Re: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff!
Ray, You rest a lot of faith in the green light. Apparently Carter (a warmonger if we've ever had one) did nothing about Saddam's intention to invade Iran. The truth is we couldn't do anything anyway - except supply parts for Iran's F4 Phantoms. When Saddam went into Iran, he went with 190,000 men, 2,200 tanks, and 450 planes. The Russians gave him tanks and planes. We gave him a green light. Later on, when the 'tanker war' began, Saddam bought 30 Mirages, complete with Exojets, from the French. That allowed him to kill a lot of merchant seamen. I wonder if we gave an amber light for the 'tanker war? I'm sure he would have preferred a few more jets. Naaah! Of course the Iranians made a fool out of Carter. I suppose the green light was Carter's a reaction to that. Meanwhile, the other surrounding countries were happy to have Saddam attack - they were scared of Iranian power. Apparently everyone knew about the imminent invasion except the Iranians. That's kind of funny. The Iranians stopped Saddam's modern Russian weapons with mass attacks in which slaughter didn't matter. Should it ever come to that, what would American soldiers do if 200,000 Iranians came at them, including 9 year old soldiers. The Iraqi's Russian tanks, guns, and helicopter gun-ships slaughtered by the tens of thousands - but were still overwhelmed. What would we do - if we found ourselves in such a position.? Harry - Ray wrote: Well, you can protest all you want but the statement reads: 5. BOTH SADAT AND FAHD PROVIDED OTHER BITS OF USEFUL INTELLIGENCE. (E.G. IRAN IS RECEIVING MILITARY SPARES FRO U.S. EQUIPMENT FROM ISRAEL). IT WAS ALSO INTERESTING TO CONFIRM THAT PRESIDENT CARTER GAVE THE IRAQIS A GREEN LIGHT TO LAUNCH THE WAR AGAINST IRAN THROUGH FAHD. 9 talking points prepared and used by Secretary of State Alexander Haig in 1981. Was classified and now dug up and published for the first time by Frank Parry of Iran/Contra fame. http://www.consortiumnews.com/2003/haig-docs.htmlhttp://www.consortiumnews.com/2003/haig-docs.html Say whatever you want Harry. Why don't call up Haig, he made the statement. But what do I know. I'm not a pundit just an opera director trying to connect the dots. REH P.S. note that Haig admits to illegally selling arms to Iran through Israel in defiance of the US law.If that was a Democrat doing such things Anne Coulter would have listed him in her book on Traitors. ** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *** --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.462 / Virus Database: 261 - Release Date: 3/13/2003
Re: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff!
I agree with your points. They were the same I was making especially since the Green Light could have triggered mass murder of the embassy employees being held by the Iranians. As for human waves, that was what happened with the Chinese in Korea that created the rout South. I'm sure you know this since you are older than I. (Ha!) REH - Original Message - From: Harry Pollard [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Ray Evans Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Keith Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 11:44 AM Subject: Re: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff! Ray, You rest a lot of faith in the green light. Apparently Carter (a warmonger if we've ever had one) did nothing about Saddam's intention to invade Iran. The truth is we couldn't do anything anyway - except supply parts for Iran's F4 Phantoms. When Saddam went into Iran, he went with 190,000 men, 2,200 tanks, and 450 planes. The Russians gave him tanks and planes. We gave him a green light. Later on, when the 'tanker war' began, Saddam bought 30 Mirages, complete with Exojets, from the French. That allowed him to kill a lot of merchant seamen. I wonder if we gave an amber light for the 'tanker war? I'm sure he would have preferred a few more jets. Naaah! Of course the Iranians made a fool out of Carter. I suppose the green light was Carter's a reaction to that. Meanwhile, the other surrounding countries were happy to have Saddam attack - they were scared of Iranian power. Apparently everyone knew about the imminent invasion except the Iranians. That's kind of funny. The Iranians stopped Saddam's modern Russian weapons with mass attacks in which slaughter didn't matter. Should it ever come to that, what would American soldiers do if 200,000 Iranians came at them, including 9 year old soldiers. The Iraqi's Russian tanks, guns, and helicopter gun-ships slaughtered by the tens of thousands - but were still overwhelmed. What would we do - if we found ourselves in such a position.? Harry - Ray wrote: Well, you can protest all you want but the statement reads: 5. BOTH SADAT AND FAHD PROVIDED OTHER BITS OF USEFUL INTELLIGENCE. (E.G. IRAN IS RECEIVING MILITARY SPARES FRO U.S. EQUIPMENT FROM ISRAEL). IT WAS ALSO INTERESTING TO CONFIRM THAT PRESIDENT CARTER GAVE THE IRAQIS A GREEN LIGHT TO LAUNCH THE WAR AGAINST IRAN THROUGH FAHD. 9 talking points prepared and used by Secretary of State Alexander Haig in 1981. Was classified and now dug up and published for the first time by Frank Parry of Iran/Contra fame. http://www.consortiumnews.com/2003/haig-docs.htmlhttp://www.consortiumnew s.com/2003/haig-docs.html Say whatever you want Harry. Why don't call up Haig, he made the statement. But what do I know. I'm not a pundit just an opera director trying to connect the dots. REH P.S. note that Haig admits to illegally selling arms to Iran through Israel in defiance of the US law.If that was a Democrat doing such things Anne Coulter would have listed him in her book on Traitors. ** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *** --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.462 / Virus Database: 261 - Release Date: 3/13/2003 ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff!
