ever win a major popular election. Hence the importance of changing the underlying technology, rather than using the political process.) Agreed, of course. The LP is marginal both because of its views (how many people would really feel comfortable getting rid of all taxes, which I recall is in the platform) and because of the wacky personalities of many of the people who are active in it. And, yes, there are plenty of decent, honorable people involved too. At best the LP and small-L libertarian think tanks like Cato/CEI/Reason/PRI/etc. can fight defensive battles. -Declan
Re: Libertarian Party expresses concern over war -- but does not
On Thursday, March 20, 2003, at 07:32 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote: Eric's statement was hyperbole, designed to provoke. My own view is that the Libertarian Party is being unfortunately wishy-washy when it comes to the war on Iraq. It correctly said that troops should not be blamed for politicians' choices, but it pointedly declined to say: This is an unjust war. We oppose it. The U.S. should not be in Iraq. It is arguably an unconstitutional war as well. The U.S. should not be in the business of initiating hostilities or playing the world's peacekeeper. Period. That it chose not to do so speaks volumes about the LP's timidity. Compare to the Green Party's unabashed, unashamed, unafraid position: the Green Party of the United States reaffirmed its opposition to the war and demand for the withdrawal of troops... President Bush and White House officials may find themselves indicted for numerous violations of U.S. and international law. Greens and other antiwar activists are organizing emergency responses to the invasion, including a recall campaign... I'm not a Green Party voter, but at least they have spine. Given that their platform, and Ralph Nader, calls for 90% tax rates for those with excessive wealth or income, they're far more statist than anyone else out there. If the Greens were to ever to win control of the government, Washington would need nuking even more than it does now. As for the LP, I gave up on it many years ago. Going to one State Convention was enough. (Of course, people are basically interested in using government to help them out, so statism tends to expand. This is why there is virtually no chance that the LP will ever win a major popular election. Hence the importance of changing the underlying technology, rather than using the political process.) As for this drumbeat of support the troops even if one opposes the war nonsense, I say this is bullshit. In any case, magical thinking is for christers and other superstitious persons: what one thinks of the war or the troops is not causally related to what happens to them. I hope the war degenerates into a clusterfuck. This is not causing the deaths of thousands or tens of thousands, just noting that if the U.S. secures a quick and crushing victory over the one-armed cripple (to paraphrase Eric Cordian), this will likely cause more adventurism and imperialism. And if the U.S. suffers heavy losses--though not defeat--it may cause Americans to think twice about trying to be the world's imperial power and beat cop all rolled into one. (The possibility of actual military defeat of the U.S. side I do not consider plausible.) The larger issue is the end of principle, on either side. Congress is sitting this one out, with even the Democrats debating the role of insulating plastic washers in interstate electricity transmission instead of considering the very serious issues involved in pre-emptively starting a war. (Senator Byrd being a lone exception.) And those who point to the heavy role of pro-Israeli war hawks in the Shrubya White House are deemed anti-Semites. Israel has Weapons of Mass Destruction and is in deep violation of many U.N resolutions...so why are they not taken out by some imperial power? And our strongest allies in the region are satrapies more repressive than Iraq...look to Saudi Arabia and compare it to life in Baghdad. But the imperial power goes after the skinny kid it knows it can beat up, not the greater threats in the region (and in the world). Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iraq again. But not North Korea, not China, not Saudi Arabia, not Russia, not Pakistan, and not Germany or France. --Tim May
Re: Fwd: Informer alert: War begins in Iraq
Harmon Seaver wrote: What sort of dictatorship is this where the people own automatic weapons freely? Shades of Switzerland! Soviet Armenia? When they fell out with the Azeris they got their scratch army together in /days/ According to the Russian news they used hunting rifles. I'd been reading enough of the gun-wanking propaganda from the US on lists like this to think that people in places like Armenia didn't have guns. Turns out that in some rural parts of USSR quite a lot of people had them and of course it all made no difference to anything political whatever as long as the Soviets were willing to control the place. As soon as it became obvious that no Russians intended to die to keep Armenia in the Union, things changed.
Re: What shall we do with a bad government...
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 03:23:19PM -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: At 01:50 PM 03/20/2003 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote: The other one we hear is You should be ashamed which brings a chorus of No, we're proud or Have you forgotten about Sept. 11th? We did have some older fellow stopped at the redlight ranting about us needing to go back to Russia, which was pretty amusing. Amazing how red in the face some of those people get. Then there's the old America: Love it or Leave it line, from folks who got really really upset when people _did_ leave it to avoid Selective Slavery during the Vietnam Police Action. If you don't love it, leave it, let this song I'm a singin' be a warning. If you're running down my country, hoss, you're walking on the fightin' side of me. Ah yes, I remember it all too well. Funny thing, out there today we mostly just got a lot of people driving by shaking their heads. One guy rolled down his window and stuck his head out and opened his mouth but nothing came out. He even came by a second time, still couldn't get it out. Then we had a counter demonstrator who had a sign that said My Bush knows best and the dialogue with her was hilarious. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com We are now in America's Darkest Hour. http://www.oshkoshbygosh.org hoka hey!
