Hello Sid Why have you changed the subject line to "Hong Kong Air Quality"? You think I'm from Hong Kong? To set your mind at ease, or perhaps not, I don't really have a nationality anymore. I have a piece of paper from somewhere or other that says "passport" on it and something called "citizenship" or the "right" to it from somewhere else, but it doesn't mean a thing to me. I don't have a "nation", nor even a "home", and haven't had those things for a long, long time, and don't even feel I'm lacking anything - it's just excess baggage, IMO.
>Dear Keith > >Perhaps your views are infallible, What's that supposed to mean? They're coherent at least, and I'm afraid I haven't found your views coherent, nor your responses, quite the opposite. >however may I take just a few >exceptions to a test? > >Your comments (>) >__________________________________________ > >As for being shot in Iraq "for your views," do you really imagine that is >why > >so many people are currently being shot there? Who do you think is doing >most > >of the shooting? > >I understand there are many graves in Iraq and a more will result because of >reasons >quite complex. Nevertheless I referred to the mass graves of Kurds and >others that >opposed a Dictators tunnel vision. You didn't refer to that, or at least you didn't say so. But this also doesn't make sense: the Kurds weren't massacred "for their views", which is what you said, remember? Since you didn't specify it, you mustn't be surprised if people conclude that you're referring to current events (I said "currently", you'd said nothing), not history - current events such as Fritz's post, for one instance of very many: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/BIOFUEL/30936/ Lots of casualties because of a wannabe emperor's tunnel-vision. As for history: >From 1973-75, the United States, Iran, and Israel supported a >Kurdish insurgency in Iraq. Documents examined by the U.S. House >Select Committee on Intelligence "clearly show that the President, >Dr. Kissinger and the [Shah] hoped that our clients [the Kurds] >would not prevail. They preferred instead that the insurgents simply >continue a level of hostilities sufficient to sap [Iraqi] >resources.... This policy was not imparted to our clients, who were >encouraged to continue fighting. Even in the context of covert >action, ours was a cynical enterprise." Then, in 1975, the Shah and >Saddam Hussein of Iraq signed an agreement giving Iran territorial >concessions in return for Iran's closing its border to Kurdish >guerrillas. Teheran and Washington promptly cut off their aid to the >Kurds and, while Iraq massacred the rebels, the United States >refused them asylum. Kissinger justified this U.S. policy in closed >testimony: "covert action should not be confused with missionary >work." (U.S. House of Representatives, Select Committee on >Intelligence, 19 Jan. 1976 [Pike Report] in Village Voice, 16 Feb. >1976, pp. 85, 87n465, 88n471. The Pike Report attributes the last >quote only to a "senior official"; William Safire, Safire's >Washington, New York: Times Books, 1980, p. 333, identifies the >official as Kissinger.) > >Aug. 2, 1990 -- Invades Kuwait. [This chronology omits one of Saddam >Hussein's most egregious atrocities, his Anfal campaign against the >Kurds from 1987-89, in which at least 50,000 and possibly 100,000 >Kurds were systematically slaughtered. (Middle East Watch, Genocide >in Iraq: The Anfal Campaign Against the Kurds, New York: Human >Rights Watch, 1993.) > >The response of the new Bush administration was to increase Iraq's >commodity credits from half a billion to a billion dollars, making >it the second largest user of the credit program in the world. As >late as April 1990, the administration was opposing sanctions >against Iraq ("They would hurt U.S. exporters and worsen our trade >deficit," said the State Department). (Guy Gugliotta, Charles R. >Babcock, and Benjamin Weiser, "At War, Iraq Courted U.S. Into >Economic Embrace," Washington Post, Sept. 16, 1990, p. A1.) The >administration also blocked efforts to cut back high-tech exports to >Iraq with obvious military applications. (Douglas Frantz and Murray >Waas, "Bush insisted on aiding Iraq until war's onset," Chicago >Sun-Times, Feb. 23, 1992, p. 17.) And the United States was >providing intelligence data to Iraq until three months before the >invasion. (Murray Waas, Douglas Frantz, "U.S. shared intelligence >with Iraq until 3 months before invasion of Kuwait," Houston >Chronicle, March 10, 1992, p. A6.)] So how are you going to respond to that, Sid? Let me guess: not at all. How about this? >The March 1988 massacre at Halabja--where Iraq government forces >killed upwards of 5,000 civilians in that Kurdish town by gassing >them with chemical weapons--was downplayed by the Reagan >administration, even to the point of claiming that Iran, then the >preferred American enemy, was actually responsible. The Halabja >tragedy was not an isolated incident, as U.S. officials were well >aware at the time. UN reports in 1986 and 1987 documented Iraq's use >of chemical weapons, which were confirmed both by investigations >from the CIA and by U.S. embassy staff who visited Iraqi Kurdish >refugees in Turkey. However, not only was the United States not >particularly concerned about Saddam's ongoing repression and the use >of chemical weapons, the United States actually was supporting the >Iraqi government's procurement effort of materials necessary for the >development of such an arsenal. > >Furthermore, officials from the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency >were stationed in Baghdad to pass on satellite imagery to the Iraqi >military in order to help them target Iranian troop concentrations, >in the full knowledge that Saddam was using chemical weapons against >Iranian forces. > >During the 1980s, American companies, with U.S. government backing, >supplied Saddam Hussein's government with much of the raw materials >for Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs. A Senate >committee reported in 1994 that American companies licensed by the >U.S. Commerce Department had shipped large quantities of materials >usable in weapons production in Iraq, noting that such trade >continued at least until the end of the decade, despite evidence of >Iraqi chemical warfare against Iranians and Iraqi Kurds. Much of >this trade was no oversight. It was made possible because the Reagan >administration took Iraq off of its list of countries supporting >terrorism in 1982, making the country eligible to receive such >items. This re-designation came in spite of Iraq's ongoing support >of Abu Nidal and other terrorist groups. > >As late as December 1989, just eight months prior to Iraq's >designation as an enemy for having invaded Kuwait, the Bush >administration pushed through new loans to the Iraqi government in >order to facilitate U.S.