a liability in dealing with the real world?Especially if we do not have a genius or scholar for a President dealing with these sleazy world professionals at Realpolitik? What do you think Harry? REH - Original Message - From: Harry Pollard mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Keith Hudson mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 5:34 PM Subject: Re: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff! Keith, One of the best programs on American television is This Week on ABC in the Sunday morning television ghetto - when no-one is watching. However, it is good enough to have achieved a sizable audience over several decades. This morning we heard about 20 minutes of Colin Powell answering some provocative questions. The round table contains several people of different political believes who argue persuasively but without acrimony. George Will is the conservative and he made, I think, a good point. He said that compared with containment, war will reduce the loss of life in Iraq. The deaths happening now in Iraq over the next 10 years will be about 1 million - of whom 600,000 are likely to be children. Ending this situation even with casualties will in effect save the lives of those who are doomed to die if nothing violent happens. It is easily tossed around that US sanctions are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, yet this seems to me to be propaganda rather than reality. First, sanctions are the historical alternative to force. Mostly they don't seem to work - though they are supposed to have been successful with South Africa. They were not successful against Mussolini's quest for the Italian Imperium and supremacy in the Mediterranean. This, in spite of the ineffectual League of Nations' imposition of sanctions that didn't include oil. Musso later said that had oil been sanctioned, the invasion of what is now Ethiopia would have stopped. I have no idea why the League didn't sanction oil - perhaps because Italian families would be without heat in the winter - I don't know. The year after he had finished mustard gassing the Abyssinians, Musso announced the Rome-Berlin Axis - thereby coining a name that persisted. The US stayed out of this, stimulating condemnation that they had destroyed the League. There are eerie parallels between then and now - but certainly with a different outcome. The US sanctions are said to be responsible for the deaths of many children. But these are UN sanctions. Iraq has been able to export oil for most of the period since the Gulf War. It is sending out now about three quarters of the oil of the pre-war period. That should be sufficient to feed any children who are hungry. Except that it is being used for Saddam's purposes, which do not give high priority to feeding children. Constantly in the news is the issue to Iraqis of five months food supply in expectation of the coming conflict. Where did it come from? How can people be starving if there is that much food available? Well, it's probably propaganda anyway. On a point I rarely have heard mentioned in these discussions. The UN takes 28% of the oil revenue for its expenses. That's a large lump that could surely feed a lot of children. Another point, not often mentioned, is the economic condition of Iraq after the war with Iran. It was a basket case. Perhaps the invasion of Kuwait had no other purpose than to fill Saddam's piggy-bank. Now to make an awkward segue. Your other remark is of great interest to me. How responsible are the women and children for the activities of their government? Was Dresden just another part of Germany and were the people of Dresden as much responsible for those 65 million deaths as their rulers. How much liberated French art arrived in Dresden? Nothing seems more unnecessary than to have destroyed Dresden. Yet, should the people and their city be allowed to have a good war - relatively unaffected by the horrors that were suffered by so many scores of millions? Whether they like it or not, women are special. On them depends survival. Men are expendable - but women and children are protected. Their special position is why they come into the discussion, even though men are most likely to be killed. So, are they equally responsible with the men for how their country behaves? In a dictatorship, they don't have a lot of chance to protest. But, most don't anyway. One recalls at the German death camps when Americans gave the local townspeople a tour, they protested they knew nothing of what was going on. It was a lie. Keep your eyes averted and your nose clean and cover your ears. Does that make them responsible for the unleashed horrors? While they were enjoying their sylvan surroundings down the road from the concentration camp, more Brits were being killed than Americans, from
Re: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff!
or indirect contacts that would explain the Saudi statements about the alleged green light. Saudi Arabia's longtime ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar also might be asked to give a complete account of what the Saudi government knows and what its leaders told Saddam in 1980. Robert Parry Consortiumnews.com - Original Message - From: Harry Pollard mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Ray Evans Harrell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]; Keith Hudson mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 01, 1999 4:13 AM Subject: Re: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff! Ray, You said: Good questions Harry but your knowledge of one element throws doubt on your whole argument.It is a well documented fact and I have posted to the list documentation from several news sources that Sadaam invaded Kuwait BECAUSE he had been driven bankrupt by the war with Iran where he served as a surrogate for the US. As I wrote to Keith a day or so ago: Another point, not often mentioned, is the economic condition of Iraq after the war with Iran. It was a basket case. Perhaps the invasion of Kuwait had no other purpose than to fill Saddam's piggy-bank. You say a surrogate for the US. Yet, Saddam's modern weapons were supplied by the Soviets in quantities. That is tanks, planes, and helicopter gun-ships. The French sold him 30 Mirage fighters armed with Exocets (those highly effective missiles used by Argentina against the Royal Navy. That was for the Tanker War that sent many ships to the bottom. Iraq used MiG-21s and MiG -23s, T-55 tanks and T-62 tanks, BM-21 Stalin Organ rocket launchers, and Mi-24 helicopter gunships. Did you say our surrogate? You've been reading too much propaganda. Actually, Iran used F-4 Phantoms, F5s, and a few F-14s to do a lot of damage inside Iraq. The US gave Iran a shipload or two of arms - I suspect mostly spare parts for their American weapons - but the Iraqis used modern Soviet arms. Oh, yes, Ollie brokered a deal via the Israelis to supply them with out-of-date Tow Missiles - but that's another story. Iraq used chemicals some 40 times against Iran (Iran claims). UN experts checked, found Iraq guilty and the UN, in 1986, told him to stop it. He did stop it until 1988 when he used chemicals against the Kurds, those in Iraq on the border with Iran. Those two guys who wrote the article diminished his culpability (and the number of casualties in the war). I prefer the conclusion of Dr. Phebe Marr , who stated that the war was more immediately the result of poor political judgement and miscalculation on the part of Saddam Hussein, and the decision to invade, taken at a moment of Iranian weakness, was Saddam's. (Look her up on Google if you wonder who she is.) Saddam had agents in Khuzestan inciting riots and suchlike. They expected the 5 million or so Arabs to rise against Teheran. Instead, the joined with the Iranian troops to fight the Iraqis. The Iraqis expected to take Khuzestan, a large province - which doesn't much confirm the Terrible Twosome's assertion that Saddam just wanted to take a small part of Iran - to perhaps make a statement. He smashed weak Iranian opposition and plunged ahead. The Iranians freed the jailed pilots and called upon the poor to help the army fight the invading Iraqis. Thus began the horror of human wave attacks by poorly armed people from 9 to 50. (Some carried shrouds with them for their almost certain death.) But, they stopped the Iraqis - over-running their encampments - and drove them back to the border, where the stalemated slaughter continued over the 8 years of war. When Saddam makes a mistake, he makes a real big one. Harry -- Ray wrote: Good questions Harry but your knowledge of one element throws doubt on your whole argument.It is a well documented fact and I have posted to the list documentation from several news sources that Sadaam invaded Kuwait BECAUSE he had been driven bankrupt by the war with Iran where he served as a surrogate for the US. Also he asked the US Ambassador to explore the US policy with regard to invading Kuwait BEFORE he did it. The Ambassador said that America would have no problem with it. Once again, a careful look shows Saddam was neither mindlessly aggressive nor particularly reckless. If anything, the evidence supports the opposite conclusion. Saddam's decision to invade Kuwait was primarily an attempt to deal with Iraq's continued vulnerability. Iraq's economy, badly damaged by its war with Iran, continued to decline after that war ended. An important cause of Iraq's difficulties was Kuwait's refusal both to loan Iraq $10 billion and to write off debts Iraq had incurred during the Iran-Iraq War. Saddam believed Iraq was entitled
Re: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff!