Re: What shall we do with a bad government...
At 7:28 PM -0800 3/20/03, Tim May wrote: Shrubya doesn't care, as he just raises taxes. (Or he squawks and whines as Congress raises taxes, same difference.) Tim - I don't think the cowboy (aka Shrubya) knows enough economics to realize that, in the long term, income and expenditure must be in some kind of rough balance. He's always been able to lean on daddy's money. Cheers - Bill - Bill Frantz | Due process for all| Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | used to be the | 16345 Englewood Ave. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | American way. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA
Re: Fwd: Informer alert: War begins in Iraq
On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 12:40:52PM +, Ken Brown wrote: Harmon Seaver wrote: What sort of dictatorship is this where the people own automatic weapons freely? Shades of Switzerland! Soviet Armenia? When they fell out with the Azeris they got their scratch army together in /days/ According to the Russian news they used hunting rifles. I'd been reading enough of the gun-wanking propaganda from the US on lists like this to think that people in places like Armenia didn't have guns. Turns out that in some rural parts of USSR quite a lot of people had them and of course it all made no difference to anything political whatever as long as the Soviets were willing to control the place. As soon as it became obvious that no Russians intended to die to keep Armenia in the Union, things changed. Well, yes, of course people most places have hunting weapons, even in oppressive states like Nazi Germany and the USSR -- even in England, I believe -- but everything I've read so far about Iraq is talking about AK-47s. Supposedly hundreds of thousands of civilians at the very least own them, and, according to varied news items, they are either issued by the gov't or people just buy them on the open market. The open weapons markets of Pakistan and Afgahnistan have been world reknowned for ages, but I was very surprised to learn this about Iraq. Lebanon had no control over weapons, of course, but I wonder if the whole Middle East isn't just flowing with Kalashnikovs with little real restrictions. Perhaps most of the world is -- only the fascist police states of the 1st World being anti-gun. BTW, here's a neat little accessory for your Kalashnikov: http://www.audiobooksforfree.com/kalashnikov/Ak-mp3.asp -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com We are now in America's Darkest Hour. http://www.oshkoshbygosh.org hoka hey!
Re: Libertarian Party expresses concern over war -- but does not
On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Bill Frantz wrote: One view of the war in Iraq is that it is to assure an oil supply so we can take on Saudi Arabia, home of three quarters of the 911 hijackers. Makes sense, use Saudia Arabia as a land base to take over Iraq, then use Iraq as a land base to take over Saudia Arabia. Then watch all US skyscrapers fall from angry Colombians. Makes a lot of sense to W I'm sure. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: What shall we do with a bad government...
Greetings traitors, :-). At 7:28 PM -0800 on 3/20/03, Tim May wrote: In fact, Turkey is shaking down the U.S. for $30 billion in grants and aid and loan guarantees. Nope. See Below. Cheers, RAH --- begin forwarded text Status: RO Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 23:32:42 -0500 To: Philodox Clips [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: R. A. Hettinga [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: U.S. Takes Back Turkey Aid Package Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I guess this pretty much says we're going to go to war quite soon. Cheers, RAH --- http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A30108-2003Mar15?language=printer washingtonpost .com U.S. Takes Back Turkey Aid Package By JENNIFER LOVEN The Associated Press Saturday, March 15, 2003; 4:27 PM As U.S. hopes dwindled of going through Turkey for an attack on Iraq, the Bush administration took back its offer to give $15 billion in aid to Turkey in exchange for military cooperation, officials said Saturday. U.S. commanders have been eager to use the NATO ally to open a northern front in any invasion of Iraq. Staging in Turkey would allow more U.S. troops and heavier equipment to push toward Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit. The two countries had negotiated a package of U.S. grants and loans aimed at boosting Turkey's ailing economy, which is expected to suffer even more if there is war. Earlier this month, Turkey's parliament - mindful of polls showing a vast majority of the public opposed war - rejected a government motion to authorize the deployment of 62,000 American troops on Turkish soil. Turkey has since delayed a final decision, and the new prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, said Saturday a second vote was at least another week off. Now, the $15 billion is off the table, said two senior U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity. Nonetheless, Pentagon officials said Saturday there are no immediate plans to move any more U.S. military forces or equipment away from Turkey. Meanwhile, the White House's special envoy to the Iraqi opposition was in Ankara holding talks at the Turkish Foreign Ministry. Zalmay Khalilzad's primary mission during the Friday meeting was to persuade Turkey not to send its troops into northern Iraq, as the United States had agreed to allow as part of the negotiated aid package, one of the officials said. Khalilzad warned that such intervention would be a tragedy for U.S.-Turkish relations, another official said. Turkey already has thousands of troops in Kurdish areas of northern Iraq and has said it plans to send more in the event of a U.S.