Thanx to everybody that offered to look for a link
whether Israel used/not used some strange gas on Palestinian population. I'll try to ask people around for more information. Thanx again. Ilana ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
An Indian state bans religious conversion
http://infobrix.yellowbrix.com/pages/infobrix/Story.nsp?story_id=37639013; ID=infobrixscategory=Business+and+Finance Indian state legislature adopts law banning coerced religious Source: Associated Press Publication date: 2003-03-26 AHMADABAD, India (AP) -- An Indian state legislature on Wednesday approved a law that would impose a three-year jail term and a fine of 100,000 rupees (US$2,100) on anyone found guilty of inducing or coercing someone into religious conversion. The jail term would be four years if those forced to convert were minors, women or people belonging to the lowest castes in western Gujarat state. The legislation will become a state law after it is approved by the federally appointed state governor -- seen as a mere formality. Hindu hard-liners contend such laws are needed to combat what they say is a Western conspiracy to undermine India's majority Hindu faith. They accuse Christian missionaries of tempting poor tribal people and low-caste Hindus to convert by offering them jobs and money. Christians, who make up 2.4 percent of India's 1.02 billion people, fear the governing Bharatiya Janata Party plans to interfere with their constitutional right to propagate their faith. They say no one can force or pay someone to make a spiritual decision. ``We think that this legislation is likely to be abused by the government to harass the minorities,'' said Cedric Prakash, convener of the United Church Forum for Human Rights. Since its landslide victory in December's legislative elections, the governing Bharatiya Janata Party has been pressing for the law. It says that a person organizing conversions must have permission from the top district administrator, and the person who changes religions must also inform the administrator. Christians have traditionally run schools and hospitals across India and there are fears among them that providing medical aid or education could be construed as an ``inducement'' to convert. Many Hindus attend Christian schools. In 1999 there was a surge of violence against Christians in India. More than 50 prayer halls and churches were burned in Gujarat, Orissa and Bihar states, and an Australian missionary and his two young sons were burned to death in their jeep by a Hindu mob. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Real Science - The Core?
My guess is that this guy didn't actually see the movie. Maybe this guy thinks that the earths core is clear liquid as it was portrayed in the movie? = = = = begin article = = = = At the Heart of The Core The Real Scientific Theories Behind the Latest Sci-Fi Film Herndon, who laid out his theory in Discover Magazine in 2002, believes the premise of The Core is more science than fiction. He says the center of the Earth is essentially a gigantic, natural nuclear reactor that could, at any time, suddenly stop working. The magazine and other geologists called Herndon's theory revolutionary and, if true, the biggest breakthrough in the study of geophysics since the discovery of plate tectonics. http://makeashorterlink.com/?W27332704 or http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/Entertainment/techtv_coremoviesci ence030331.html __ Gary L. Nunn Delaware Ohio If you are going to walk on thin ice, you may as well dance. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: SCOUTED: Are we doomed yet?
The problem..is that the current goverments show no sign of willing to give up their strangehold on some technologies. And the US government has reacted - brilliantly if not to everyones tastes - in making 9/11 the springboard for ALL kinds of laws. A codified constitution...limits as much as it protects. I refer you to the, for example, the fact that VPN's and NAT are ALLREADY illegal in several US states. There are a lot of people in the USA which have the opinion that everybody should allowed to posses and carry guns, because that is what freedom means. No, I do not want to discuss this topic, but it seems that in a few years the only kind of freedom which remains in the USA will be to carry guns... - Klaus ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Snap Judgements
Snap Judgments By WILLIAM SAFIRE http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/31/opinion/31SAFI.html WASHINGTON I never made it higher than corporal, but it doesn't take a military genius to figure out the strategy when you have air supremacy: break the back of the enemy's armor and its infantry before your big ground assault. A month's bombing worked in the last gulf war and a couple of weeks should degrade the Iraqi Army again. Here is a baker's dozen of my snap judgments about this war: 1. Best gamble: jumping our guns a few days early in a daring bid to win all at once. Our air strike to kill Saddam and his gang may not have succeeded, but failing to try on the basis of a sleeper spy's tip would have been a great mistake. 2. Biggest diplomatic mistake: trusting the new Islamist government of Turkey. This misplaced confidence denied us an opening pincers movement and shocked the awesomeness out of rapid dominance. 3. Best evidence of Saddam's weakness: his reliance on suicide bombers for media victories. Individual self-destruction may or may not terrorize a civilian population but is not a weapon capable of inflicting decisive casualties on, or striking fear into, a powerful army. (It does vividly demonstrate the Baghdad-terrorist nexus.) 4. Most stunning surprise: the degree of intimidation of Shiites in southern cities by Saddam's son Uday's Gestapo. When Basra falls, however, fierce retribution on these thuggish enforcers by local Shia may send a message of uprising to co-religionists who make up a third of Baghdad's populace. 5. Most effective turnaround of longtime left-wing lingo: Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's labeling of Uday's paramilitaries as death squads. 6. Most profound statement from a military leader: Gen. Tommy Franks, refuting criticism of a pause in the ground war, said, We have the power to be patient. 7. Most overdue revelation by the Pentagon: that Russia has long been smuggling sophisticated arms to Saddam's regime with Syria's hostile connivance. Who suppressed this damning data for a year, and to what end? And is the C.I.A. still ignorant of the transmission to Iraq through Syria of a key component in rocket propellant from China, brokered by France? 8. Most inexplicable weakness of our intelligence and air power: the inability to locate and obliterate all of Saddam's TV propaganda facilities. 9. Biggest long-run victory of coalition forces to date: the lightning seizure of southern oil fields before Saddam had a chance to ignite them. This underappreciated tactical triumph will speed Iraq's postwar reconstruction by at least a year. 10. Worst mistake as a result of State and C.I.A. interference with military planning: fearing to offend the Turks, we failed to arm 70,000 free Kurdish pesh merga in northern Iraq. Belatedly, we are giving Kurds the air, commando and missile support to drive Ansar-Qaeda terrorists out of a stronghold, but better planning would have given us a trained, indigenous force on the northern front. 11. Best military briefer: General Franks is less of a showman than the last war's bombastic Norman Schwarzkopf, but his low-key deputy, Lt. Gen. John Abizaid, is Franks's secret information weapon. Since Abizaid speaks fluent Arabic, why doesn't he hold a cool news conference with angry Arab journalists? 12. Most inspiring journalism: embedding is almost-full disclosure that puts Americans in close contact with local conflict, but the greatest war correspondent of this generation is not attached to any unit. He is John Burns of The Times, who is reporting with great insight, accuracy and courage from Baghdad and makes me proud to work on the same newspaper. (Among TV anchors, a lesser calling, the best organized are MSNBC's John Seigenthaler, CNN's Paula Zahn and Wolf Blitzer, and Fox's Tony Snow.) 13. Greatest wartime mysteries: What tales of special-ops derring-do await the telling? Who, in the fog of peace, will honor Iraqis inside Baghdad spotting military targets to save civilians? Will we learn first-hand of the last days of Saddam in his Hitlerian bunker? What scientists, murdered lest they point the way to germs and poison gases, left incriminating documents behind? Where are the secret files of Saddam's Mukhabarat, detailing the venal transactions with Western, Asian, Arab and Persian political and business leaders and connections to world terror networks? Snap judgments, these. Considered conclusions come after unconditional surrender. = --- John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. -George W. Bush 1/29/03 __ Do you Yahoo!?