Well, you can protest all you want but the statement reads: 5. BOTH SADAT AND FAHD PROVIDED OTHER BITS OF USEFUL INTELLIGENCE. (E.G. IRAN IS RECEIVING MILITARY SPARES FRO U.S. EQUIPMENT FROM ISRAEL). IT WAS ALSO INTERESTING TO CONFIRM THAT PRESIDENT CARTER GAVE THE IRAQIS A GREEN LIGHT TO LAUNCH THE WAR AGAINST IRAN THROUGH FAHD. 9 talking points prepared andused by Secretary of State Alexander Haig in 1981. Was classified and now dug up and published for the first time by Frank Parry of Iran/Contra fame. http://www.consortiumnews.com/2003/haig-docs.html Say whatever you want Harry. Why don't call up Haig, he made the statement. But what do I know. I'm not a pundit just an opera director trying to connect the dots. REH P.S. note thatHaig admits to illegally selling arms to Iran through Israel in defiance of the US law. If that was a Democrat doing such things Anne Coulter would have listed him in her book on Traitors. - Original Message - From: "Harry Pollard" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Ray Evans Harrell" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "Keith Hudson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 3:59 PM Subject: Re: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff! Ray, Back in the 70's, Iran was the threat even though they made a mess of things - executing their army top brass and killing and jailing their pilots. (What a shower, the lot of them are.) They also took US hostages and we had a disaster trying to rescue them. It didn't go the way it goes in the movies. Maybe Bruce Willis should have been brought in to run it. Iraq was considered a stable country separating the Islamic countries. My God! They extended from Pakistan across the world - poking into the USSR - all the way to the environs of Saudi Arabia. Except that Saddam would keep things steady. This "giving the green light" bit that keeps coming up is nonsense. We didn't like Iran, but sending Saddam's Soviet tanks there wasn't part of any deal. We didn't "allow" Saddam to invade Iran and Kuwait. It was his idea all the way. But the US is condemned for not interfering, just as she is now condemned for interfering. It's a tough world we live in. But, not at dinner-time, when we will fill up on corned beef and cabbage. All I'm allowed to do is peel the potatoes (which is why our meals are so good). Perhaps it will be our last peace-time meal for a while. Harry Ray wrote: Harry, Journalist Robert Parry was vindicated by Oklahoma Republican Judge Walsh in the Iran/Contra Affair while he was lacerated by the major media which boycotted him. I have found him to be correct on almost every point from the CIA and Ollie North connection to the murder of hundreds of thousands of Mayan Indian People in Central America to putting drugs on the street in the Black Ghetto of LA. How's that for your own government using chemical warfare against a segment of the population? When you look at only one side of a double deal, it always looks OK but the US was dealing from a revolving position of Democrats and Republicans supporting their own favorites. I don't know why the US government thinks that a good guy/bad guy routine is OK to play with other governments that don't change leaders as often and often get more professionalism from their Civil Service than we do with our mandated change. It puts our Baby President into such a double bind around competence that even a despot like Sadaam can make a fool out of them in the world courts. It does not help that Bush has shown that he is constitutionally incapable of building on anything the Clinton Administration, that defeated his Daddy, did whether in domestic or foreign policy. He came in with a loud mouth shooting down 8 years of careful work before he even examined it. Bush has systematically threatened the environment, the poor, the elderly and the middle class and has publicly called into question US compliance with many International treaties (why should I as an Indian be surprised at that? because it used to be the Democrats who did such things but the racist militant Dixiecrats are now Republicans.). Anyway, I think you are naive about the Iraq connection. I believe you are manifesting a typical attitude that causes the militant side of all governments to believe that it is OK for them to lie with impunity because everyone else is potentially a criminal. (Realpolitik) So pre-emption becomes OK whether in Watts, Bedford Styvesant, Wounded Knee, the New Jersey Turnpike or the Middle East. It is interesting that the conservative pundit William O'Riley had supported racial profiling until his Irish Catholic Tuchas was stopped by the Homeland Security. Reality is tough even for pundits. Here is the Carter segment of Parry's
RE: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff!
I haven't been following this thread, but this message caught my eye. The following may clear up the question, if I understand it correctly. Iran had started bombing parts of Iraq and had sent assassination teams in against selected Iraqi leaders. The US was worried that the Iranians were going to invade Iraq and keep going into Saudi Arabia. The US made the decision that it was better to have the Iraqi army confront the Iranians than US troops, so the Iraqis were encouraged to mobilize and go after the Iranians, which they did. The US denies having in any way abetted Iraq's acquisition or use of chemical weapons against the Iranians. I am somewhat skeptical of this claim, but have not been able to pursue it. Cheers, L -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Ray Evans HarrellSent: Mon, March 17, 2003 7:58 PMTo: Keith Hudson; Harry PollardCc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff! Well, you can protest all you want but the statement reads: 5. BOTH SADAT AND FAHD PROVIDED OTHER BITS OF USEFUL INTELLIGENCE. (E.G. IRAN IS RECEIVING MILITARY SPARES FRO U.S. EQUIPMENT FROM ISRAEL). IT WAS ALSO INTERESTING TO CONFIRM THAT PRESIDENT CARTER GAVE THE IRAQIS A GREEN LIGHT TO LAUNCH THE WAR AGAINST IRAN THROUGH FAHD. 9 talking points prepared andused by Secretary of State Alexander Haig in 1981. Was classified and now dug up and published for the first time by Frank Parry of Iran/Contra fame. http://www.consortiumnews.com/2003/haig-docs.html Say whatever you want Harry. Why don't call up Haig, he made the statement. But what do I know. I'm not a pundit just an opera director trying to connect the dots. REH P.S. note thatHaig admits to illegally selling arms to Iran through Israel in defiance of the US law. If that was a Democrat doing such things Anne Coulter would have listed him in her book on Traitors. - Original Message - From: "Harry Pollard" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Ray Evans Harrell" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "Keith Hudson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 3:59 PM Subject: Re: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff! Ray, Back in the 70's, Iran was the threat even though they made a mess of things - executing their army top brass and killing and jailing their pilots. (What a shower, the lot of them are.) They also took US hostages and we had a disaster trying to rescue them. It didn't go the way it goes in the movies. Maybe Bruce Willis should have been brought in to run it. Iraq was considered a stable country separating the Islamic countries. My God! They extended from Pakistan across the world - poking into the USSR - all the way to the environs of Saudi Arabia. Except that Saddam would keep things steady. This "giving the green light" bit that keeps coming up is nonsense. We didn't like Iran, but sending Saddam's Soviet tanks there wasn't part of any deal. We didn't "allow" Saddam to invade Iran and Kuwait. It was his idea all the way. But the US is condemned for not interfering, just as she is now condemned for interfering. It's a tough world we live in. But, not at dinner-time, when we will fill up on corned beef and cabbage. All I'm allowed to do is peel the potatoes (which is why our meals are so good). Perhaps it will be our last peace-time meal for a while. Harry Ray wrote: Harry, Journalist Robert Parry was vindicated by Oklahoma Republican Judge Walsh in the Iran/Contra Affair while he was lacerated by the major media which boycotted him. I have found him to be correct on almost every point from the CIA and Ollie North connection to the murder of hundreds of thousands of Mayan Indian People in Central America to putting drugs on the street in the Black Ghetto of LA. How's that for your own government using chemical warfare against a segment of the population? When you look at only one side of a double deal, it always looks OK but the US was dealing from a revolving position of Democrats and Republicans supporting their own favorites. I don't know why the US government thinks that a good guy/bad guy routine is OK to play with other governments that don't change leaders as often and often get more professionalism from their Civil Service than we do with our mandated change. It puts our Baby President into such a double bind around competence that even a despot like Sadaam can make a fool out of them in the world courts. It does not help that Bush has shown that he is constitutionally incapable of building on anything the Clinto
RE: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff!