-led invasion. Turkey worries that the political aspirations of its own sizable Kurdish minority would be boosted if Iraqi Kurds win more independence. But the United States, which insists it wants Iraq's current territorial boundaries to remain intact, hopes to keep violence from flaring in the volatile region now controlled by two autonomous Kurdish factions. U.S. military commanders and White House officials repeatedly have said they have other plans that, although costlier and riskier, allow for operating in northern Iraq without sending troops in from Turkey. But Pentagon officials said about three dozen ships with equipment for the Army's 4th Infantry Division will remain for now off Turkey's coast, where they have been for weeks. Other troops and equipment are still surging into Kuwait and the 4th Infantry's troops are still at their home base of Fort Hood, Texas, the officials said. It was not decided whether the U.S. aircraft carriers Theodore Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman would stay in the eastern Mediterranean or follow the other ships in their battle groups, armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles, that already relocated to the Red Sea. Staying in the Mediterranean mean the carriers' planes might have to fly over Turkey to strike targets in northern Iraq. Turkey has not granted the United States the rights to fly warplanes or cruise missiles over Turkey to attack Iraq. The U.S. aid package was withdrawn because it was linked to a certain time frame, said one official. It was not clear if the package could be renegotiated if Turkey were to later approve a U.S. troop deployment. Meanwhile, U.S. forces continued upgrading some Turkish military bases, under a previous agreement that was meant to pave the way for American use of those bases. Workers continued unloading gear for that purpose at Turkish ports Saturday, but not the tanks, helicopters and other U.S. weaponry waiting in ships offshore. -- - R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/ 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA ... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience. -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' --- end forwarded text -- - R.
Re: Journalists, Diplomats, Others Urged to Evacuate City
At 09:57 AM 03/20/2003 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: Good work, Shaddack. Gold star and smiley face. My father has mentioned the Texas City incident a few times while growing up (he grew up in Galveston). He remembers that it basically dissappeared in a giant fireball, and there was never an explanation. My first experience with earthquake-like events was in about 1970, when there was an explosion at some duPont fertilizer or chemical plant in New Jersey. Across the river in Delaware, we heard and felt it, and the building I was in rocked a bit. Google isn't helping me remember exactly when or what it was :-)
BlackNet abuzz over Iraq showdown
Mildly amusing because of the name, if nothing else: http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030318-071102-9001r -Declan
Re: What shall we do with a bad government...
On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Tim Meehan wrote: Bill Stewart said: Then there's the old America: Love it or Leave it line, from folks who got really really upset when people _did_ leave it to avoid Selective Slavery during the Vietnam Police Action. Some yahoo from Kansas has been flaming me with that one, too, after I responded to his incoherent rant about Michael Moore using WMD, or something. I haven't had the heart to tell him Canada hasn't been annexed (yet). My favorite reply from that era was Vietnam: love it or leave it! At least I lucked out. They ended the draft 2 months before my 18th birthday. My parents told me many years later that they were ready to ship me to Canada. Given how Vancouver is going now, that might have been a nice restful place :-) Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: Libertarian Party expresses concern over war -- but does not
At 7:52 PM -0800 3/20/03, Tim May wrote:But the imperial power goes after the skinny kid it knows it can beat up, not the greater threats in the region (and in the world). Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iraq again. But not North Korea, not China, not Saudi Arabia, not Russia, not Pakistan, and not Germany or France. One view of the war in Iraq is that it is to assure an oil supply so we can take on Saudi Arabia, home of three quarters of the 911 hijackers. Cheers - Bill - Bill Frantz | Due process for all| Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | used to be the | 16345 Englewood Ave. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | American way. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA
Re: What shall we do with a bad government...
At 03:49 AM 3/20/03 +0100, Thomas Shaddack wrote: ... While over 70% of local citizens are against it (caveat: I am not closely familiar with the polling method, but no one of my local friends is supporting Shrubya's pet war). Your sample is probably seriously biased, though. My friends and family run about 98% antiwar, but several different polls seem to indicate over half the American people support it. There's no paradox there; my family and friends aren't a representative sample of the American people. This is like that famous quote about Nixon can't have won--nobody I know voted for him by some New York Times columnist. (That's from memory, so I'm probably missing some essential facts...but then, the NYT does that occasionally, too.) --John Kelsey, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: What shall we do with a bad government...