Jpeg Question
Hi All, I sent my Dad the picture of the camera-toting dolphin, and he reports: Don't know why but I can no longer see any jpg files. They come out all fuzzy. Not sure why. Any ideas? I'm clueless, but I'm hoping that maybe somebody here might have an idea. JDG = --- John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. -George W. Bush 1/29/03 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Halliburton
I'd just like to note that after a recent discussion in which a couple list-members got all pissy at the suggestion that they would not post articles to this list about students being prohibited from wearing pro-life T-Shirts at school that I am absolutely shocked, *shocked* I tell you, that nobody has forwarded this news item to the List so far JDG Halliburton out of the running Dick Cheney's former employer won't have lead role in reconstructing Iraq March 31, 2003: 7:15 AM EST http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/28/news/companies/Halliburton/index.htm NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Halliburton, the energy and construction company once run by Vice President Dick Cheney, is no longer in the running for a $600 million contract to rebuild post-war Iraq, according to the United States Agency for International Development. The development is likely to spare Cheney, who was Halliburton's CEO from 1995-2000, and the Bush administration from conflict-of-interest criticism. A spokesperson for USAID, Ellen Yount, said there are two remaining firms bidding on the contract. No decision has been made on who will be awarded it, she said. Halliburton, which declined to comment, could still be awarded a sub-contractor role. Newsweek reported that it was unclear whether Halliburton took itself out of the running for the contract, was asked by the Bush administration to do so, or whether its bid was simply not deemed competitive. Post-war Iraq will require massive rebuilding centered on reconstructing oil wells. The work will also include emergency repair of electrical supply facilities, water and sanitation systems, roads and bridges, public buildings such as hospitals and schools, irrigation structures and ports. Newsweek reported that a Cheney spokeswoman, Cathie Martin, said the vice president hadn't even heard that Halliburton would not be awarded the reconstruction contract and added, The vice president has nothing to do with these contracts. Cheney sold his Halliburton shares when he re-entered politics as Bush's running mate. He held on to some options, but promised to donate all profits to charity. Timothy Beans, the chief acquisition officer for the U.S. Agency for International Development, would not identify the final bidders on the contract, the weekly magazine said. Halliburton has won one Iraq-related job. The company's Kellogg Brown Root unit this week was awarded a contract by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to put out oil fires and make emergency repairs to Iraq's oil infrastructure. Halliburton wouldn't speculate about the deal's monetary value. Shares of Dallas-based Halliburton (HAL: Research, Estimates) fell 6 cents to $21.44 Friday. Halliburton Out of the Running The construction firm once run by Dick Cheney wont get a big Iraq contract By Michael Hirsh NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE http://www.msnbc.com/news/892259.asp March 28 After taking some political heat, Halliburton is stepping out of the kitchen. The giant energy and construction firm once managed by Vice President Dick Cheney is no longer in the running for a $600 million rebuilding contract in postwar Iraq, NEWSWEEK has learned. TIMOTHY BEANS, THE chief acquisition officer for the U.S. Agency for International Development, said in an interview that Halliburton is not one of the two finalists to be prime contractor for the reconstruction of Iraq, though the Houston-based firm could take part as a subcontractor. The contract is to be awarded next week. Halliburton was one of five large U.S. companies that the Bush administration asked in mid-February to bid on the 21-month contract, which involves the reconstruction of Iraqs critical infrastructure, including roads, bridges and hospitals, after the war. But the administration has come under increasingly strident criticism abroad and at the United Nations for offering postwar contracts only to U.S. companies. Many of the questions have been raised about Halliburton, which Cheney headed from 1995 until 2000. On Monday, the U.S. Army announced it had awarded a contract to extinguish oil fires and restore oil infrastructure in Iraq to Halliburtons Kellogg, Brown Root engineering and construction division. Rep. Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, later sent a letter to Lt. Gen. Robert Flowers, commander of the Army Corps of Engineers, questioning why other oil-service companies had not been allowed to bid. Allegations of a too-close-for-comfort relationship with corporate America have long dogged Cheney and other Bush administration officials, as well as insiders. On Thursday, leading hawk Richard Perle stepped down as chairman of the Defense Policy Board, a Pentagon panel of unpaid outside advisers, after congressional Democrats raised questions about his relationship with Global Crossing, a telecom firm that had sought his assistance in winning government approval for a deal with an Asian conglomerate. Cheneys
Don't Go Back to the UN
While I find many of these arguments persuasive, I just can't envision a proces by which the formation of a successor organization to the UN occurs. For this to happen, many countries need to become disillusioned by the UN, and so far I don't see that happening. The United States remains somewhat unique in the world in having seen how broken the UN is before everyone else. JDG Don't Go Back to the U.N. By Charles Krauthammer Friday, March 21, 2003; Page A37 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1196-2003Mar20.html Don't go back, Mr. President. You walked away from the United Nations at great cost and with great courage. Don't go back. No one knows when this war will end. But when it does, you'll have to decide the terms. Yet in the past few days both you and Tony Blair have said you will seek a new U.N. resolution, postwar, providing for the governance of Iraq. Why in God's name would we want to re-empower the French in deciding the postwar settlement? Why would we want to grant them influence over the terms, the powers, the duration of an occupation bought at the price of American and British blood? France, Germany and Russia did everything they could to sabotage your policy before the war. Will they want to see it succeed after the war? The Frankfurter Allgemeine reports that on Feb. 21, Germany's U.N. ambassador, Gunter Pleuger, wrote his Foreign Ministry that the United States, blocked on a U.N. war resolution and fighting alone, would later remorsefully return to the council to seek help in rebuilding Iraq. That is their game. Why should we play into it? And why return the issue to Kofi Annan, who had the audacity to declare the war illegitimate because it is supported by only 17 U.N. resolutions and not 18? Mr. President, we lost at the United Nations. Badly. But that signal defeat had one significant side benefit. For the first time, Americans got to see what the United Nations truly is. The experience has been bracing. The result has been an enormous and salutary shift in American public opinion. You've seen the polls: Seventy-five percent of Americans disapprove of how the United Nations handled the situation with Iraq. In December, polls showed a majority of Americans opposed to a war without U.N. backing. Today, after the U.N. debacle, 71 percent support the war regardless. What happened? Americans finally had a look inside the sausage factory. Their image of the United Nations as a legitimating institution had always been deeply sentimental, based on the United Nations of their youth -- UNICEF, refugee help, earthquake assistance. A global Mother Teresa. That's what they thought of the United Nations, and that's why they held it in esteem and cared about what it said. Now they know that it is not UNICEF collection boxes but a committee of cynical, resentful, ex-imperial powers such as France and Russia serving their own national interests -- and delighting in frustrating America's -- without the slightest reference to the moral issues at stake. The American public understands that this is not a body with which to entrust American values or American security. On Sept. 12, 2002, you gave the United Nations a fair test: Act like a real instrument for collective security or die like the League of Nations. The United Nations failed spectacularly. The American people saw it. And the American people are now with you in leaving the United Nations behind. Why resurrect it after the war? When not destructive, as on Iraq, it is useless, as on North Korea. China has blocked the Security Council from even meeting to deal with North Korea's brazen nuclear breakout. On this one, the Security Council wants the United States to unilaterally engage North Korea -- this amid daily excoriations of the United States for unilateralism. The hypocrisy is stunning. But the deeper issue is that the principal purpose of the Security Council is not to restrain tyrants but to restrain the United States. The Security Council is nothing more than the victory coalition of 1945. That was six decades ago. Let a new structure be born out of the Iraq coalition. Maybe it will acquire a name, maybe it won't. But it is this coalition of freedom -- led by the United States and Britain and about 30 other nations, including such moderate Arab states as Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar -- that should set and institutionalize the terms for postwar Iraq. Not the Security Council. If we're going to negotiate terms, it should be with allies who helped us, who share our vision and our purposes. Not with France, Germany, Russia and China, which see us -- you -- as the threat, and whose singular purpose will be to subvert any victory. There were wars and truces and treaties before the United Nations was created -- as there will be after its demise. No need to formally leave the organization, Mr. President. Just ignore it. Without us, it will wither away. Fighting a war and rebuilding Iraq are tasks enough,
Re: Jpeg Question
At 06:19 AM 3/31/2003 -0800, you wrote: Hi All, I sent my Dad the picture of the camera-toting dolphin, and he reports: Don't know why but I can no longer see any jpg files. They come out all fuzzy. Not sure why. Any ideas? I'm clueless, but I'm hoping that maybe somebody here might have an idea. JDG Have them sent back to you. Where did you get them from, could he view the original himself? If you did a right click - save file as - jpg on a web page, did you look at it? Maybe you saved it bad. Kevin T. - VRWC sick day ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: when schools preach the bible and morals
At 10:34 PM 3/30/03 -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: This theory actually dovetails with part of His essay on Neotany: the elk-man would lack any of these sensitivity alleles [SS], the swan-man would be heterozygous [Ss], and the gay would be homozygous recessive [ss]. Although there might be several genes that contribute - frex 'sensitivity,' 'tenderness,' and 'empathy,' so that a range of elk = swan = gay exists. Don't Forget 'Color Coordination' Maru ;) Hey, as long as you've got a good eye for *line*, that's what *really* matters. Anything that can be done nicely in black will look good on a certain portion of the population ;) Isn't the standard Afghani burqa black? Julia who looks good in black No Comment Maru -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
More Details on Overtime
