> Gautam: > So your argument is that we have a better policy than Europe in all > respects. We subsidize our farmers less, and we have free trade in all > other areas. But it's the _US_ you denounce constantly, but not a word of > criticism for Europe and Japan
No, not a word. I used 15 words, actually - Yes, the European CAP is worse than what the US does to our agricultural sector - so as ever you are right and I now see the error of my ways. But apart from that, of course I'll criticise only the US; it's my sole raison d'etre. Sprung badly, aren't I? So, after I send this off I'll start my penance so that I can be part way as worthy as you are Gautam. Your email has opened my eyes as to how far I've misspent what few thought processes I have been blessed with. > If you represented the Australian government, Brett, I think my > response would be to subsidize my farmers to a fare-thee-well, if this is > the response we get. As if I could represent the Australian government! I mean, you have to be real grown up and clever to do that. I just count myself lucky that I'm allowed to vote occasionally. > Our subsidies are created to respond to those of > Europe and Japan. When theirs are dropped, ours will as well. But it's > _us_ that you attack. Gee, I wonder why Americans _might not_ be > receptive > to your sorts of criticism. Silly me. Of course American subsidies don't affect Australian rural industries. I made it all up. We can still sell our wheat for way less than the US can produce it and then dump it on unsuspecting markets. You win. (Brett writes note to self: Friendly fire never hurts.) > The United States was Iran's major trading > partner until 1979, when some important things happened. You know, an > attack on our embassy, holding our diplomats hostage, things like that. Oh yes, and how is old Reza Pahlavi? > American soldiers and sailors died in the Second > World War to protect Australia. Lordy, lordy, weren't they just silly coots! We were only kidding. And all those nasty things I've said about MacArthur, too. > The United States has spent astonishing > sums of money protecting Australia ever since. Yes, of course. All those F111s came to us way below cost, and them P3Cs and C130s Lockheed gave to us for free. And the Charles F Adams DDGs and the Oliver Hazard Peary FFGs were an absolute bargain. And I know the F/A-18 didn't cost Australia one centavo, cos I was a budget officer at the Government Aircraft Factories at the time. Sorry for implying that Australia has in any way paid for any military assistance from the US. I won't do it again. > But you still > trade with our > enemies. Well, that's because we're all E>V>I>L. > I always thought Australia was a close friend and ally of the US, > but every so often we find out how much that counts. Sound familiar? > Couldna said it better myself. Oh, and I'm really sorry about that Gold Medal in Salt Lake. We won't do it again. > > Gautam: > Brett, you never fail to attribute malign motives to the United States. I try my hardest. ;-) But I think there were 3 threads lately where I slipped up badly by not making my quota on malign comments. I'll get it right next time, old chap. > You've referred to us as bullies on more than one occasion. Did I? Oh, my, whatever got into me? Oh, yes, I forgot - I'm E>V>I>L. > Why in the > case of nations like Iran are you so eager to give them the benefit of the > doubt? My mistake. Whatever you say goes. You, after all, get to talk to real life Harvard perfessors. I'm just some dumb antipodean who is twice your age and never once been able to interpret a news broadcast without resorting to the Readers Digest version. >Describing Iran as a democracy is, generously, a misnomer. Why, thank you. I pride myself on my evil generosity. > Some > relatively powerless elected officials do not a democracy make. Know what you mean. I've voted a coupla times and look at what we've ended up with. A government that trades with enemies of the US and complains about thoroughly thought out US trade policies. Australians are E>V>I>L. > After all, > it's the Ayatollahs who have total control of the society. Iranian > dissidents are regularly arrested, tortured, and executed. The democratic > forces have little or no real power in their society. That > doesn't meet any > sort of definition of democracy that _I'm_ aware of. Course, it IS more than just having the vote, you have to stop being E>V>I>L, too. > Nowhere in the above three paragraphs have you made > an argument as to why President Bush's careful rhetorical distinguishment > between the Iranian theocrats and reformers will not serve to > strengthen the > reformers. Quite right. I only read the headline, as usual. When it said Axis of Evil, well obviously I had to then place