Tim - I don't think the cowboy (aka Shrubya) knows enough economics to realize that, in the long term, income and expenditure must be in some kind of rough balance. He's always been able to lean on daddy's money. I'm wondering whether the successive US administrations are not increasingly planning to live off the world, by way of their economic debt. Buy with monkey money, never reimburse. Effectively taxing the other economies for their expenses. Though economies might be already too linked together for this to work fine, as damage to one part of the world's economy will reflect on others, including the US. Hmm, I think I'll do some googling now... -- Vincent Penquerc'h
Nice comic-commentray on DieselSweeties yesterday
http://www.dieselsweeties.com/archive.php?s=644 --Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--- + ^ + :NSA got $20Bil/year |Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :and didn't stop 9-11|share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ --*--:Instead of rewarding|monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :their failures, we |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :should get refunds! |site, and you must change them very often. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunder.net
Tragedy and Evolution
At 09:24 AM 3/21/03 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: May thousands of AmeriKKKan troops die painfully, along with their handlers on the East Coast, as a deterrent to future illegal wars of aggression. This was the part I had to think about the most. Right now, my feeling is that it would be a tragedy for a large mass of nearly-lumpen soldiers, educated by the US school system, to have to take the brunt of responsibility for this. It would be a pain for their families and worse for their insurers, certainly, but think of the evolutionary benefits to mankind. You remove folks who *voluntarily* gave up moral control of their bodies to an unjust, cruel regime. Such eagerness to be externally programmed for violence is undesirable in the modern environment, although no doubt considered useful by those who use the mercenary moral zombies. Pruning out the manipulative programmers, those who exploit the moral zombies, requires more effort, but at least there are fewer, and they identify themselves (in autumn in the US) nearly as easily as the zombies, and they congregate periodically.
Re: terror alert red
On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 08:31:59 -0600, you wrote: Has anyone heard any more about the announcement made by the NJ gov that if we go to the next level -- red -- that everyone is confined to their houses? Nope, but it's not surprising since there was NO announcement by the NJ gov that red means confinement to the house. If someone want to confine NJ residents to their homes, they need a conviction and sentence or a bond order from a judge that specifies that, or a legal declaration of martial law followed by such an order to the people. Surely you don't think some press announcement by a governor is sufficient to place millions of people under house arrest without due process, indictment, arraignment, etc.
Re: What shall we do with a bad government...
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 05:41:08PM -0600, Anonymous wrote: On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 01:42:16PM -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote: What bullshit. You just suck right up to those war criminals don't you? Do you work for them too? On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 11:18:09AM -0600, Keith Ray wrote: argument elided Nicely argued, Mr. Seaver. I've never seen such a well-presented point-by-point response to a logical argument. I could care less about making a nice argument or point-by-point response to total bullshit. The concept that there is any shred of legality in this defies all rationality. The idea that the UN can't change course when it's members decide to, that one or two nations can take it upon themselves to attack another nation when the majority of other nations object is ludicrous. What the previous poster was saying was typical lawyerspeak legalmumbojumbo, i.e., bullshit. Your postings here are always the height of rationality. Keep up the fine work. Intuition beats rationality any day of the week. Rationality is typified by the grey flannel suit and the grey flannel mind. I prefer the Zen Lunatic school of thought. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com We are now in America's Darkest Hour. http://www.oshkoshbygosh.org hoka hey!
Re: The Mechanics of Skyscraper Collapse
At 02:04 PM 03/20/2003 -0500, Steve Thompson wrote: This seems reasonable. As a large structure topples, the sheer stress across the long axis of the building will inexorably increase as the upper floors retard the downward progression of the lower floors (caused of course by gravity). I suspect that a large structure such as a WTC tower would cant no more than a few degrees before loading stresses opposite to the design of the compression structure caused a series of gross structural failures -- which would allow the building to fall mostly `in place'. If the collapse starts from the upper floors, as this one did, then perhaps the upper floors are retarding the downward collapse, but when the damage starts on the bottom, the upper floors aren't retarding anything - they're adding weight. The weight might be somewhat balanced, so I'm not sure that it's not self-aligning, but that probably also depends a lot on how the lower floors are attached together and to the ground, and how centralized the columns are that support the upper floors.
Re: What shall we do with a bad government...
At 01:50 PM 03/20/2003 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote: The other one we hear is You should be ashamed which brings a chorus of No, we're proud or Have you forgotten about Sept. 11th? We did have some older fellow stopped at the redlight ranting about us needing to go back to Russia, which was pretty amusing. Amazing how red in the face some of those people get. Then there's the old America: Love it or Leave it line, from folks who got really really upset when people _did_ leave it to avoid Selective Slavery during the Vietnam Police Action.