After further review, it appears that the Bush plan will produce a net increase of 660,000 workers covered under overtime laws. Moreover, the excluded workers will come primarily from such highly-paid, upper-middle-class to rich-class professions as engineers and pharmacists. Perhaps most importantly, it significantly simplifies the regulations which will make application *and* _enforcement_ much easier in the future. In other words, this action by Bush is pro-worker, pro-Union, and pro-40 hour work week, and the hysterical opposition of the AFL-CIO to this is positively shameful. JDG BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, DAILY REPORT, FRIDAY, MARCH 28, 2003 For the first time in half a century, federal regulations proposed Thursday by the Labor Department could drastically change which workers qualify for overtime wages. Nearly 22 million Americans could be affected by new definitions of white and blue collar workers. The changes could cost businesses $870 million to $1.57 billion. The largest impact would be felt by lower-income workers and highly compensated, professional employees. For the first time, employers would be required to pay overtime to as many as 1.3 million lower-income workers who put in more than 40 hours a week. But 640,000 white-collar professionals who now are required to get overtime, such as some engineers and pharmacists, would lose it. (USA TODAY, page B1) . Posted 3/26/2003 9:17 PM http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-03-26-overtime-pay_x.htm Plan would extend low-income overtime pay WASHINGTON (AP) As many as 1.3 million low-income workers would be eligible for overtime pay for the first time in a proposed overhaul of decades-old labor regulations being released Thursday by the Bush administration. But in a trade-off, about 640,000 white-collar workers such as engineers, insurance claims adjusters and pharmacists who now receive overtime pay could lose it, The Associated Press has learned. The changes being proposed by the Labor Department are confined to a section of the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act that defines blue-collar and white-collar workers, and determines who must be paid an hourly rate of time-and-a-half for working beyond 40 hours a week. About 110 million workers are covered by the regulations, which have not been updated in 28 years. It is just one of several changes the administration is pursuing to workplace regulations and programs, including the Family Medical Leave Act, job training programs and unemployment insurance. The overtime proposal is subject to a 90-day public comment period. Final regulations probably will not take effect until late this year or early in 2004. Business groups long have complained that the complex rules, which contain outdated job descriptions and salary levels, require overtime pay for already well-compensated and highly skilled professionals. A surge in overtime pay lawsuits aimed at employers also is a concern. But employers could face $334 million to $895 million in direct payroll costs for the 1.3 million low-wage workers estimated to become eligible for overtime pay in the proposal. Overall, businesses could face costs of $870 million to $1.57 billion to put the changes in place. The benefits of increased productivity and fewer lawsuits could amount to savings of $1.1 billion to $1.9 billion, said Tammy McCutchen, administrator of the Labor Department's wage and hour division. Our proposal has attempted to simplify and update, to make those rules easier to apply and easier to enforce, McCutchen said. The current regulations are 31,000 words. The proposed replacement is 13,000 words, she said. Easy, clear rules mean employees will understand when they're entitled to overtime, employers will know what their obligations are and the Department of Labor will be able to more vigorously enforce the law. Union officials have said they would oppose any changes that would cause longer work weeks, because required overtime pay is the only brake stopping many employers from demanding excessive work hours. We're concerned that these rules could weaken the tradition of the 40-hour work week, said Kathy Roeder, spokeswoman for the AFL-CIO, which hadn't seen the proposal Wednesday night. Workers now are exempt from overtime pay if they earn more than $155 a week, or $8,060 a year, and meet other convoluted, confusing job criteria, such as devoting at least 80% of their time to exercising discretion and other intellectual tasks that cannot be standardized in ... a given period of time. Employees who work under collective bargaining agreements negotiated by unions will not be affected by any changes. Also, companies still can choose to pay overtime to exempt workers. The proposal would raise the salary cap to $425 a week, or $22,100 a year, and any worker earning less automatically would be required to receive overtime pay. Jobs most affected by the changes likely would be assistant
Re: when schools preach the bible and morals
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 10:34 PM 3/30/03 -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: This theory actually dovetails with part of His essay on Neotany: the elk-man would lack any of these sensitivity alleles [SS], the swan-man would be heterozygous [Ss], and the gay would be homozygous recessive [ss]. Although there might be several genes that contribute - frex 'sensitivity,' 'tenderness,' and 'empathy,' so that a range of elk = swan = gay exists. Don't Forget 'Color Coordination' Maru ;) Hey, as long as you've got a good eye for *line*, that's what *really* matters. Anything that can be done nicely in black will look good on a certain portion of the population ;) Isn't the standard Afghani burqa black? Yeah, but there's not a whole lot you can do with *line* on that. It's relatively shapeless. Now, a dress that's tight down to the waist, and then flares out, that's something more along the lines of what I was thinking. Julia who looks good in black No Comment Maru The great thing about it is that between Labor Day and Memorial Day, if I have to go to something somewhat formal in the evening other than a wedding, all I have to have is, say, 3 different black dresses, and *one* of them will do nicely, and mixing and matching accessories gives me a number of different looks. No other color is quite that flexible. Well, maybe red, but I don't look so good in red Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Real Science - The Core?
At 07:02 AM 3/31/03 -0500, Gary L. Nunn wrote: My guess is that this guy didn't actually see the movie. Maybe this guy thinks that the earths core is clear liquid as it was portrayed in the movie? Of course it is. After all, all the extra water from the Flood (which, if it covered Everest would be about 3.7 times the current volume of all the Earth's oceans, enough to make a sphere some 1300 miles in diameter) had to drain to _somewhere_ . . . -- Ronn! :) Professional Smart-Aleck. Do Not Attempt. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: SCOUTED: Are we doomed yet?
At 06:27 AM 3/31/03 +0100, Andrew Crystall wrote: I refer you to the, for example, the fact that VPN's and NAT are ALLREADY illegal in several US states. VPN's? NAT? Too bad that the use of unexplained acronyms isn't similarly prohibited . . . Yes I Looked For Them In The Article Maru -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Snap Judgements
JDG wrote: 3. Best evidence of Saddam's weakness: his reliance on suicide bombers for media victories. Individual self-destruction may or may not terrorize a civilian population but is not a weapon capable of inflicting decisive casualties on, or striking fear into, a powerful army. (It does vividly demonstrate the Baghdad-terrorist nexus.) This is the key point of Saddam strategy, that is based on the principle that USA soldiers and civilians are wimps, and will bail out whenever the death toll becomes too big. This is also why I expect that captured soldiers will be tortured to death and their bodies shown in tv.iq, in order to raise fear in the enemy. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: when schools preach the bible and morals
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Hey, as long as you've got a good eye for *line*, that's what *really* matters. Anything that can be done nicely in black will look good on a certain portion of the population ;) Isn't the standard Afghani burqa black? Just thought of something. Since it covers *everything*, it doesn't matter if you look good in it or not, because your coloring isn't going to *matter*. There are people who don't look good in black because of the exact shade of their skin color. But if you're a Western woman who looks good in black and is going to be showing off enough skin to make that apparent (and it doesn't take a lot), you can always buy something whose color will work on you (because black never really goes out of style) and then you just have to worry about style, cut, etc. And that's where the fun in selection is (and where the fun in design probably is). Julia who also looks good in some greens, blues and purples, but sometimes there isn't a good shade of any of those in style that season ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: SCOUTED: Are we doomed yet?
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 06:27 AM 3/31/03 +0100, Andrew Crystall wrote: I refer you to the, for example, the fact that VPN's and NAT are ALLREADY illegal in several US states. VPN's? NAT? Too bad that the use of unexplained acronyms isn't similarly prohibited . . . I don't know about NAT, but VPN is Virtual Private Network. I'll wait and see if someone else will *explain* that one before I attempt, because I'm a little hazy on a few of the details. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: when schools preach the bible and morals
At 10:13 AM 3/31/2003 -0600, you wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 10:34 PM 3/30/03 -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: This theory actually dovetails with part of His essay on Neotany: the elk-man would lack any of these sensitivity alleles [SS], the swan-man would be heterozygous [Ss], and the gay would be homozygous recessive [ss]. Although there might be several genes that contribute - frex 'sensitivity,' 'tenderness,' and 'empathy,' so that a range of elk = swan = gay exists. Don't Forget 'Color Coordination' Maru ;) Hey, as long as you've got a good eye for *line*, that's what *really* matters. Anything that can be done nicely in black will look good on a certain portion of the population ;) Isn't the standard Afghani burqa black? Yeah, but there's not a whole lot you can do with *line* on that. It's relatively shapeless. Now, a dress that's tight down to the waist, and then flares out, that's something more along the lines of what I was thinking. Julia who looks good in black Blue Oyster Cult agrees.* Kevin T. - VRWC *Just making a comment about a song from my almost favorite band. I'm not trying to imply anything, from the lyrics: I`d like to see you in black, It`d make me feel like your husband`s dead. You can`t lie to me, Ann, You can`t pretend he`s not beating you up, I say the marks on your hand, I saw the blood on your coffee cup. It's a good song, honest! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jpeg Question
At 06:19 AM 3/31/03 -0800, J.D. Giorgis wrote: Hi All, I sent my Dad the picture of the camera-toting dolphin, and he reports: Don't know why but I can no longer see any jpg files. They come out all fuzzy. Not sure why. Any ideas? Avoiding the obvious wisecracks about new glasses . . . I'm clueless, but I'm hoping that maybe somebody here might have an idea. The obvious first question is: what if anything has been changed on the computer since the last time it worked properly? (Is it possible anyone else has done something with the computer without his knowledge?) The second question, then, is what hardware and software is he using, and has he tried viewing the files with a different program or on a different computer? Is the problem only with .jpg files? Frex, how do .gif, .bmp, or .tif files look on the machine? How about simple text? -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: SCOUTED: Are we doomed yet?
At 10:28 AM 3/31/03 -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 06:27 AM 3/31/03 +0100, Andrew Crystall wrote: I refer you to the, for example, the fact that VPN's and NAT are ALLREADY illegal in several US states. VPN's? NAT? Too bad that the use of unexplained acronyms isn't similarly prohibited . . . I don't know about NAT, but VPN is Virtual Private Network. Thanks. From the context, I figured N = Network, but none of the ideas I had for V and P made much sense. (Video Pirate Networks? Video P_rn Networks?) -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: SCOUTED: Are we doomed yet?