Frontline is broadcasting an extraordinary two hour The Long Road to War that is a compilation of previous documentaries on our long relationship and history with Saddam Hussein. Take a look at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/longroad/ Karen I haven't been following this thread, but this message caught my eye. The following may clear up the question, if I understand it correctly. Iran had started bombing parts of Iraq and had sent assassination teams in against selected Iraqi leaders. The US was worried that the Iranians were going to invade Iraq and keep going into Saudi Arabia. The US made the decision that it was better to have the Iraqi army confront the Iranians than US troops, so the Iraqis were encouraged to mobilize and go after the Iranians, which they did. The US denies having in any way abetted Iraq's acquisition or use of chemical weapons against the Iranians. I am somewhat skeptical of this claim, but have not been able to pursue it. Cheers, L Well, you can protest all you want but the statement reads: 5. BOTH SADAT AND FAHD PROVIDED OTHER BITS OF USEFUL INTELLIGENCE. (E.G. IRAN IS RECEIVING MILITARY SPARES FRO U.S. EQUIPMENT FROM ISRAEL). IT WAS ALSO INTERESTING TO CONFIRM THAT PRESIDENT CARTER GAVE THE IRAQIS A GREEN LIGHT TO LAUNCH THE WAR AGAINST IRAN THROUGH FAHD. 9 talking points prepared andused by Secretary of State Alexander Haig in 1981. Was classified and now dug up and published for the first time by Frank Parry of Iran/Contra fame. http://www.consortiumnews.com/2003/haig-docs.html Say whatever you want Harry. Why don't call up Haig, he made the statement. But what do I know. I'm not a pundit just an opera director trying to connect the dots. REH P.S. note thatHaig admits to illegally selling arms to Iran through Israel in defiance of the US law. If that was a Democrat doing such things Anne Coulter would have listed him in her book on Traitors.
Re: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff!
Keith, What a nice set-up you've provided for a gentle proposal by a woman! Thanks! Gail You wrote: From: Keith Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Harry Pollard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 2:00 AM Subject: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff! It's the testosterone that's doing it! At this stage of the war, all sorts of otherwise reasonable male politicians (as well as the male editor and mainly male staff of the Economist) are becoming turned on and turning into rabid supporters. ... Shame on them for forsaking their rationality. Here's the proposal: March 16, 2003 The time has come for the Security Council to do something bold... Article 1, Chapter 1 of the UN Charter states that the first purpose of the United Nations is to maintain international peace and security, and to that end, to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace... A member country of the United Nations -- Iraq under Saddam Hussein -- possesses weapons of mass destruction and has not disarmed as demanded by the UN Security Council. This behavior is destroying international peace and undermining a general sense of security. Some member states, in a coalition of the willing, are threatening war against Iraq in the absence of effective early action by the Security Council. The Security Council is not simply empowered but is obligated to take action to maintain or restore international peace and security. Member states of the UN are committed, if asked, to contribute forces and resources through negotiated agreements with the UN. Accepting its obligation and immediately calling upon member states to contribute toward effective collective measures, the Security Council establishes itself as the responsible enforcement agency in the situation, not just a forum. The initiative by the Security Council to mobilize its own forces and resources changes the structure and character of the discussion. In the process of negotiation between the Security Council and those providing assistance (many nations, including the coalition of the willing ), an early timetable for the effective disarmament of Iraq, with only necessary use of force, is established. An illegitimate war threatening international peace and security is averted in favour of a legitimate UN police action strengthening international peace and security. THE UNITED NATIONS. A great idea. A grand agreement. The time has come to do something bold [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff!
Nice idea, Gail, but I don't think that the Security Council really matters much any more except in terms of giving us some insights into the current great game. It is most unlikely that it will ever again provide a forum for collective action, if it ever did that. I don't really understand the game, but I do believe it has a lot to do with America expanding and consolidating its powers globally, and other major players - France, Russia, Germany and China in particular - attempting to counteract it because it threatens their own visions of the future. If the countries of eastern Europe and Japan appear to be supporting the Americans, you can bet they are thinking of their own interests, not those of Iraqi women and children or the tyrant Saddam. All one can hope for in all of this is some kind of prolonged stalemate - sort of a political cold war in which there is continuous jockeying but no real conflagration. And it's not about testosterone. The globalized and now multi-polar world has become a very tight place with little room to maneuver. There's no free space left, and the major European powers rightly sense that America's ascendancy is their decline. Ed Weick - Original Message - From: G. Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Keith Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 7:45 AM Subject: Re: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff! Keith, What a nice set-up you've provided for a gentle proposal by a woman! Thanks! Gail You wrote: From: Keith Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Harry Pollard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 2:00 AM Subject: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff! It's the testosterone that's doing it! At this stage of the war, all sorts of otherwise reasonable male politicians (as well as the male editor and mainly male staff of the Economist) are becoming turned on and turning into rabid supporters. ... Shame on them for forsaking their rationality. Here's the proposal: March 16, 2003 The time has come for the Security Council to do something bold... Article 1, Chapter 1 of the UN Charter states that the first purpose of the United Nations is to maintain international peace and security, and to that end, to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace... A member country of the United Nations -- Iraq under Saddam Hussein -- possesses weapons of mass destruction and has not disarmed as demanded by the UN Security Council. This behavior is destroying international peace and undermining a general sense of security. Some member states, in a coalition of the willing, are threatening war against Iraq in the absence of effective early action by the Security Council. The Security Council is not simply empowered but is obligated to take action to maintain or restore international peace and security. Member states of the UN are committed, if asked, to contribute forces and resources through negotiated agreements with the UN. Accepting its obligation and immediately calling upon member states to contribute toward effective collective measures, the Security Council establishes itself as the responsible enforcement agency in the situation, not just a forum. The initiative by the Security Council to mobilize its own forces and resources changes the structure and character of the discussion. In the process of negotiation between the Security Council and those providing assistance (many nations, including the coalition of the willing ), an early timetable for the effective disarmament of Iraq, with only necessary use of force, is established. An illegitimate war threatening international peace and security is averted in favour of a legitimate UN police action strengthening international peace and security. THE UNITED NATIONS. A great idea. A grand agreement. The time has come to do something bold [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
RE: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff!