Re: What shall we do with a bad government...
Mike Rosing said: Given how Vancouver is going now, that might have been a nice restful place :-) Vancouver is nice, but the economy sucks (except if you're growing). Toronto has an okay economy but too many yuppies and climbers (and crappy pot). Montreal is the best, but you're better off if you speak Freedom -- and like hash. -Tim http://www.salvagingelectrons.com/degaulle
Re: What shall we do with a bad government...
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 01:42:16PM -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote: What bullshit. You just suck right up to those war criminals don't you? Do you work for them too? On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 11:18:09AM -0600, Keith Ray wrote: argument elided Nicely argued, Mr. Seaver. I've never seen such a well-presented point-by-point response to a logical argument. Your postings here are always the height of rationality. Keep up the fine work.
Re: Tragedy and Evolution
On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Major Variola (ret) wrote: It would be a pain for their families and worse for their insurers, certainly, but think of the evolutionary benefits to mankind. You remove folks who *voluntarily* gave up moral control of their bodies to an unjust, cruel regime. Such eagerness to be externally programmed for violence is undesirable in the modern environment, although no doubt considered useful by those who use the mercenary moral zombies. Pruning out the manipulative programmers, those who exploit the moral zombies, requires more effort, but at least there are fewer, and they identify themselves (in autumn in the US) nearly as easily as the zombies, and they congregate periodically. Unfortunatly there seems to be an unlimited supply of both zombies and programmers. Until they can't afford it, they'll keep on keepin' on. Listening to the neanderthals on radio who really support this mercenary activity it seems like they either go out of their way to find really stupid people, or else I need to be much more afraid of my neighbors than I thought! I just need to convince my wife that a high powered rifle with night scope is essential for survival Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: terror alert red
At 04:00 PM 03/21/2003 +, lcs Mixmaster Remailer wrote: Surely you don't think some press announcement by a governor is sufficient to place millions of people under house arrest without due process, indictment, arraignment, etc. My memories of the 1968 riots are pretty fuzzy; Wilmington Delaware was under National Guard occupation for longer than any other city in a US state since the War Between the States, but it was basically in the black areas of downtown, and I was a kid out in the burbs. The main effect was armed soldiers on streetcorners, plus nighttime curfews at least at the beginning. But this wasn't a press announcement by the governor - this was a press announcement by the state terrorism czar saying that if anything bad happens he'll be able to control it, and it's the governor's job to make sure that the State Police and National Guard don't do anything stupid like listen to him if he decides to announce that he's in charge like Al Haig some day, while letting him rattle his cage now to keep the Bush League PR Machine happy.
Re: Spending a billion dollars an hour produces a hell of a light show!
At 03:10 AM 03/21/2003 -0800, alan wrote: On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Tyler Durden wrote: Come on now! The Iraqis should have proven that they DON'T have any nukular weapons. They were unable to prove that they don't have any WMDs, so now it's their fault they're getting invaded. How do you prove non-existance of an item? (Especially when the other party is willing to lie and forge evidence to the contrary.) Traitor! You DARE to accuse the US of forging evidence like that?! You realize you're accusing the Pentagon bureaucrats of being unable to keep track of the receipts for the chemical weapons we gave them during the Iran-Iraq war, as if they were $600 hammers or something? No duct tape for YOU! Because, in the end, all Bush wanted was an excuse. But don't think it stops here. No. It doesn't.
Re: Spending a billion dollars an hour produces a hell of a lightshow!
On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Tyler Durden wrote: As the Iraqis themselves said, and I paraphrase (because the quote is not handy): If the U.S. says they know the locations of secret weapons projects, of underground bunkers, etc., why don't they simply give the locations to the U.N. weapons inspectors who can then go to those sites? Come on now! The Iraqis should have proven that they DON'T have any nukular weapons. They were unable to prove that they don't have any WMDs, so now it's their fault they're getting invaded. How do you prove non-existance of an item? (Especially when the other party is willing to lie and forge evidence to the contrary.) I don't believe that there was *anything* that Iraq could have done to stop the invasion. If Saddam left with all his sons, we would have gone in to provide stability. If they had bent over and lubed up, we would have still claimed that they were hiding something on mobile bases or had it hidden underground or some other excuse. Because, in the end, all Bush wanted was an excuse. But don't think it stops here. As it has been said before: Rome wasn't built in a day.