VPN's? Virtual Private Network. For allowing communication between computers. Unlike a real Private Network, where only the allowed computers are (physically) connected, a VPN shares the physical transport medium with other computers. Usually, a VPN is used to connect different computers of a company via the internet (instead of dedicated cables which belong to/are rented by the company). To make sure that the data which is exchange remains undisclosed to others, the communication uses cryptography. Although everybody who has has access to the internet nodes where the information goes through can record the data, he cannot make any sense out of it (unless he manages to break the encryption). Therefore a VPN is as safe (or even safer!) than digging up the ground and building an own network. NAT? Network Address Translation. When connecting to a network, a computer uses an unique address which makes it recognizable. This address can be static (never changes) or dynamically assigned. A computer which uses a dial-up connection to the internet usually gets assigned a new IP address every time it connects. Since the internet service providers (ISPs) keep logs about which user had which address at which time and date, it is possible to find out the identity of a user from IP address and date and time. When accessing a server on the internet, the current IP address of the requesting machine is sent to the target server, so it knows where to the send the result of the request (for example, a web page). Very often, this information is recorded by the servers themselves, but logs can also be kept by the nodes where the information goes through when traversing the internet (when accessing some server on the internet, the data passes though multiple machines until it reaches the desired destination). This means that there is no such thing a anonymous accessing of servers on the internet. Of course one will need to have both the access logs AND the help of the ISP which is responsible for the IP adress which was used to make the accesses in question. It is reasonable to assume that the ISPs will not give this information to everybody who just asks, of course. With NAT things look a bit different. NAT means that your PC has some IP address like usual, but it is not disclosed to the target machine. It works by connecting though a anonyminizing proxy server. For example, if you request a www page, the request is sent to the proxy server. The proxy server then requests the page from the target machine, but with it's own IP address as a return address. When it receives the answer from the target machine, it relays it back to your machine. The proxy server keeps a table of open requests and the real IP addresses where the answers have to go to. A proxy server is typicially used by numerous user simulatneously. Of course, a proxy server can also keep logs of the connections, which would mean that all connections could be tracked again. But NAT is not primarily for obscuring one's real IP address. It is also used to connet internal networks to the internet or for internet connection sharing (ICS, such a thing is also built-in in Windows 2000 and XP). Many companies have internal networks with non-public IP adresses. These IP addresses are NOT used on the internet (and they are not unique worldwide...but since they are restricted to the internal network of the company, that does not matter. BTW, company can also mean family here, using Windows ICS in a home network works the same). Advantage of these non-public ip addresses is: a company does not need occupy several of the limited global IP addresses and the computers in the internal network are way harder to attack from the outside - they simply cannot be reached since their addresses are not allowed on the internet. When such a cimputer does a request on the internet, it asks the proxy to do so and the proxy does it with it's own address, again keeping track of the original internal IP address of the requesting machine. Bad luck for law enforcement agancies, as they see only that someone at company XYZ did request a page with questionable content, but if the NAT proxy of the company did not record any information about these connections, it could have been any of the employees. So, NAT is like using a public payphone, no NAT is using like one's personal mobile phone (these are usually as personal items as one's internet account). - Klaus ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jpeg Question
Don't know why but I can no longer see any jpg files. They come out all fuzzy. Not sure why. Any ideas? I'm clueless, but I'm hoping that maybe somebody here might have an idea. JPEGs come in two variations, normal and progressive. Normal JPEGs are loaded linearily, while progressive JPEGs start out with a full-size low resolution (blurred) image, which gets sharper over time as the computer continues to load it from the internet. If the connection to the internet unstable or very havily loaded, the loading process may stall or stop, leaving the picture blurred. - Klaus ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jpeg Question
On 31 Mar 2003 at 6:19, J.D. Giorgis wrote: Hi All, I sent my Dad the picture of the camera-toting dolphin, and he reports: Don't know why but I can no longer see any jpg files. They come out all fuzzy. Not sure why. Any ideas? I'm clueless, but I'm hoping that maybe somebody here might have an idea. Is he loading them in IE or another program? Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: king W's assault on the middle class
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] iaamoac wrote: First, let me say that you just have to be really skeptical about a press-release like this with few details and no links to see what the details of the actual policy are. I know that my internal spin- sensors went off with blinking lights when reading this, so I would definitely like to know the *rest* of the story, or at least the other side of it. This is the same organization, after all, that opposed a Republican plan in the Senate to extend the same flexitime rules enjoyed by federal employees to private-sector employees the day it was introduced. Sometimes I think that if Bush supported implementation of the Federal Employee's Pay Comparability Act (FEPCA - which would produce roughly a 20% raise for Feds) that they would still find a way to oppose it, just because it was Bush doing the proposing... I posted a URL to an article about it sometime last week. I just checked that URL, and you can't get to it anymore without paid access to that site's archives. Quoting the article in the Austin American Statesman that inspired me to look for a similar article that I was *hoping* would be more permanent than I knew it would be: http://www.austin360.com/auto_docs/epaper/editions/friday/news_5.html (URL will be good until Friday, April 4) Overtime pay would be mandatory for low-wage workers snip White-collar professionals would take a hit in their paychecks. Generally, workers would be exempt from overtime in the new rules if they manage more than two employees and have the authority to hire and fire, This is dangerous part: or if they have an advanced degree or similar training and work in a specialized field, or work in the operations, finance and auditing areas of a company. This alone will affect millions of people with 2 and 4 year degrees, who no matter _what_ they are paid (above or below the limit), or where they work, and will no longer be able to recieve overtime. In addition to the people who don't have any degrees but do work in 'specialized' fields, etc. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: the three laws of robotis are evil, why they must beeradicated
From: Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] While discussing the Foundation and Robots Trilogy in one Asimov list, I suddenly saw myself justifying why it's ok to change Daneel from the God's Tool to the Galactic Evil Overlord. And then I had to think - and criticize - the Three Laws. And suddenly I realized this [that I sent to that list]: IMHO, the Three Laws are the most Evil thing Humanity has ever perpretrated in all the sf books I've ever read or movies I've watched. It's more evil than 1984's Big Brother, or the way anthropoids are treated in Planet of the Apes. It's absolutely Evil to create an intelligent slave race who is uncapable of even dreaming of becoming non-slave. Perhaps, but then the laws are actually designed for a different specific purpose, that is to prevent the robots from doing things like killing all humans, or becoming bloody dictators. The laws are to protect humans, not to harm robots. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: the three laws of robotis are evil, why they must beeradicated
On 31 Mar 2003 at 12:41, The Fool wrote: From: Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] While discussing the Foundation and Robots Trilogy in one Asimov list, I suddenly saw myself justifying why it's ok to change Daneel from the God's Tool to the Galactic Evil Overlord. And then I had to think - and criticize - the Three Laws. And suddenly I realized this [that I sent to that list]: IMHO, the Three Laws are the most Evil thing Humanity has ever perpretrated in all the sf books I've ever read or movies I've watched. It's more evil than 1984's Big Brother, or the way anthropoids are treated in Planet of the Apes. It's absolutely Evil to create an intelligent slave race who is uncapable of even dreaming of becoming non-slave. Perhaps, but then the laws are actually designed for a different specific purpose, that is to prevent the robots from doing things like killing all humans, or becoming bloody dictators. The laws are to protect humans, not to harm robots. Oh come on, I don't have to explain the differences between intent and effects to anyone here do I? Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: SCOUTED: Are we doomed yet?
On 31 Mar 2003 at 9:57, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 06:27 AM 3/31/03 +0100, Andrew Crystall wrote: I refer you to the, for example, the fact that VPN's and NAT are ALLREADY illegal in several US states. VPN's? NAT? Too bad that the use of unexplained acronyms isn't similarly prohibited . . . Virtual Private Network. It's used for say working from home - ypu make a VPN to the work computers. It's highly secure. Network Address Translation. Needed because there arn't enough IPv4 addresses for everyone and everything. All dial-up and some DSL ISP's (who give dynamic IP's) use NAT, or you might with a router to connect multiple computers to a broadband connection. Both fall in the home under obscuring the origion or destination of communications from the transit provider (ISP) Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Scouted: Iraq-o-meter
http://www.iraqometer.com/ Statistics on the Iraq war. _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Israel's Secret Weapon
From: Halupovich Ilana [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Israel's Secret Weapon Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:14:07 +0200 Jon wrote I think a more relevant question is whether or not Saddam Hussein will use chemical weapons against coalition forces when he realizes he's about to lose the war. He, unlike the Israelis, has shown that he has no compunction in using them against his enemies. (He used them against Iranian troops in the '80s.) I wrote You still are not getting it, don't you? :-( The question is, is he is going to use them against his own people and blame it on coalition forces. :-( Jon wrote I get it, but don't think that will be a particularly effective ploy. The US has declared for years that the only WMDs we have in our possession are nukes. We don't own or use chemical or biological weapons. Coalition force leaders have been repeating this on the news for the past two days, pointing out that the found cache of Iraqi gas masks wouldn't have been stockpiled protection against a coalition chemical attack. Also, he's scattered military hardware and troops in civilian areas. He might be cutting off his nose to spite his face if he gassed his own armies. That, of course, assumes that they aren't wearing protective gear. You are still thinking Western. :-( It's not if coalition forces will accept the blame on such a thing (and they will - at least blame for not preventing it), it's if Saddam thinks about this as effective tactics (and he does - he used human shields more than once) The point I was making was that whether or not Saddam thinks this is an effective tactic, it will not be believed that *we* did it by the world at large. Here I have a history question, because I learned that many things that I was taught in school about WWII were wrong - I was taught that Hitler flooded Berlin metro with all the people there to prevent Russian soldiers from getting to his bunker. Is this fact or another piece of propaganda? Flooded with gas or water? I have never heard of this, but my education wasn't detailed on Russian battles. Otto Gunsch has said on record that he burned Hitler's body in the bunker and then escaped through the Berlin metro. It is unlikely he could have done so if the Metro were flooded with water. If flooded with gas then he could have escaped. Also, Gunsch may not have been telling the truth. Given time, I can check my copy of The Rise and Fall of The Third Reich and see what it says. I will also search the net. Jon _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Iraq-o-meter
In a message dated 3/31/2003 1:00:12 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://www.iraqometer.com/ Statistics on the Iraq war. It left out number of reporters fired. William Taylor And what about separating civilian casualties into accidents and assassinations. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Iraqi civilians feed hungry US marines
Erik Reuter wrote: On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 10:10:21AM -0600, Robert Seeberger wrote: They told me they wanted to go to America after the war. I said where. They said California. I said why? They said the song Hotel California and they left singing Hotel California. I wonder if they really understood what the Eagles were singing about. You can check out but you can never leave... What *were* the Eagles signing about in that song? That line in particular has always puzzled me. But then, for a long time, I thought that when they were singing The warm smell of colitas they wre saying The warm smell of coitus (with an odd pronunciation of coitus). yuck! -bryon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Colitas
Learn something new every day: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_001.html BTW - not mentioned here is my friend's pet theory about Hotel California, which is that it is about divorce. JDG = --- John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. -George W. Bush 1/29/03 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Etiology of SARS Probably Identified
--- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: I really enjoyed the Dragonrider series, at least until some of the latest ones... snip And to put this slightly back on-topic: I wonder if viral vectors were used to insert the genes that changed fire-lizards into dragons? snip Go back over _Dragonsdawn_ and see if that answers your question about the dragons. :P I don't remember if she got _that_ detailed - I think that 'Kitty Ping' was either the geneticist or her grandaughter who mistakenly created the watchwhers, but I didn't enjoy the book enough to reread it. Debbi __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: the three laws of robotis are evil, why they must be eradicated
From: Alberto Monteiro Perhaps, but then the laws are actually designed for a different specific purpose, that is to prevent the robots from doing things like killing all humans, or becoming bloody dictators. The laws are to protect humans, not to harm robots. And my point is that this is the wrong approach. Once they become smart they will become lawyers and interpret the 'laws' any way they wish. Which is exactly what happens in Isaac's universe. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Saddam is not only polarizing the Arab nations...