H.interesting. 1) What provides any country, or the United Nations Security Council, with the 'right' to disarm Iraq? 2) What, specifically, are the resources you mention that the UNSC can 'mobilize'? L -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of G. Stewart Sent: Sun, March 16, 2003 7:46 AM To: Keith Hudson Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff! Keith, What a nice set-up you've provided for a gentle proposal by a woman! Thanks! Gail You wrote: From: Keith Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Harry Pollard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 2:00 AM Subject: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff! It's the testosterone that's doing it! At this stage of the war, all sorts of otherwise reasonable male politicians (as well as the male editor and mainly male staff of the Economist) are becoming turned on and turning into rabid supporters. ... Shame on them for forsaking their rationality. Here's the proposal: March 16, 2003 The time has come for the Security Council to do something bold... Article 1, Chapter 1 of the UN Charter states that the first purpose of the United Nations is to maintain international peace and security, and to that end, to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace... A member country of the United Nations -- Iraq under Saddam Hussein -- possesses weapons of mass destruction and has not disarmed as demanded by the UN Security Council. This behavior is destroying international peace and undermining a general sense of security. Some member states, in a coalition of the willing, are threatening war against Iraq in the absence of effective early action by the Security Council. The Security Council is not simply empowered but is obligated to take action to maintain or restore international peace and security. Member states of the UN are committed, if asked, to contribute forces and resources through negotiated agreements with the UN. Accepting its obligation and immediately calling upon member states to contribute toward effective collective measures, the Security Council establishes itself as the responsible enforcement agency in the situation, not just a forum. The initiative by the Security Council to mobilize its own forces and resources changes the structure and character of the discussion. In the process of negotiation between the Security Council and those providing assistance (many nations, including the coalition of the willing ), an early timetable for the effective disarmament of Iraq, with only necessary use of force, is established. An illegitimate war threatening international peace and security is averted in favour of a legitimate UN police action strengthening international peace and security. THE UNITED NATIONS. A great idea. A grand agreement. The time has come to do something bold [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff!
Hi Gail, You've hit upon what must inevitably happen, either within the UN or a successor organisation. It must have a Security Council that is independent of nation-states and has the resources to carry out effective action as soon as it is decided that a nation-state is dangerous to others. How that can come about is quite another matter. However, there are two interesting developments of the last twenty years or so which, if they continue, give some promise that a better Security Council will occur over the longer term future. One is the development of what is called segregative diplomacy. That is, nations in dispute with others over particularly tricky issues are learning to keep negotiations on these quite separate from other less tricky issues and not to conflate them into comprehensive confrontation. The second is that nation-states are increasingly realising that they are having to yield parts of their hitherto jealously guarded sovereignty to some larger specialised agency or governance -- e.g. the WTO, North Sea fishing rights, control over water extraction from rivers or aquifers which stretch across national boundaries, etc. But we're a long way from a new sort of UN yet. Perhaps it shouldn't be called the United Nations, because nation-states never will be united. However, the UK ambassador to the UN between 1986 and 1998, while arguing with Perle yesterday on ITV, said that he thought that the UN could be either strengthened or weakened by the way the war is fought. Either way, America has already realised that the world won't tolerate the way it is trying to browbeat the UN and that present membership and rules of the Security Council will have to be radically reformed. Keith Hudson At 07:45 16/03/03 -0500, you wrote: Keith, What a nice set-up you've provided for a gentle proposal by a woman! Thanks! Gail You wrote: From: Keith Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Harry Pollard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 2:00 AM Subject: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff! It's the testosterone that's doing it! At this stage of the war, all sorts of otherwise reasonable male politicians (as well as the male editor and mainly male staff of the Economist) are becoming turned on and turning into rabid supporters. ... Shame on them for forsaking their rationality. Here's the proposal: March 16, 2003 The time has come for the Security Council to do something bold... Article 1, Chapter 1 of the UN Charter states that the first purpose of the United Nations is to maintain international peace and security, and to that end, to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace... A member country of the United Nations -- Iraq under Saddam Hussein -- possesses weapons of mass destruction and has not disarmed as demanded by the UN Security Council. This behavior is destroying international peace and undermining a general sense of security. Some member states, in a coalition of the willing, are threatening war against Iraq in the absence of effective early action by the Security Council. The Security Council is not simply empowered but is obligated to take action to maintain or restore international peace and security. Member states of the UN are committed, if asked, to contribute forces and resources through negotiated agreements with the UN. Accepting its obligation and immediately calling upon member states to contribute toward effective collective measures, the Security Council establishes itself as the responsible enforcement agency in the situation, not just a forum. The initiative by the Security Council to mobilize its own forces and resources changes the structure and character of the discussion. In the process of negotiation between the Security Council and those providing assistance (many nations, including the coalition of the willing ), an early timetable for the effective disarmament of Iraq, with only necessary use of force, is established. An illegitimate war threatening international peace and security is averted in favour of a legitimate UN police action strengthening international peace and security. THE UNITED NATIONS. A great idea. A grand agreement. The time has come to do something bold [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http
Re: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff!
Keith, Can the development you point to be accelerated? Is there any hope that the Security Council, tomorrow, would assume responsibility for the use of force-if-necessary, calling upon member nations to contribute and then setting out its own effective timetable (and incidently converting a potential illegal war between nations into a legal international police action). I can see no other speedy move that would re-structure the situation in such a way as to satisfy both the growing alliance for peace and the Azores alliance, while doing the job of ensuring the Iraqi regime is effectively disarmed. Regards, Gail Gail Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Keith Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: G. Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 3:27 PM Subject: Re: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff! Hi Gail, You've hit upon what must inevitably happen, either within the UN or a successor organisation. It must have a Security Council that is independent of nation-states and has the resources to carry out effective action as soon as it is decided that a nation-state is dangerous to others. How that can come about is quite another matter. However, there are two interesting developments of the last twenty years or so which, if they continue, give some promise that a better Security Council will occur over the longer term future. One is the development of what is called segregative diplomacy. That is, nations in dispute with others over particularly tricky issues are learning to keep negotiations on these quite separate from other less tricky issues and not to conflate them into comprehensive confrontation. The second is that nation-states are increasingly realising that they are having to yield parts of their hitherto jealously guarded sovereignty to some larger specialised agency or governance -- e.g. the WTO, North Sea fishing rights, control over water extraction from rivers or aquifers which stretch across national boundaries, etc. But we're a long way from a new sort of UN yet. Perhaps it shouldn't be called the United Nations, because nation-states never will be united. However, the UK ambassador to the UN between 1986 and 1998, while arguing with Perle yesterday on ITV, said that he thought that the UN could be either strengthened or weakened by the way the war is fought. Either way, America has already realised that the world won't tolerate the way it is trying to browbeat the UN and that present membership and rules of the Security Council will have to be radically reformed. Keith Hudson At 07:45 16/03/03 -0500, you wrote: Keith, What a nice set-up you've provided for a gentle proposal by a woman! Thanks! Gail You wrote: From: Keith Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Harry Pollard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 2:00 AM Subject: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff! It's the testosterone that's doing it! At this stage of the war, all sorts of otherwise reasonable male politicians (as well as the male editor and mainly male staff of the Economist) are becoming turned on and turning into rabid supporters. ... Shame on them for forsaking their rationality. Here's the proposal: March 16, 2003 The time has come for the Security Council to do something bold... Article 1, Chapter 1 of the UN Charter states that the first purpose of the United Nations is to maintain international peace and security, and to that end, to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace... A member country of the United Nations -- Iraq under Saddam Hussein -- possesses weapons of mass destruction and has not disarmed as demanded by the UN Security Council. This behavior is destroying international peace and undermining a general sense of security. Some member states, in a coalition of the willing, are threatening war against Iraq in the absence of effective early action by the Security Council. The Security Council is not simply empowered but is obligated to take action to maintain or restore international peace and security. Member states of the UN are committed, if asked, to contribute forces and resources through negotiated agreements with the UN. Accepting its obligation and immediately calling upon member states to contribute toward effective collective measures, the Security Council establishes itself as the responsible enforcement agency in the situation, not just a forum. The initiative by the Security Council to mobilize its own forces and resources changes the structure and character of the discussion. In the process of negotiation between the Security Council and those providing assistance (many nations, including the coalition of the willing ), an early timetable for the effective disarmament of Iraq
RE: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff!