Re: Libertarian Party expresses concern over war -- but does not
On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Bill Stewart wrote: While I wish Mike were correct that the party would get some spine just because we tell them to, I'm not holding my breath. I was expecting better from Geoff. The LP's traditional heritage was pretty radical about issues like the draft (we opposed it) and drugs (got any good pot?) and about free markets, but too many people reacted to 9/11 by supporting intervention to not only kill Osama, but anybody else that the Administration felt like blaming, such as the Taliban, and there are some people in the California party who think that invading Iraq will somehow help stop anti-US terrorism or will kill people who supported Osama and is therefore justifiable. Uggh. So there are neanderthal Libertarians too. Bummer, I was expecting them all to have different opinions, but it's pretty obvious that we're creating more enemies and increasing terrorism. Oh well, I guess they all get to learn by experience. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: Libertarian Party expresses concern over war -- but does not
While I wish Mike were correct that the party would get some spine just because we tell them to, I'm not holding my breath. I was expecting better from Geoff. The LP's traditional heritage was pretty radical about issues like the draft (we opposed it) and drugs (got any good pot?) and about free markets, but too many people reacted to 9/11 by supporting intervention to not only kill Osama, but anybody else that the Administration felt like blaming, such as the Taliban, and there are some people in the California party who think that invading Iraq will somehow help stop anti-US terrorism or will kill people who supported Osama and is therefore justifiable. At 06:10 AM 03/21/2003 -0800, Mike Rosing wrote: I agree, and I'm including the LP on cc (which I didn't notice till I hit reply). Now that congress has voted to support the troops it's time for a revolution in the ballot box. If enough of us tell the LP to get some spine, they will! Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Declan McCullagh wrote: Eric's statement was hyperbole, designed to provoke. My own view is that the Libertarian Party is being unfortunately wishy-washy when it comes to the war on Iraq. It correctly said that troops should not be blamed for politicians' choices, but it pointedly declined to say: This is an unjust war. We oppose it. The U.S. should not be in Iraq. It is arguably an unconstitutional war as well. The U.S. should not be in the business of initiating hostilities or playing the world's peacekeeper. Period. That it chose not to do so speaks volumes about the LP's timidity. Compare to the Green Party's unabashed, unashamed, unafraid position: the Green Party of the United States reaffirmed its opposition to the war and demand for the withdrawal of troops... President Bush and White House officials may find themselves indicted for numerous violations of U.S. and international law. Greens and other antiwar activists are organizing emergency responses to the invasion, including a recall campaign... I'm not a Green Party voter, but at least they have spine. -Declan On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 06:38:51PM -0800, Mike Rosing wrote: On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Eric Cordian wrote: Libertarians are people who think the only legitimate use of state force is to protect them from their slaves. You get of the wrong side of bed this morning or what? It is unlikely that people who don't oppose the death penalty, nor the right of parents to beat their minor children at will, will care particularly about Shrub kicking the crap out of some disarmed third world country to steal its oil and advance the cause of the Jews. Go visit the www.truthaboutwar.org site. That's run by the Libertarians. They are definitly using this as a way to get more votes. They are consistenly the only party clamoring to bring all US troops back to US soil, and keep them there. Hell, their platform includes eliminating a standing army altogether, because that's what the constitution orders! It's unlikely the American cowards will sustain any casualties, aside from friendly fire accidents. Iraq is disarmed, and generations behind in weaponry. Any suggestion that the country poses a threat is merely propaganda to make our soldiers look less like pussies kicking the shit out of a one-armed man. That's for sure. With a bit of luck it can be used as impeachment evidence. More like a miracle more likely. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: Journalists, Diplomats, Others Urged to Evacuate City
-- The Taliban did not exist back then. The guys the US aided were for the most part, the guys that are running Afghanistan now. The major recipients of US aid, for example the lion of Afghanistan were the people the Taliban murdered. On 20 Mar 2003 at 8:16, Mike Rosing wrote: The Talib's have been around for more than a century. The British fought them in the late 1800's in their first try to conquer Afghanistan. The British did not fight Sunni islamic fundamentalists. The Taliban belongs to a sect that has never had a large following in Afghanistan, which is part of the reason why they drove out much of the Afghan population. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 53Wyhn5mvmbLsfCa8xeusjGGTFC0Ynkauohr4Uov 4nszIWnEYzkvcoHX0K/dqcsoCOCdvV1NwFasx3H/G
Re: Libertarian Party expresses concern over war -- but does not
Declan writes: Eric's statement was hyperbole, designed to provoke. My own view is that the Libertarian Party is being unfortunately wishy-washy when it comes to the war on Iraq. We've had this discussion many times before on this list. People who know nothing about Libertarians see a word which appears to share the first few letters with Liberty, and leap to the obvious but incorrect conclusion. Not only are real Libertarians not cuddly and likable, they are not even liked by other Libertarians. It correctly said that troops should not be blamed for politicians' choices, but it pointedly declined to say: This is an unjust war. Libertarians and Unitarians have a lot in common. There are plenty of jokes about the moral wishy-washiness of Unitarians, such as the one about them living by The Ten Suggestions, or the one about a Unitarian hate crime consisting of burning a question mark on someone's lawn. Almost all of them apply equally well to Libertarians. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law
Re: When is iraq expected to fall.