At 08:42 2003-03-30 -0500, Dean wrote: On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:10:03 -0500, Jean-Louis Couturier wrote: I actually think that Chrétien has gone with his principles on this issue. He wants to have an actual 'international community' and believes the UN is the closest thing to getting one. You are probably right. As inconsistent as his comments have been, he has always stated support for the UN. I don't disagree with this, but it is a risk when you are looking at pissing off your closest trading partner. It does seem that we pissed them off, and frankly, I don't understand why. We have troops in Afghanistan sent there to relieve American troops need for Iraq. In the Persian Gulf, we have troops in Qatar as well as three ships escorting American ships. Even though we are officially staying out of the war, we are doing more than most countries who are a part of the Coalition. What worries me is that Cellucci's speech was approved by Ms Rice. If actions speak louder than words, there are some in the White House who aren't listening. - Canadian soldiers have already died under American bombs in Afghanistan. Perhaps there is a little fear of troops working under US air cover in Iraq when they will just be providing a token presence anyway I don't think so. If this was a reason, we'd hear a lot more about it. Just speculating here. I haven't heard Chretien strongly object to the US's position. In fact this week, he defended their right to proceed with this war. I have heard that the Canadian Navy is much more capable of integrating with US forces than the army. This might explain the naval presence in the Gulf while avoiding contributing ground forces. I can't read his mind but just staying out of their way might be a consideration. And speaking of public opinion. I am starting to wonder where this anti-war majority is in Canada. Most people I talk to and those I hear on talk radio consider it a necessary task and support the coalition forces. Of course, this depends on what channel you listen to. Let's just say that if you were in Québec, you'd have the opposite experience. Maybe you're in Alberta? Southern Ontario. This weekend, I heard a report on the effects of Cellucci's speech in Windsor and Detroit. I can imagine that since SO is a lot closer economically and geographically to the US, people there would be more on side with the Americans. I mean, even though we are technically close to the US, Platsburg is nowhere near the importance of Detroit or Buffalo: it doesn't even have an NHL franchise! What's really interesting about Quebec's position is that for once, there is no division based on language. The protest marches in Montreal had a large anglo contingent. Jean-Louis Alberta, the other secessionist province Probably predictable after the Kyoto debates, but it seems that that came out of nowhere. Then again, I don't always manage to stay on top of current politics. Dean It's been there for a while... During the death of the Meech Lake accords, there were reports all over the place describing how Canada would break up. in all of them, Alberta was the first to go after Quebec. That's 15 years ago. We're in the middle of an election campaign, and the PQ is in the lead. No seperation on the horizon, though, just some really cool new programs for parents. Jean-Louis Couturier ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Etiology of SARS Probably Identified
On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Deborah Harrell wrote: --- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: I really enjoyed the Dragonrider series, at least until some of the latest ones... snip And to put this slightly back on-topic: I wonder if viral vectors were used to insert the genes that changed fire-lizards into dragons? snip Go back over _Dragonsdawn_ and see if that answers your question about the dragons. :P I don't remember if she got _that_ detailed - I think that 'Kitty Ping' was either the geneticist or her grandaughter who mistakenly created the watchwhers, but I didn't enjoy the book enough to reread it. I might be able to look sometime before the end of the year Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Etiology of SARS Probably Identified
On 31 Mar 2003 at 13:26, Deborah Harrell wrote: --- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: I really enjoyed the Dragonrider series, at least until some of the latest ones... snip And to put this slightly back on-topic: I wonder if viral vectors were used to insert the genes that changed fire-lizards into dragons? snip Go back over _Dragonsdawn_ and see if that answers your question about the dragons. :P I don't remember if she got _that_ detailed - I think that 'Kitty Ping' was either the geneticist or her grandaughter who mistakenly created the watchwhers, but I didn't enjoy the book enough to reread it. The granddaughter after Kitti Ping's death. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Halliburton
--- J.D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd just like to note that after a recent discussion in which a couple list-members got all pissy at the suggestion that they would not post articles to this list about students being prohibited from wearing pro-life T-Shirts at school that I am absolutely shocked, *shocked* I tell you, that nobody has forwarded this news item to the List so far Halliburton out of the running Dick Cheney's former employer won't have lead role in reconstructing Iraq http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/28/news/companies/Halliburton/index.htm NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Halliburton, the energy and construction company once run by Vice President Dick Cheney, is no longer in the running for a $600 million contract to rebuild post-war Iraq... snip Halliburton, which declined to comment, could still be awarded a sub-contractor role...snip Halliburton has won one Iraq-related job. The company's Kellogg Brown Root unit this week was awarded a contract by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to put out oil fires and make emergency repairs to Iraq's oil infrastructure. Halliburton wouldn't speculate about the deal's monetary value... snip Halliburton Out of the Running The construction firm once run by Dick Cheney wont get a big Iraq contract NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE http://www.msnbc.com/news/892259.asp March 28 After taking some political heat, Halliburton is stepping out of the kitchen... snip ...But the administration has come under increasingly strident criticism abroad and at the United Nations for offering postwar contracts only to U.S. companies. Many of the questions have been raised about Halliburton, which Cheney headed from 1995 until 2000. On Monday, the U.S. Army announced it had awarded a contract to extinguish oil fires and restore oil infrastructure in Iraq to Halliburtons Kellogg, Brown Root engineering and construction division. Rep. Henry Waxman, a CA Democrat, later sent a letter to Lt. Gen. Robert Flowers, commander of the Army Corps of Engineers, questioning why other oil-service companies had not been allowed to bid...snip What remains unclear is whether Halliburton took itself out of the running for the contract, was asked by the Bush administration to do so or whether its bid was simply not deemed competitive... snip But a U.N. official who follows the issue told NEWSWEEK that the Iraq reconstruction contract probably wasnt worth the bad publicity for Halliburton, which depends on maintaining a favorable image both in Washington and the Arab world (where it gets much of its oil-related business, and where the war is increasingly unpopular)... snip The controversy over the awarding of the first postwar contracts only to U.S. companies is part of a larger ongoing issue of whether Iraqs transformation will be more U.S.-led or multilateral. snip USAID officials say the practical demands of rebuilding Iraq quickly, and the legal obligation they are under to favor U.S. firmsCongress wrote such aid-tying preferences into the lawhave drastically limited their choices. They point especially to the need for speed, which in turn requires security clearances; generally only U.S. companies have such clearances..snip Normally it would take us five to six months to get it done. They said youve got two months. Even big British construction firms like Costain and Balfour Beatty have not been asked to bid as prime contractors... snip Natsios says that in an effort to broaden the participants he has invoked a special provision of the law opening up subcontracts to friendly countries. He and other aid officials note that up to about 50 percent of the work is going to be subcontracted, as is happening in Afghanistan. As of yet, however, no foreign firms have been awarded even a subcontracting role in Iraq, USAID officials said. Last week, British cabinet minister Clare Short traveled to Washington and complained to Natsios and other administration officials about the contracting process. Beans said the wars slower-than-expected progress has at least one silver lining for him. Ive been under incredible pressure to get these things done, he said. The fact that theyve been slowed down a little bit has given me a little extra time. I appreciated the articles; I am a little confused about the opening comments, as the articles seemed to be both fair toward and critical of the Admin at the same time. Debbi __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: SCOUTED: Are we doomed yet?