-Iraqi trade. Meanwhile, according to a 1992 >Senate investigation, the Commerce Department repeatedly deleted and >altered information on export licenses for trade with Iraq in order >to hide potential military uses of American exports. http://www.fpif.org/papers/capture2003.html -- From: Foreign Policy In Focus Policy Report: Saddam's Arrest Raises Troubling Questions, December 2003, by Stephen Zunes -- Stephen Zunes is an associate professor of Politics and chair of the Peace & Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco. He serves as Middle East editor for the Foreign Policy in Focus Project www.fpif.org and is the author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism www.commoncouragepress.com. Plenty more like that. So come on: you say below you have the "right to question the conclusions and examine the premises" of independent (?) views, what you said about the Kurds has been challenged (doubly so), so question the conclusions and examine the premises already, exercise the right you claim, because you sure haven't done so yet, all you've done is slide away. >I am sure that you can relate to that. Yes, having been on the receiving end. And you? Or did you just help dole it out? >As a Veteran I support the Bill of Rights that support peoples independent >views >even if I do not agree with them, they can communicate and present their case >and conclusions. Why do you have to be a veteran to support the Bill of Rights? What's that got to do with it? >I have the right to question the conclusions and examine >the >premises leading to that conclusion. So do we, and so far we've found your presentation almost entirely wanting. >By the way you assume too much. I think what you mean is that I *ask* too much - ask you to back up what you say, ask you to respond to what's put to you. >______________________________________ > >... is this roundabout statement on Iraq, that merely reflects the > >latest in the long line of ever-vanishing "justifications" for this > >illegal war? - that it was all about, not 9/11, not terrorism, not > >bin Laden, not WMDs, not threats to the US, but democracy? > >I understand that the Iraq Air Force parked their combat planes in Iran >for safe keeping during round one. Would it be possible that they diverted >WMD equipment (possibly mobile) to the same "safe haven"? If not Iran >what about Syria? Would you consider one Iraq 747 Jet to be a WMD? >I could present an argument that supports that idea. No doubt. Maybe as well as being in league with Al-Qaeda Saddam Hussein had an accord with little green men who spirited his WMDs off into nano-space. Pardon my sarcasm, or not, but it's kind of preposterous still to be grinding away at this WMD angle. You HAVE been looking the other way, haven't you? >__________________________________________ > >"The United States is not only number one in military power but also > >in the effectiveness of its propaganda system." -- Edward S. Herman, > >political economist and author > > >"Propaganda is to a democracy what violence is to a dictatorship." -- > >William Blum, journalist and author > > >I believe the United States is number one in many things. So Edward Herman's >view may be correct. He provides facts to back it up, not just cherished beliefs. >William Blum must have written many things, none of which I have seen. I do >think this view is too extreme. It is not the same when persuasion is used >in propaganda as compared to violence such as rape or other assaults or >murder >expressed in violence. I cannot agree with that statement. Really, do you? Yes I do. The way to examine it is to put a democracy under pressure and see what becomes of the propaganda. For instance: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17293 Information Warfare in Miami http://www.commondreams.org/news2003/1124-09.htm United Steelworkers of America USWA Calls for Congressional Investigation into Police-State Assaults in Miami http://www.enn.com/news/2003-12-19/s_11493.asp Amnesty says Miami police may have broken UN laws - December 19, 2003, Reuters I get the strong impression (assuming too much?) that you haven't bothered to check any of the links posted by me and others, but I'll post these just the same, up to you. Anyway, as you don't agree with William Blum's statement, I'd like an explanation of your apparent link between being a combat veteran (that's what "Purple Heart" means, among other things, right?), someone who kills people, and your support for the Bill of Rights, which might not be as dissimilar a question as you might think. But again, it's proven a thorough waste of time asking you for explanations. >_________________________________________ > >I am not an American at all, of any "class." Why do you assume I'm an > >American? Most list members here are not Americans, they - we - come > >from more than a hundred countries and just about every society. > >Correction Keith, if you read carefully, I asked you a question not making >any assumption. OK? Not okay. You read it carefully: "Are you an American of this class?" The emphasis in the question is on the "class", it assumes I am an American. It's made even clearer by extending it: "Are you an American of this class or that class?" OK? >So don't fly off the handle or have a hair trigger You don't like people being direct with you, eh? That's all it is, not flying off the handle or having a hair trigger. Nor pretending to be infallible. >because >you assumed that I assumed you are an American. I did not, but only asked >if you were and if you think you are in the class of gullible. How many of >the >260 million Americans are in that class Keith? All, most, some, a few? LOL IIRC the polls I mentioned, with their thoroughly benighted results (which apparently still include you), reached up to 70% at one stage. >I enjoy a good debate it is fun, but I must get back to work. It's not a good debate, it's not a debate at all. You've made claims, half-statements and allusions without any substantiation, you haven't responded to justifiable questions asked you, just side-stepped them, you claim this sort of thing: "It is in the interest of better understanding that I return comments" but your returns are mere obfuscation. Anyway, yes, you get on with your work. Keith >Best regards, >Sid. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?list=biofuel Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