-- On 19 Mar 2003 at 22:55, Sarad AV wrote: how long does US analysts expect iraq to be completely occupied by US and allied troops? No definite plans, but Rumsfeld is thinking of an occupation force of 75 000 for several years. Some want the kind of occupation where any time any Iraqi utters a racist slur, the marines take him away for sensitivity training, which would require about 200 000, whereas Rumsfeld has in mind an occupation more like Afghanistan, where so long as the rivers run with water, not blood, we pat ourselves on the back and count it a job well done. Of course, all this assumes the war goes smoothly -- with a kill ratio of a thousand to one. There is widespread failure to appreciate how remarkable such kill ratios are. If it is merely one hundred to one, the war will be perceived as a defeat, and if it is merely ten to one, it actually will be a defeat. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG pXZ8V7ZVSnZEJTIAOWVcd7RvKnGDxic8agd6TY6o 453h7nDyLl5QIvUPrVvYm1kEJJ/vJpfXSwkzd8wbm
Re: Journalists, Diplomats, Others Urged to Evacuate City
At 07:42 AM 3/20/03 -0800, James A. Donald wrote: ... The story you are telling is part of a big commie lie -- that the US aided the bigoted Taliban against the elightened communists who created a constitutional democracy where every man and every women have a vote, and universal education and health care were guaranteed, etc. I guess the particular Commie lie I'd always heard along these lines was more like the US aided a lot of crazed, bloodthirsty bandit chieftains who were nominally anti-communist, and deeply anti-invading-Russians, some of whom later wound up being Taliban bandit chieftains. I haven't dug into this story to see if it's true, but I certainly don't recall ever being exposed to the idea that the invading Russians and their allies were anything but brutal and nasty. We have a long history of holding our noses and handing weapons to objectionable folks who seem likely to help us fight our fights or accomplish our objectives. Surely it's not too hard to think of current examples --digsig James A. Donald --John Kelsey, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Libertarian Party expresses concern over war -- but does not
I agree, and I'm including the LP on cc (which I didn't notice till I hit reply). Now that congress has voted to support the troops it's time for a revolution in the ballot box. If enough of us tell the LP to get some spine, they will! Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Declan McCullagh wrote: Eric's statement was hyperbole, designed to provoke. My own view is that the Libertarian Party is being unfortunately wishy-washy when it comes to the war on Iraq. It correctly said that troops should not be blamed for politicians' choices, but it pointedly declined to say: This is an unjust war. We oppose it. The U.S. should not be in Iraq. It is arguably an unconstitutional war as well. The U.S. should not be in the business of initiating hostilities or playing the world's peacekeeper. Period. That it chose not to do so speaks volumes about the LP's timidity. Compare to the Green Party's unabashed, unashamed, unafraid position: the Green Party of the United States reaffirmed its opposition to the war and demand for the withdrawal of troops... President Bush and White House officials may find themselves indicted for numerous violations of U.S. and international law. Greens and other antiwar activists are organizing emergency responses to the invasion, including a recall campaign... I'm not a Green Party voter, but at least they have spine. -Declan On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 06:38:51PM -0800, Mike Rosing wrote: On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Eric Cordian wrote: Libertarians are people who think the only legitimate use of state force is to protect them from their slaves. You get of the wrong side of bed this morning or what? It is unlikely that people who don't oppose the death penalty, nor the right of parents to beat their minor children at will, will care particularly about Shrub kicking the crap out of some disarmed third world country to steal its oil and advance the cause of the Jews. Go visit the www.truthaboutwar.org site. That's run by the Libertarians. They are definitly using this as a way to get more votes. They are consistenly the only party clamoring to bring all US troops back to US soil, and keep them there. Hell, their platform includes eliminating a standing army altogether, because that's what the constitution orders! It's unlikely the American cowards will sustain any casualties, aside from friendly fire accidents. Iraq is disarmed, and generations behind in weaponry. Any suggestion that the country poses a threat is merely propaganda to make our soldiers look less like pussies kicking the shit out of a one-armed man. That's for sure. With a bit of luck it can be used as impeachment evidence. More like a miracle more likely. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: Journalists, Diplomats, Others Urged to Evacuate City