Klaus wrote a great, detailed description of NAT and finished it by saying: So, NAT is like using a public payphone, no NAT is using like one's personal mobile phone (these are usually as personal items as one's internet account). The reason a lot of people are up in arms about NAT being made illegal is because it is used in a lot of home systems. For example, lets say I have 3 computers at home; one for me, one for my wife, and one for a friend who rents a room from us. Lets also say I have internet access through a cable modem. If I had that kind of a situation, I could by a router with at least a 4 port switch and plug the cable modem and each of the computers into that router. That would allow all 3 of us to be on the internet through the cable modem at the same time. This works by using NAT. The house has a single IP address as far as anyone on the internet is concerned, but there are three different internal IP addresses, one for each computer. One of the advantages of this is that it functions as a hardware firewall, making it harder for people to hack into any individual computer in the home network. Lots of people have this kind of setup in their homes. The laws discussed in the original article would make that illegal. Reggie Bautista _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Who Sold What to Iraq? The investigation is already under way
It'll be interesting to see what shakes out, once the war is over... http://www.fortune.com/fortune/investing/articles/0,15114,438836,00.html Who Sold What to Iraq? The U.S. aims to hunt down companies that supplied Saddam. FORTUNE Sunday, March 30, 2003 By Nelson D. Schwartz When the first wave of American soldiers swept out of the desert and headed north toward Baghdad, the Iraqis weren't the only ones who experienced shock and awe. In the thick of battle, U.S. commanders discovered that the Iraqi army was able to jam the global-positioning systems the military uses to pinpoint everything from cruise missile attacks to the location of troops on the ground. It was a technological preemptive strike, says a senior military source. It was also a prime example of how private companies violated the embargo that the U.S. and the United Nations imposed on Iraq more than a decade ago. Russian firms supplied the jammers to Iraq in the past few years--they didn't exist during the first Gulf war--prompting a personal protest from President Bush to Russian leader Vladimir Putin. The news about the GPS-blocking devices is just the beginning of what's likely to be a series of revelations detailing how companies--including American ones--helped supply Saddam Hussein's war machine during the past decade. That's because in addition to searching for weapons of mass destruction, U.S. forces are scouring Iraq for evidence of who sold what to Saddam. Military sources have told FORTUNE that special teams are already on the ground, sifting through files to determine where Iraq got everything from rocket parts to fiber-optic technology. Despite both U.S. laws and UN sanctions that prohibited all but a handful of commercial dealings with Baghdad, there have been persistent reports that companies from Russia, France, and China, among others, were breaking the embargo. And when the evidence in Iraq is analyzed, says a top Washington official who deals with trade policy, it's likely that at least a few U.S. companies will face fines or perhaps even criminal prosecution. The fact that American companies have broken the embargo with Iran suggests that there will be some leads in Iraq, adds the government official, who spoke with FORTUNE on condition of anonymity. Those of us in law enforcement certainly contemplate that things will be found in Iraq. Probing the byzantine web of deals that kept technology flowing to Iraq is a complex job. It's likely to involve teams from the Treasury, State, and Commerce departments, as well as the Pentagon and the CIA. For now the main task is locating the forbidden goods--and their paper trail. Sources say units made up of both military personnel and representatives of the CIA and other agencies have been trained to operate in volatile areas inside Iraq, taking inventory of contraband items and poring over records. Similar task forces operated after the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1989 and NATO's intervention in the Balkans in the mid-1990s, but this time the job is much bigger. Because of Iraq's oil riches, Saddam had a far easier time of evading the embargo than did former dictators like Manuel Noriega and Slobodan Milosevic. Fixing blame can be tough, however. Business transactions with embargoed nations are usually conducted through intermediaries, with China and the United Arab Emirates as common transshipment points. To further complicate matters, U.S. companies might innocently sell something to a Chinese buyer, only to learn later that it ended up in Iraq. For example, says Kelly Motz of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, China's giant Huawei Technologies is believed to have supplied Saddam's army with sophisticated communications hardware even as it was doing business with the likes of IBM, Motorola, Hewlett Packard, and Qualcomm. These companies might have thought they were just selling telecom equipment into an emerging Asian market, says Motz. However, it's been known since early 2001 that Huawei has had dealings with Iraq. So any deals that might have been done since then are questionable. If it turns out that companies intentionally evaded the ban, government officials say they are loaded for bear. We won't tolerate the breaking of the embargo, says Richard Newcomb, director of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control. If there's a knowing violation, we would prosecute to the full extent of the law. In 2001, the Commerce Department hit McDonnell Douglas, a unit of Boeing, with a $2.12 million fine for improperly selling machine tools to China. Fines for dealing with Iraq are likely to be larger. And if evidence turns up that a particular firm knowingly sold items like night-vision goggles or gas masks to Iraq, federal agencies might impose what they call the death penalty--a total ban on all exports by the guilty firm. Criminal charges for executives are also a distinct possibility. It's going to take time to determine just who
Re: Wounded British soldiers condemn US 'cowboy' pilot
Damon wrote: Hah. If these guys are so well trained they can spot the difference between friendly and enemy equipment, maybe they would know that the A-10 does NOT have a thermal imager installed as standard. Indeed, the only night vision the pilot has is either through goggles or by looking at the image sight through his EO Maverick missiles...just like they did in Gulf War 1 Aren't the ones being used in GW2 fitted with FLIR pods? Indeed the whole plan has been to rely on night vision equipped platforms to counter the intrinsic advantage of the defender. FLIR should easily identify the vehicles as coalition marked - hell, with the slightest bit of thought they'd be recognized by type. It's not like a Challenger resembles a T72, or a Bradley resembles a BRDM... Cheers Russell C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who Sold What to Iraq? The investigation is already under way
Bryon Daly quoted: It could also cause a lot of companies to wish they'd never done business with Baghdad. One hopes that some countries will have the same regrets. Cheers Russell C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Colitas
--- J.D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Learn something new every day: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_001.html BTW - not mentioned here is my friend's pet theory about Hotel California, which is that it is about divorce. 'Hemp buds' or 'little tails'? - nice to find out that English isn't the only ambiguous language in the world... ;) Never-ending Hollywood Marriage? Maru ;) __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
Sorry if this is a late response. I'm I'm the middle of busy season right now, but this post just jumped out and demanded attention... Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Is there anyone who considers themselves opposed to the current military action in Iraq who does not also consider themselves opposed to President Bush? As a Canadian, I really don't care one way or the other about President Bush. He's just a name on the news, really. But this Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive warfare goes against everything I believe, and it really frightens me that a gigantic nation like the United States would even seriously contemplate such a thing, much less actually go to war on it. So yes, there are people who oppose the war in Iraq who have nothing to do with American politics. Most people around the world are that way, I suspect. Kevin Street ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who Sold What to Iraq? The investigation is already under way
On 1 Apr 2003 at 9:18, Russell Chapman wrote: Bryon Daly quoted: It could also cause a lot of companies to wish they'd never done business with Baghdad. One hopes that some countries will have the same regrets. And will show why certain countries took the stance they did. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
- Original Message - From: Kevin Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 5:26 PM Subject: RE: Question for those who are anti-war . . . Sorry if this is a late response. I'm I'm the middle of busy season right now, but this post just jumped out and demanded attention... Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Is there anyone who considers themselves opposed to the current military action in Iraq who does not also consider themselves opposed to President Bush? As a Canadian, I really don't care one way or the other about President Bush. He's just a name on the news, really. But this Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive warfare goes against everything I believe, and it really frightens me that a gigantic nation like the United States would even seriously contemplate such a thing, much less actually go to war on it. I'm curious about this. Lets give a simple example, N. Korea without the ability to kill hundreds of thousands in Seoul. Would it have been wrong to stop their development of nuclear weapons and ICBMs? Why is stopping them more frightening than not stopping them? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm curious about this. Lets give a simple example, N. Korea without the ability to kill hundreds of thousands in Seoul. Would it have been wrong to stop their development of nuclear weapons and ICBMs? Why is stopping them more frightening than not stopping them? Dan M. Let me add a similar set of hypotheticals. Saddam Hussein acquires nuclear weapons and uses them to destroy New York? Is the US justified in responding? What is the (maximum) acceptable scale of its response? Saddam Hussein acquires nuclear weapons and _threatens_ to destroy New York. Same two questions. Saddam Hussein acquires nuclear weapons and makes no explicit threats. Same two questions. Saddam Hussein makes an open and public attempt to acquire nuclear weapons. He makes a covert and secret attempt to acquire them. In other words - do you reject all preventive actions? In which case it seems to me that your argument is that we should wait until _after_ New York is destroyed to do something. As a New Yorker, I disagree, and not terribly respectfully, actually, if that's your position. But I doubt that it is. So do you really oppose pre-emptive war? Or _this_ pre-emptive war? Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Impressions almost two weeks into the war
- Original Message - From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 3:09 PM Subject: Re: Who is the sheriff? --- Marvin Long, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're welcome. Get some sleep. Not part of the job description, unfortunately :-( It's the people on *this* side of the Atlantic I worry about. Marvin Long I worry about them too, of course. Heck, I'm one of them. But the only way I see this working out well for the US and the world is a quick, clean, and overwhelming victory on the part of the United States and its allies. You can guarantee that France and Germany will pounce on every report of mistakes or civilian casualties as a way of inflaming the Arab world against the US, as will (of course) various malefactors in the Arab/Islamic world. This only works not just if we win (which is virtually guaranteed) but win spectacularly and immediately. Counting on a flawless military campaign is not usually a winning bet. It's the skill and will and courage of our men and women that will determine the course of the 21st century, and the bar they will have to clear is incredibly high. I'm not totally sure about this. Even discounting the tendency of expectations of people being too high, and the tendency to look for problems after only a few days into a campaign, it appears to me that the viewpoint at the highest level in the Defense department was too optimistic. I think that, no matter how good the troops are, the enemy has at least some say in how the battle unfolds (as I know you know). The fact that the Iraq defense did not simply fold, and showed some intelligence in planning a strategy that at least had a theoretical chance to keep Hussein in power makes me less sanguine about the outcome than I was 2 weeks ago. Are things on the schedule that you hoped for, or is the ability of Iraq to hold together as well as it did for the last two weeks a bit troublesome. What is most worrisome to me is the ability of the Bath party to keep power in Basra and other southern cities. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wounded British soldiers condemn US 'cowboy' pilot