Keith -- I missed the debate you refer to. Can you comment on how Perls handled himself? Energy and body language? Thanks, L However, the UK ambassador to the UN between 1986 and 1998, while arguing with Perle yesterday on ITV, said that he thought that the UN could be either strengthened or weakened by the way the war is fought. Either way, America has already realised that the world won't tolerate the way it is trying to browbeat the UN and that present membership and rules of the Security Council will have to be radically reformed. ___ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff!
Keith, One of the best programs on American television is This Week on ABC in the Sunday morning television ghetto - when no-one is watching. However, it is good enough to have achieved a sizable audience over several decades. This morning we heard about 20 minutes of Colin Powell answering some provocative questions. The round table contains several people of different political believes who argue persuasively but without acrimony. George Will is the conservative and he made, I think, a good point. He said that compared with containment, war will reduce the loss of life in Iraq. The deaths happening now in Iraq over the next 10 years will be about 1 million - of whom 600,000 are likely to be children. Ending this situation even with casualties will in effect save the lives of those who are doomed to die if nothing violent happens. It is easily tossed around that US sanctions are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, yet this seems to me to be propaganda rather than reality. First, sanctions are the historical alternative to force. Mostly they don't seem to work - though they are supposed to have been successful with South Africa. They were not successful against Mussolini's quest for the Italian Imperium and supremacy in the Mediterranean. This, in spite of the ineffectual League of Nations' imposition of sanctions that didn't include oil. Musso later said that had oil been sanctioned, the invasion of what is now Ethiopia would have stopped. I have no idea why the League didn't sanction oil - perhaps because Italian families would be without heat in the winter - I don't know. The year after he had finished mustard gassing the Abyssinians, Musso announced the Rome-Berlin Axis - thereby coining a name that persisted. The US stayed out of this, stimulating condemnation that they had destroyed the League. There are eerie parallels between then and now - but certainly with a different outcome. The US sanctions are said to be responsible for the deaths of many children. But these are UN sanctions. Iraq has been able to export oil for most of the period since the Gulf War. It is sending out now about three quarters of the oil of the pre-war period. That should be sufficient to feed any children who are hungry. Except that it is being used for Saddam's purposes, which do not give high priority to feeding children. Constantly in the news is the issue to Iraqis of five months food supply in expectation of the coming conflict. Where did it come from? How can people be starving if there is that much food available? Well, it's probably propaganda anyway. On a point I rarely have heard mentioned in these discussions. The UN takes 28% of the oil revenue for its expenses. That's a large lump that could surely feed a lot of children. Another point, not often mentioned, is the economic condition of Iraq after the war with Iran. It was a basket case. Perhaps the invasion of Kuwait had no other purpose than to fill Saddam's piggy-bank. Now to make an awkward segue. Your other remark is of great interest to me. How responsible are the women and children for the activities of their government? Was Dresden just another part of Germany and were the people of Dresden as much responsible for those 65 million deaths as their rulers. How much liberated French art arrived in Dresden? Nothing seems more unnecessary than to have destroyed Dresden. Yet, should the people and their city be allowed to have a good war - relatively unaffected by the horrors that were suffered by so many scores of millions? Whether they like it or not, women are special. On them depends survival. Men are expendable - but women and children are protected. Their special position is why they come into the discussion, even though men are most likely to be killed. So, are they equally responsible with the men for how their country behaves? In a dictatorship, they don't have a lot of chance to protest. But, most don't anyway. One recalls at the German death camps when Americans gave the local townspeople a tour, they protested they knew nothing of what was going on. It was a lie. Keep your eyes averted and your nose clean and cover your ears. Does that make them responsible for the unleashed horrors? While they were enjoying their sylvan surroundings down the road from the concentration camp, more Brits were being killed than Americans, from a country one fifth the size of the US - plus another 100,000 Commonwealth deaths. I recall the horror and dismay when almost a thousand Canadians were lost at Dieppe. Not a good day. But, that wasn't the fault of the German women and children, was it? The Nazi philosophy prevented the use of women workers in their factories at first, but later they were forced to recruit them. As women turned out bombs, were they not resp0onsible for the casualties eventually caused by the explosives? British women had a choice - they could work in a
RE: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff!