Iraq as Hitler, but then I got confused. I suppose Iran, being somewhere near the Hitler character must be Mussolini and Korea, being way away over eastwards must be the Hirohito one but they haven't invaded China yet and it all got too hard so I stopped listening to "President Bush's careful rhetorical distinguishment" > But - as I've argued repeatedly - the Middle East isn't > filled with people who believe that when you are nice to them they should > compromise with you. Arafat, Hussein, and the Iranian theocrats > think that > appeasing them is a sign of weakness. If we point them out _as what they > are_ - evil dictators suppressing the just desires for freedom of their > people - we are far more likely to strengthen the liberals than > we are if we > _strengthen_ the current Iranian dictatorship. > Yes, my mistake. And there's nothing more likely to strengthen Iran's democratic movement than to send in the US Marines, Navy and "the Yair Force" as old Andy G used to say. Is that one neutron bomb or two? > > Gautam: > I'll listen to people if they have good arguments. But I'm not going to > listen to appeasers and people whose ideas have been completely > discredited > by world events. I promise I'll listen harder and try and come up to speed with those world events you keep talking about. But, they all happen so far away and really, the ideas I've been using are the best I've been able to come up with. I guess I'll just have to go buy some new ones. > We've tried your way of doing things for far too long. > Now it's time to do things differently. I'm sorry. Even though I'm E>V>I>L I tried but it just wasn't good enough. I'm in my place now and it's your turn to do things different. > As for the Turkish issue - it is > worth noting that the Turkish government _supports_ the United > States in its > efforts to topple Saddam, and has publicly stated that it will back us. Look, I've already said how silly I've been and if the Turks want to get rid of some maniac in their south who am I to disagree? > Now, I think that the Turkish government is more capable of assessing its > Kurdish problem than Jeroen is. Oh, yes, so they are. Silly me again. After all, the Turks have been fixing their Kurdish problem since, what, Saladin, wasn't it? I'm glad they've got you to help them because I'm sure this time it'll work. Now, what was it in that silly book, 1066 and All That? Ah yes: Wars to Amuse Queen Victoria. 10. Zulu Wars. Reason. Zulus. Zulus exterminated. Peace with Zulus. > The southern Shi'ites get their support > from Iran now. When we're in the game, they won't need that any > more, will > they? > No, quite right. They'll be helped by the US so why would they need any help at all from, well, anyone? They'll be able to get all those lovely aircraft and ships at absolutely no cost whatsoever to themselves, just like we did. > Why on earth do you think that a government that has, in the past, killed > hundreds, if not thousands, of civilians around the world in > terrorist acts > will somehow decide that it's time to be nice? I'm confused again. If I was to follow my old E>V>I>L ways I'd ask which government are we talking about (I'm confused again by all this moral stuff). Can't be El Salvador's Contras because Ollie didn't give them anything. Can't be Angola's unita because they never got anything from America either. Anyway, that'd be passive aggressive stuff and not worthy of the tone of your enlightening emails to me and the rest of us unfortunate non-Americans and especially appeasers and E>V>I>L people like me. > The way to do that is to show it that there are > consequences - real ones - for sponsoring terrorism and > interfering with us > in our current actions. In fact we _already_ have results - the Iranian > government has rounded up hundreds of members of Al Qa'eda, as has been > reported publicly. > So President Bush's way of doing things seems to be > working. We're not antagonizing Iran. Of course not. They should be honoured that you are recognising them in the Axis thing. Iran's the Mussolini one, aren't they? I mean, how honoured can you get? Antagonised? Psshhhhaaaww! Silly Iranians. Silly Brett. >We're making it very > clear that the > rules of the game have changed, and we will not allow what before we did. > 3000 dead Americans have taught us the dangers of ignoring attacks on > Americans. The Iranian theocrats don't have the option of acting as they > have in the past. The knowledge of _that_ fact is what will allow the > reformers to triumph in Iran in the end, if anything can. Yes, the rules have changed. Alas, I could not until you sent this wonderful email to me. I'll just go back to my crayons to keep writing out the error of my ways. Yours, most humbly and in deep penitence. Brett