John Kelsey wrote: At 07:42 AM 3/20/03 -0800, James A. Donald wrote: ... The story you are telling is part of a big commie lie -- that the US aided the bigoted Taliban against the elightened communists who created a constitutional democracy where every man and every women have a vote, and universal education and health care were guaranteed, etc. I guess the particular Commie lie I'd always heard along these lines was more like the US aided a lot of crazed, bloodthirsty bandit chieftains who were nominally anti-communist, and deeply anti-invading-Russians, some of whom later wound up being Taliban bandit chieftains. US originally helped the kind of people who later became the Northern Alliance - a rather odd mixture of unreconstructed Stalinists, liberals in the European sense of the word, separationists, local bandit chiefs, drug growers, pro-Iranian Shiite Islamists and who knows what else. The Taliban formed later, in Pakistan, and was at least at first indirectly funded by the US through Pakistan and through material inherited from some other groups - and of course later by various Arabs (who may or may not have thought of themselves as Al Qaida before the US pinned the name on them while looking for a New Enemy for the New World Order). But there certainly was some assistance from the US to the Taliban. US They didn't buy those 500 Stingers in Kmart (though some of them might have later turned up for sale in Peshawar or wherever it is they sell such things)
Re: Fwd: Informer alert: War begins in Iraq
I've been thinking about this post, and though I agreed with the general gist of it, there were some points I thought worth mentioning... May thousands of AmeriKKKan troops die painfully, along with their handlers on the East Coast, as a deterrent to future illegal wars of aggression. This was the part I had to think about the most. Right now, my feeling is that it would be a tragedy for a large mass of nearly-lumpen soldiers, educated by the US school system, to have to take the brunt of responsibility for this. And, if Iraq used some Weapons of Mass Destruction (read cheap-n-easy playing field levelers), Bush and the Republican Agit-prop machine would basically say, See? They had all this stuff all along and that's why we launched this war. And now, that's why everyone needs to support it. And I bet this would work. May the world recognize that the UN can perform no other function than to crawl on its hands and knees to kiss AmeriKKKa's ass, and cease to take it seriously. Hey--I thought the UN did OK this time around. In the end, the UN is starting to look like a very fancy and expensive debating society, and that's of some kind of value somewhere, I think. May the anti-war movement paralyze AmeriKKKa with demonstrations and work stoppages, and cause consequences of significance to the economy and standard of living of the world's war-monger. This would be the most effective means possible right now, as far as I'm concerned. And the only thing to possibly cause the bloated leach of the military industrial complex to drop off its host for a little while (Man, some wierd taste in this blood...I'm full anyway...) May the AmeriKKKan people cease to send their tax dollars to the Racist Apartheid Zionist Entity, where they are spent to kill Palestinian children with AmeriKKKan weapons, and run over peace activists multiple times with AmeriKKKan bulldozers, and then attack and teargas the memorial service. After looking at US foreign policy, particularly since WWII, I have slowly been drawn to the conclusion that racism is a consistent and underlying theme. These muslims don't want peace and freedom, and they'll choke us to death with their oil supplies if we let them. That's just their nature. Something like thatI like to simplify things for effect. May Ariel Sharon and George W. Bush be forced to face their victims in an international court of law, and be tried and sentenced appropriately. They'd be at the end of a long line, with Henry Kissinger in the front. _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: The Mechanics of Skyscraper Collapse
And of course, we captured a set of skyscraper collapses towards the end of our documentary Fight Club. What suprised us was that the documentary continued to show on cable even several months after September 11th. -TD _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: terror alert black
From: Thomas Shaddack [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: terror alert black Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 17:26:15 +0100 (CET) I've heard that for terror alert black we're all supposed to down a few 100 milligrams of valium, and stay in our beds, butts-up. That's terror alert Brown. I stand corrected _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Tragedy and Evolution: Revenge of the Nerds?
Variola wrote... It would be a pain for their families and worse for their insurers, certainly, but think of the evolutionary benefits to mankind. You remove folks who *voluntarily* gave up moral control of their bodies to an unjust, cruel regime. Such eagerness to be externally programmed for violence is undesirable in the modern environment, although no doubt considered useful by those who use the mercenary moral zombies. Well, perhaps a good point. At least a point that should be made and then possibly debated. The question that would seem to follow is whether this is true (ie, that such behavior can be weeded out), or will we be doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over? Given the track record of human history, I would think the latter, though perhaps we are in a modern era. Oh, and it occurrs to me that this may be an additional reason why our schools suck. Create soft, steerable minds that can be easily motivated to kill them, because they are evilbadragheads (stop). Reward jock-creation and aggression through trophies and short-skirted cheerleaders. Well, if you are correct, then such weeding out would be the ultimate revenge of the nerds! _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