The problem with George Will's point is fundamental, Harry: it wasn't the UN that imposed the sanctions, it was the US, and it is the US who to this day keeps them in place and repulses all efforts by the international community and humanitarian aid organizations to lift them. Those deaths that Will shed his crocodile tears over are the result of the sanctions and the misallocation of national resources to palaces (if you want to focus on a relatively minor use of those incomes) -- and the sanctions are the result of US policy...so guess what? Though Will carefully skirted the issue, those deaths belong at least in part at our doorstep. At a minimum, we are co-responsible and have contributed to the liability for those deaths, and the many other forms of suffering that the sanctions have created. The US thinking was that if we squeeze the people, they will overthrow the dictator. Well, that was pretty stupid and careless thinking, wasn't it? I am sure that Will would like to find someone else to blame, but in this case he has no further to look that himself and others who have advocated the imposition and maintenance of those sanctions. Oh, did he forget to mention that he has himself been a long-term die-hard supporter of sanctions? Gosh, I wonder why he forgot to tell us that? Will covered up his careful deletion of this unpleasant truth by quoting solely and extensively by an article in the Washington Post by a CFR analyst -- fair enough, no one ever accused Will of being a working journalist or analyst -- but if you look at the article he so freely cribbed from you will see that the writer was himself much more careful and candid about this point. In any event, to blame the UN for the sanctions, and then to assert -- this was Will's contribution to his essay -- that therefore the Iraqi people would be better off if the US attacked the country is, at best, disingenuous. Will normally crafts the logic of his diatribes more carefully. I take this uncharacteristic sloppiness on his part as a sign that he is scraping the bottom of the barrel for rationalizations of the US policy to attack Iraq. As I said some time ago, the wheels have come off the bus, and no amount of nonsense such as this from Will is going to put them back on. But, what does it matter if the wheels have come off and the opponents of the US invasion are 'right', if the bus, out of control, is careening toward those innocent bystanders. Cheers, Lawry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Harry Pollard Sent: Sun, March 16, 2003 5:35 PM To: Keith Hudson Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff! Keith, One of the best programs on American television is This Week on ABC in the Sunday morning television ghetto - when no-one is watching. However, it is good enough to have achieved a sizable audience over several decades. This morning we heard about 20 minutes of Colin Powell answering some provocative questions. The round table contains several people of different political believes who argue persuasively but without acrimony. George Will is the conservative and he made, I think, a good point. He said that compared with containment, war will reduce the loss of life in Iraq. The deaths happening now in Iraq over the next 10 years will be about 1 million - of whom 600,000 are likely to be children. Ending this situation even with casualties will in effect save the lives of those who are doomed to die if nothing violent happens. It is easily tossed around that US sanctions are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, yet this seems to me to be propaganda rather than reality. First, sanctions are the historical alternative to force. Mostly they don't seem to work - though they are supposed to have been successful with South Africa. They were not successful against Mussolini's quest for the Italian Imperium and supremacy in the Mediterranean. This, in spite of the ineffectual League of Nations' imposition of sanctions that didn't include oil. Musso later said that had oil been sanctioned, the invasion of what is now Ethiopia would have stopped. I have no idea why the League didn't sanction oil - perhaps because Italian families would be without heat in the winter - I don't know. The year after he had finished mustard gassing the Abyssinians, Musso announced the Rome-Berlin Axis - thereby coining a name that persisted. The US stayed out of this, stimulating condemnation that they had destroyed the League. There are eerie parallels between then and now - but certainly with a different outcome. The US sanctions are said to be responsible for the deaths of many children. But these are UN sanctions. Iraq has been able to export oil for most of the period since the Gulf War. It is sending out now about three quarters of the oil of the pre-war period. That should
RE: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff!
Lawry, I didn't see the articles you mention. His remark about it led me to the bit I wrote. However, you spent more time on Will than you did on the subject. Let's stop the ad hominems and stay with the subject. Why does the UN get 28% of Iraqi oil for expenses? Shouldn't the US get that? The palaces are mentioned, but the bulk of the infants' money, I would think, goes to maintain his army. Once again, he's exporting 75% of the pre-war oil (less the UN's 28% cut). Shouldn't that feed the children? Or is it going to feed soldiers? Tell me more about the US sanctions that aren't supported by the UN. Also, aren't sanctions the alternative to war? Harry -- Lawrence wrote: The problem with George Will's point is fundamental, Harry: it wasn't the UN that imposed the sanctions, it was the US, and it is the US who to this day keeps them in place and repulses all efforts by the international community and humanitarian aid organizations to lift them. Those deaths that Will shed his crocodile tears over are the result of the sanctions and the misallocation of national resources to palaces (if you want to focus on a relatively minor use of those incomes) -- and the sanctions are the result of US policy...so guess what? Though Will carefully skirted the issue, those deaths belong at least in part at our doorstep. At a minimum, we are co-responsible and have contributed to the liability for those deaths, and the many other forms of suffering that the sanctions have created. The US thinking was that if we squeeze the people, they will overthrow the dictator. Well, that was pretty stupid and careless thinking, wasn't it? I am sure that Will would like to find someone else to blame, but in this case he has no further to look that himself and others who have advocated the imposition and maintenance of those sanctions. Oh, did he forget to mention that he has himself been a long-term die-hard supporter of sanctions? Gosh, I wonder why he forgot to tell us that? Will covered up his careful deletion of this unpleasant truth by quoting solely and extensively by an article in the Washington Post by a CFR analyst -- fair enough, no one ever accused Will of being a working journalist or analyst -- but if you look at the article he so freely cribbed from you will see that the writer was himself much more careful and candid about this point. In any event, to blame the UN for the sanctions, and then to assert -- this was Will's contribution to his essay -- that therefore the Iraqi people would be better off if the US attacked the country is, at best, disingenuous. Will normally crafts the logic of his diatribes more carefully. I take this uncharacteristic sloppiness on his part as a sign that he is scraping the bottom of the barrel for rationalizations of the US policy to attack Iraq. As I said some time ago, the wheels have come off the bus, and no amount of nonsense such as this from Will is going to put them back on. But, what does it matter if the wheels have come off and the opponents of the US invasion are 'right', if the bus, out of control, is careening toward those innocent bystanders. Cheers, Lawry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Harry Pollard Sent: Sun, March 16, 2003 5:35 PM To: Keith Hudson Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff! Keith, One of the best programs on American television is This Week on ABC in the Sunday morning television ghetto - when no-one is watching. However, it is good enough to have achieved a sizable audience over several decades. This morning we heard about 20 minutes of Colin Powell answering some provocative questions. The round table contains several people of different political believes who argue persuasively but without acrimony. George Will is the conservative and he made, I think, a good point. He said that compared with containment, war will reduce the loss of life in Iraq. The deaths happening now in Iraq over the next 10 years will be about 1 million - of whom 600,000 are likely to be children. Ending this situation even with casualties will in effect save the lives of those who are doomed to die if nothing violent happens. It is easily tossed around that US sanctions are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, yet this seems to me to be propaganda rather than reality. First, sanctions are the historical alternative to force. Mostly they don't seem to work - though they are supposed to have been successful with South Africa. They were not successful against Mussolini's quest for the Italian Imperium and supremacy in the Mediterranean. This, in spite of the ineffectual League of Nations' imposition of sanctions that didn't include oil. Musso later said that had oil been sanctioned, the invasion of what is now Ethiopia would
RE: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff!
Harry, Where do you get your numbers on where the oil revenues are going (e.g. the '75%') This does not jibe with the numbers I have seen. Ad hominem criticism is when the individual is attacked, rather than his content. I cheerily do both when warranted. There ARE idiots out there, and it doesn't hurt to identify them as such. Calling an idiot an idiot is one of the few fun things one can do amidst all the cacophony, misinformation and plain old dumb thinking that swamps the media and the Net. It is my quick way of indicating to everyone that I don't intend to waste my time chattering with them or their surrogates. I do value my time, Harry, and that is the best I can do. Anyway, it would be easy for you to check out why the UN gets monies -- think of the work that the UN is doing there and you will see where the money goes. Iraqi oil itself is paying for the arms inspections, the sanctions administration, and so forth. Why are you suggesting that would the US should get money from Iraq from the sanctions/oil program??? Other than the fact that by the time Bush gets done the US will need all the handouts it can get. To pay for our invasion of their country? Now there's a novel idea. Is it not traditional to invade and seize a country BEFORE plundering it? smile Of course, the US could just say to Iraq: Give us all your money and we won't invade, and save everyone the hassle of an invasion. What prospects this scenario conjures up. I think we have to go after the Crown Jewels next, don't you think. And the beef farms in Kobe. And there is one hell of a great museum in Florence that we could add to the Smithsonian. I'm sure the Italians would be happy to give it to us if we just don't invade them Keith, if I remember correctly, WAS right -- it IS the testosterone! The Eiffel Tower -- doesn't that really belong in Milwaukee? In fact, US congressmen, ideologues, and pundits who support the invasion could all claim choice bits and pieces of things in the world to bring home to their districts. San Diego gets the Taj Mahal! We critics might be allowed to claim some of Russia's toxic waste dumps, or, if we publicly repented our short-sightedness, a Swiss chocolate bar. Back to being serious: I do believe the Kuwaitis are getting reparations for the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, but don't have any specifics on that. I think the reparations account is separate from the oil revenues. The web probably has several sites that report on the Kuwaiti reparations. Cheers, Lawry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Harry Pollard Sent: Sun, March 16, 2003 7:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff! Lawry, I didn't see the articles you mention. His remark about it led me to the bit I wrote. However, you spent more time on Will than you did on the subject. Let's stop the ad hominems and stay with the subject. Why does the UN get 28% of Iraqi oil for expenses? Shouldn't the US get that? The palaces are mentioned, but the bulk of the infants' money, I would think, goes to maintain his army. Once again, he's exporting 75% of the pre-war oil (less the UN's 28% cut). Shouldn't that feed the children? Or is it going to feed soldiers? Tell me more about the US sanctions that aren't supported by the UN. Also, aren't sanctions the alternative to war? Harry -- Lawrence wrote: The problem with George Will's point is fundamental, Harry: it wasn't the UN that imposed the sanctions, it was the US, and it is the US who to this day keeps them in place and repulses all efforts by the international community and humanitarian aid organizations to lift them. Those deaths that Will shed his crocodile tears over are the result of the sanctions and the misallocation of national resources to palaces (if you want to focus on a relatively minor use of those incomes) -- and the sanctions are the result of US policy...so guess what? Though Will carefully skirted the issue, those deaths belong at least in part at our doorstep. At a minimum, we are co-responsible and have contributed to the liability for those deaths, and the many other forms of suffering that the sanctions have created. The US thinking was that if we squeeze the people, they will overthrow the dictator. Well, that was pretty stupid and careless thinking, wasn't it? I am sure that Will would like to find someone else to blame, but in this case he has no further to look that himself and others who have advocated the imposition and maintenance of those sanctions. Oh, did he forget to mention that he has himself been a long-term die-hard supporter of sanctions? Gosh, I wonder why he forgot to tell us that? Will covered up his careful deletion of this unpleasant truth by quoting solely
Re: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff!
. Thus far this has been embarrassingly amateur hack work. Its obvious that this administration has little culture and a very poor knowledge of rational history. Bookworms trapped in the library of their own inadequacies. Perhaps you could enlighten me about the enemy. I've listed the questions before. What kind of society does he have compared to other despots? What kind of Moslem is he? Is his brutality common in his culture? (Can we be sure that the deferential man that we had as a President and CIA Director is not as brutal?) The reason for being concerned is the ability to know the future of work in Iraq. Sadaam replaced someone we didn't like only to become someone we didn't like as well. The problem of culture is that America is English and so is America's Democracy with a taste of Iroquois. Iraq is not English and one would think that a people who had been in that area on many different occasions would have a sense of how much of a possibility for success GWB's pipe dream about Democracy in Iraq has. Or is English culture just incapable of seeing other cultures as grown-ups and viable alternatives to their native systems? We should remember that the only Democracy and a socialist one at that, in the area is Israel. A country filled with a common people that have been forced to learn the ways of the entire world over a 2,000 year period. In spite of such wisdom they still seem to be making a mess of it and resorting to the most vulgar form of force betraying their own myths and morality and are in danger of losing that which kept them aliveas a people for twothousand years. Remember America is a nation filled with a constant flood of escapeesfrom other systems. But its heart is stubbornly English. Might that stubbornness become a liability in dealing with the real world? Especially if we do not have a genius or scholar for a President dealing with these sleazy world professionals at Realpolitik? What do you think Harry? REH - Original Message - From: "Harry Pollard" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Keith Hudson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 5:34 PM Subject: Re: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff! Keith, One of the best programs on American television is "This Week" on ABC in the Sunday morning television ghetto - when no-one is watching. However, it is good enough to have achieved a sizable audience over several decades. This morning we heard about 20 minutes of Colin Powell answering some provocative questions. The round table contains several people of different political believes who argue persuasively but without acrimony. George Will is the conservative and he made, I think, a good point. He said that compared with containment, war will reduce the loss of life in Iraq. The deaths happening now in Iraq over the next 10 years will be about 1 million - of whom 600,000 are likely to be children. Ending this situation even with casualties will in effect save the lives of those who are doomed to die if nothing violent happens. It is easily tossed around that US sanctions are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, yet this seems to me to be propaganda rather than reality. First, sanctions are the historical alternative to force. Mostly they don't seem to work - though they are supposed to have been successful with South Africa. They were not successful against Mussolini's quest for the Italian Imperium and supremacy in the Mediterranean. This, in spite of the ineffectual League of Nations' imposition of sanctions that didn't include oil. Musso later said that had oil been sanctioned, the invasion of what is now Ethiopia would have stopped. I have no idea why the League didn't sanction oil - perhaps because Italian families would be without heat in the winter - I don't know. The year after he had finished mustard gassing the Abyssinians, Musso announced the "Rome-Berlin Axis" - thereby coining a name that persisted. The US stayed out of this, stimulating condemnation that they had destroyed the League. There are eerie parallels between then and now - but certainly with a different outcome. The US sanctions are said to be responsible for the deaths of many children. But these are UN sanctions. Iraq has been able to export oil for most of the period since the Gulf War. It is sending out now about three quarters of the oil of the pre-war period. That should be sufficient to feed any children who are hungry. Except that it is being used for Saddam's purposes, which do not give high priority to feeding children. Constantly in the news is the issue to Iraqis of five months food supply in expectation of the coming conflict. Where did it come from? How can people be starving if there is that much food available? Well, it's probably propaganda anyway. On a point I rarely ha