FLIR should easily identify the vehicles as coalition marked - hell, with the slightest bit of thought they'd be recognized by type. It's not like a Challenger resembles a T72, or a Bradley resembles a BRDM... Doesn't matter. ALL coalition vehicles, from Challies down to Hummers have Thermal recognition panels (those weird corrugated boxes on the sides and rears of the vehicles) which show up as a square shaped cool spot in Thermal. Never heard of A-10s with FLIR pods, and I haven't visually ID'd any. Doesn't mean that there aren't any though. Further, I think its easy to judge the fact that certain vehicles don't look like certain vehicles when you're looking at them on TV or the papers; but up 1000 or more feet, trucking along at 400mph it may not be that easy. I was in the army and there were a few times when I had trouble IDing the vehicles (not because of any inherent lack of ability on my part--I can visually ID just about every armored vehicle in service, even down to sub-models or production batches in certain cases!) but because conditions do not allow easy identification. Finally, we really can't know what the situation was or what the pilot was thinking at the time of the incident from reading a few lines from a newspaper or from what the British troops on the receiving end of the attack say (whom probably had pretty high emotions right then). That's why I thought that first article sounded so irresposible... Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Ace's BRDM-1 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Impressions almost two weeks into the war
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not totally sure about this. Even discounting the tendency of expectations of people being too high, and the tendency to look for problems after only a few days into a campaign, it appears to me that the viewpoint at the highest level in the Defense department was too optimistic. I think that, no matter how good the troops are, the enemy has at least some say in how the battle unfolds (as I know you know). The fact that the Iraq defense did not simply fold, and showed some intelligence in planning a strategy that at least had a theoretical chance to keep Hussein in power makes me less sanguine about the outcome than I was 2 weeks ago. Are things on the schedule that you hoped for, or is the ability of Iraq to hold together as well as it did for the last two weeks a bit troublesome. What is most worrisome to me is the ability of the Bath party to keep power in Basra and other southern cities. Dan M. At the moment I would say that while things are not on the schedule I _hoped_ for, they are going about as well as I expected. Is that fair? I take some (I hope) justifiable pride in fairly accurately predicting the outlines of the early stages of the battle plan. I had hoped (with, I think, reason) that the dash to Baghdad that we just saw would cause the regime to collapse. I didn't really expect it, but I hoped it would happen. As it is, I think that things are, on the whole, going remarkably well. Let's put things in some historical perspective. 11 days into an attempt to conquer a nation the size of California using about 2 divisions worth of troops, we have: 1. Absolute air superiority - no Allied fixed wing aircraft have even been shot down by enemy fire, a record that vastly surpasses even that of the first Gulf War 2. American forces that have, virtually unimpeded, traveled more than 300 miles to within 50 miles of Baghdad 3. British forces that have caputed Iraq's only port (Umm Qasr) and isolated its second largest city (Basra). All of this for less than 100 allied soldiers killed. Allied forces have won _every_ engagement of the war. Most of the worst case scenarios (chemical weapons used against Israel, Iraqi oil fields put to the torch) have not, in fact, happened. In the most famous military collapse in modern history, France's against Germany, the French managed to hold out for 44 days. It's very, very early to make any outward determinations - I would say, though, most early indicators are positive. Where was I overoptimistic: 1. I underestimated the extent to which the fear Saddam had instilled in the population would maintain its hold. The Iraqi population is still (justifiably) not confident that we're going to stick around and get rid of Saddam - in that situation, they have very logically decided to stick tight. It's critical to remember that they _don't_ have access to the President's countless statements that we're going to stick this out, while they _do_ remember that we did nothing while Saddam's forces put down the 1991 uprising. Between the two, it's not surprising that they would do this. 2. I underestimated the extent to which Saddam's guerrillas would be able to take advantage of the 1st point to maintain a semi-functional resistance in the cities. 3. I underestimated the extent to which people are willing to fight for a totalitarian regime when driven by fear - see Stalin's Russia, for example. This was fairly dumb and something I should have taken into account. 4. I underestimated the extent of Saddam's Fedayeen guerrilla resistance. 5. I was unaware of the shipment of advanced Russian anti-tank missiles to Iraq, possibly via Syria. Of all of the developments of the war so far, this may be the most worrisome, and the most undercovered by the mainstream press. 6. I (stupidly) didn't take the effect of sandstorm season into account enough, falling for the press's line about heat and ignoring the far more salient climatological effect of changing seasons in the Gulf. That was, simply, dumb - there's no other word for it. Where was I insufficiently optimistic? 1. Iraq has shown exactly no ability to make coherent military maneuvers in the field. Isolated units are sometimes fighting (not very effectively) but no large-scale military operations seem to be taking place. 2. I did not guess that American anti-leadership operations would be so effective as to (probably) would Saddam (possibly) kill him and (certainly) remove him from effective contact with most of his military. 3. I overestimated the creativity (so far) of Iraqi forces in the extent to they would be willing to take advantage of American unwillingness to be involved with (not, note, cause) civilian casualties. 4. I (slightly) underestimated the American military's ability to maintain a logistical supply line over 300 largely unsecured miles, despite a guerrilla opposition. Guerrilla attacks on the supply lines are not
Re: Impressions almost two weeks into the war
Quick question - when will the 4th Infantry get there? (I'm probably living closer to Ft. Hood than anyone else, with the possible exception of Adam, at least as the crow flies, so I should probably be *up* on this more than anyone else -- but aside from knowing they shipped out last week, I know very little.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
- Original Message - From: Kevin Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 5:26 PM Subject: RE: Question for those who are anti-war . . . Sorry if this is a late response. I'm I'm the middle of busy season right now, but this post just jumped out and demanded attention... Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Is there anyone who considers themselves opposed to the current military action in Iraq who does not also consider themselves opposed to President Bush? As a Canadian, I really don't care one way or the other about President Bush. He's just a name on the news, really. But this Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive warfare goes against everything I believe, and it really frightens me that a gigantic nation like the United States would even seriously contemplate such a thing, much less actually go to war on it. So yes, there are people who oppose the war in Iraq who have nothing to do with American politics. Most people around the world are that way, I suspect. Soviet Russia used to do things like this, and you never saw this level of protest over it. China is still in Tibet and the protest is minimal in comparison. A lot is made by the rest of the world of Americas inconsistencies in foreign policy. But the rest of the world has been pretty inconsistent in the pursuit of peace. Its gonna be pretty hard to create peace when you turn your back on injustice. (And we are just as guilty in that regard.) xponent Reversible Maru rob The fist will run, grasp metal to gun. The spirit sings in crashing tones, We gain the battle drum. Our cries will shrill, the air will moan and crash into the dawn. The pen won't stay the demon's wings, The hour approaches pounding out the Devil's sermon. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Impressions almost two weeks into the war
On 31 Mar 2003 at 17:39, Gautam Mukunda wrote: 1. Absolute air superiority - no Allied fixed wing aircraft have even been shot down by enemy fire, a record that vastly surpasses even that of the first Gulf War I've seen reports of ~20 drones being lost so far, mind you. Then again, lots of drones allways DO seem to be lost... (of course, they *are* drones) Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Impressions almost two weeks into the war
- Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 7:50 PM Subject: Re: Impressions almost two weeks into the war Quick question - when will the 4th Infantry get there? (I'm probably living closer to Ft. Hood than anyone else, with the possible exception of Adam, at least as the crow flies, so I should probably be *up* on this more than anyone else -- but aside from knowing they shipped out last week, I know very little.) From what I hear its going to be about 2 weeks before they are fully mobile in Iraq. The 4th is the most technologically advanced army in the world and they should make for a suitable backup. xponent Coming Soon Maru rob Workings of man Set to ply out historical life Reregaining the flower of the fruit of his tree All awakening All restoring you Workings of man Crying out from the fire set aflame By his blindness to see that the warmth of his being Is promised for his seeing his reaching so clearly Workings of man Driven far from the path Rereleased in inhibitions So that all is left for you all is left for you all is left for you all this left for you NOW... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Impressions almost two weeks into the war
On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 7:50 PM Subject: Re: Impressions almost two weeks into the war Quick question - when will the 4th Infantry get there? (I'm probably living closer to Ft. Hood than anyone else, with the possible exception of Adam, at least as the crow flies, so I should probably be *up* on this more than anyone else -- but aside from knowing they shipped out last week, I know very little.) From what I hear its going to be about 2 weeks before they are fully mobile in Iraq. The 4th is the most technologically advanced army in the world and they should make for a suitable backup. That was the impression I'd gotten from reading about them in the Statesman. Hence asking the question on *this* thread. :) I imagine they'll make some difference in how things go, once they get there and start moving. (IIRC, they were originally supposed to be sent into Iraq from Turkey, but that didn't pan out, and there was some dithering before anyone decided where they *would* ship to.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Iraqi civilians feed hungry US marines
On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 03:51:54PM -0500, Bryon Daly wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 10:10:21AM -0600, Robert Seeberger wrote: They told me they wanted to go to America after the war. I said where. They said California. I said why? They said the song Hotel California and they left singing Hotel California. I wonder if they really understood what the Eagles were singing about. You can check out but you can never leave... What *were* the Eagles signing about in that song? That line in particular has always puzzled me. Drug addiction. That line is a play on words: check out - die. In other words, you can die but you can never leave (break the addiction). -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Impressions almost two weeks into the war
--- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quick question - when will the 4th Infantry get there? (I'm probably living closer to Ft. Hood than anyone else, with the possible exception of Adam, at least as the crow flies, so I should probably be *up* on this more than anyone else -- but aside from knowing they shipped out last week, I know very little.) Julia Julia - the current reports are that the 4th Infantry will not be ready to engage in combat until late April. Right now the 3rd Mechanized Division and the 7th Armored Cavalry Regiment are engaged in combat in Iraq at the front lines, while a brigade of the 82nd Airborne is protecting lines of supply and the 173rd Airborne Brigade has landed in the Kurdish areas of northern Iraq. The 1st Marine Expeditionary Force is also close to Baghdad. Where is the 101st, though? That's a question that has been bugging me. Somewhere in the west? It's a light infantry division - strategically, not tactically, mobile. Its Apaches do give it significant striking power though. Rick Atkinson of the Washington Post was embedded with them, but none of his reports for the Post have been From the front stories the last few days. What's going on there, I wonder. Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://platinum.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
I wrote: As a Canadian, I really don't care one way or the other about President Bush. He's just a name on the news, really. But this Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive warfare goes against everything I believe, and it really frightens me that a gigantic nation like the United States would even seriously contemplate such a thing, much less actually go to war on it. Dan M. wrote: I'm curious about this. Lets give a simple example, N. Korea without the ability to kill hundreds of thousands in Seoul. Would it have been wrong to stop their development of nuclear weapons and ICBMs? Why is stopping them more frightening than not stopping them? There's certainly nothing wrong with attempting to stop NK's development of nuclear weapons - and the US did in fact try to stop their development - by peaceful means. And until the current crisis, that seemed to be working. Now they say they still have some nuclear bombs, and they never fully disarmed. But with the US (apparently) preoccupied with Iraq, it looks like Kim Jong Il is trying to aggravate the crisis by making threatening gestures and beginning his nuclear arms program again. So the pre-emptive doctrine has already made international relations worse with one country by invading another. It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy, pushing rougue nations towards further aggression because they have nothing left to lose. I can't predict how history would have happened differently if the US (alone, or with a coalition) had invaded North Korea in the seventies or eighties or nineties to stop its nuclear weapons program - but, imo, the situation probably wouldn't have improved. That's because there's no such thing as a simple example - invading North Korea would destabilize all of Southeast Asia, upsetting the balance of power there, kill an unknown number of people, and saddle the US with a costly satrapy that would drain its military and economic resources at a time when many other nations (like China, perhaps) would take advantage of the situation by making aggressive moves of their own. One preventive conflict might lead to many more. But would North Korea be a threat if no one invaded it? Maybe, but then again, maybe not. Almost certainly not if NK wasn't so isolated. I think the better path to follow is economic and political engagement. If Kim Jong Il's government were fully integrated into the world economy the way China is, they would have far less reason to use nuclear weapons or go to war at all. And the same would have true for Saddam's Iraq. Countries that benefit from the status quo have to think very hard before upsetting it. Kevn Street ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
In a message dated 3/31/03 7:13:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In other words - do you reject all preventive actions? In which case it seems to me that your argument is that we should wait until _after_ New York is destroyed to do something. As a New Yorker, I disagree, and not terribly respectfully, actually, if that's your position. But I doubt that it is. So do you really oppose pre-emptive war? Or _this_ pre-emptive war? But this is a false dichotomy - doing nothing or launching war. We _weren't_ doing nothing. You can argue that the inspections were or were not working, but they were _something_. Were they enough? We'll never know now. My feeling was, Saddam is a terrible person and almost certainly was trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction. He needed to be stopped and gotten rid of. But I was not convinced we needed to launch a war _now_. I think the inspections should have been given more time while the US bolstered its case and brought more allies on-board. It is true that the indefensible position of the French (no war ever no matter what) made things more difficult. But if the USA wants to be the leader of the world, sometimes it has to do things the hard way. Sometimes it has to be the adult, and must always be cognizant of others' attitudes and ideas, even if it doesn't agree with them. In general, I'm anti-war. I don't see how anyone can be anything else. In some particular cases, I may be in favor of a particular war. In this case, I'm still not convinced that this was the only way to go or that this was the time to go this way. Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Impressions almost two weeks into the war
- Original Message - From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 7:39 PM Subject: Re: Impressions almost two weeks into the war I'm not sure where you see a theoretical chance of keeping Hussein in power - I'd like you to elaborate on that. I said theoretical, because I'm not predicting it to happen...but he has at least given himself some chance this way. The arguement would be that the the general perception of the war in Iraq will turn from regiem change to protecting the homeland. Even if the US has superiority, the irregular forces will be transformed from a terror squad to freedom fighters against the colonialist invaders. They will be at least semi-supported by the population, and they will not fade away. Rather, they will continue to hide in the cities, requiring a door to door fighting, with lotsa civilians killed in order to contain them. During this time, the Arab world increases their fervor in seeing this as the US vs. Islam. A coup exists in one country that has at least tacitly favored the US. At which point, the US gives up before the whole Arab world is against them. If it doesn't, we'll have to deal with Baghdad, but I would expect Allied casualties in taking the city to be in the hundreds, not thousands. So, overall, despite the media's remarkable panic, I'd say we're doing pretty well. I differ with this assessment. Rumsfeld started talking about units surrendering en mass on the first day of the ground campaign. He supplied the extraordinarily high standards that he is being held to. I'm pretty sure that I've seen him state, either at the start of the war or just before, that we were talking about weeks, not months of war. Everything that I've seen indicates that he overruled military rules about the force to use, relying on Shock and Awe to destroy the Iraq army with an absolute minimal use of force. He appeared to be convinced that we did not need the additional forces that the Powell doctrine suggested to win quickly and decisively. I have no doubt that we can win the war; the question is whether we can do it without allowing tens of thousands of civilians to die from disease, hunger, etc. Even though it will be the result of the actions of Hussein's forces, the deaths will be laid at the US's doorstep. Most major media has a plethora of retired military officers offering them advice. My understanding of CNN, for example, is that the general flavor is strongly favorable to the military. The greatest negative that I've picked up from the overall coverage is the suspicion lower level managers have of micromanagement by top management. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
Dan Minette wrote: I'm curious about this. Lets give a simple example, N. Korea without the ability to kill hundreds of thousands in Seoul. Would it have been wrong to stop their development of nuclear weapons and ICBMs? Why is stopping them more frightening than not stopping them? Gautam Mukunda wrote: Let me add a similar set of hypotheticals. Saddam Hussein acquires nuclear weapons and uses them to destroy New York? Is the US justified in responding? What is the (maximum) acceptable scale of its response? Of course the US would be justified in responding. No one has ever said that they wouldn't be, and the scale of response to such a terrible crime would no doubt be huge, to prevent anyone else from ever trying it again. There's nothing wrong with that. But why on Earth would Saddam Husein attack America? He'd have to be an idiot, since he has no territorial disputes with the US, and no possible way of beating them in a war. There's no reason. Saddam Hussein acquires nuclear weapons and _threatens_ to destroy New York. Same two questions. Not the same question at all. In the first case a crime has been committed, and in the second case, he's threatening to commit a crime. In the second case, the US should make it very clear to him what the consequences of such an action would be. (The obliteration of Baghdad, no doubt, and maybe other cities as well.) Saddam Hussein acquires nuclear weapons and makes no explicit threats. Same two questions. It's a completely different situation, Gautam. In this case, diplomatic and economic presure should be brought to bear on Iraq to make him disarm. Or failing that, at least pledge not to attack other nations pre-emptively. Saddam Hussein makes an open and public attempt to acquire nuclear weapons. He makes a covert and secret attempt to acquire them. In other words - do you reject all preventive actions? I don't understand how you can draw that conclusion. It just doesn't follow from your premises. Of course Saddam should be prevented from developing nuclear weapons, by diplomatic and economic means. If hasn't commited a crime yet, or even threatened anyone, how can you punish him? That's just vigilantism, the enemy of law and order. That kind of flawed reasoning would have gotten us all into world war III a long time ago if earlier statesmen had thought the same way. In which case it seems to me that your argument is that we should wait until _after_ New York is destroyed to do something. As a New Yorker, I disagree, and not terribly respectfully, actually, if that's your position. But I doubt that it is. So do you really oppose pre-emptive war? Or _this_ pre-emptive war? We live in a dangerous world, Gautam, and while I certainly don't want to see New York destroyed or attacked, I certainly don't want the US (or anyone else) pre-emptively trying to neutralize threats to its safety by getting into unnecessary conflicts that only make the situation worse. So yes, I really do oppose pre-emptive wars, at least in the case where no aggressive act has been committed. Hopefully, no one will ever be stupid enough to attempt to destroy New York or anywhere else with weapons of mass destruction - but unfortunately, that's a risk we all have to live with. I mean, really - do you think New York will be made safer by this war? No. The invasion of Iraq is like a red flag to Islamic Fundamentalists. It makes their vendetta against the United States seem all the more logical, resonable, and seductive, because it seems to confirm their worst fears. Many future terrorists have been created in the last ten days, and the world is a more dangerous place because of that. Kevin Street ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
- Original Message - From: Kevin Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 8:54 PM Subject: RE: Question for those who are anti-war . . . Dan Minette wrote: I'm curious about this. Lets give a simple example, N. Korea without the ability to kill hundreds of thousands in Seoul. Would it have been wrong to stop their development of nuclear weapons and ICBMs? Why is stopping them more frightening than not stopping them? Gautam Mukunda wrote: Let me add a similar set of hypotheticals. Saddam Hussein acquires nuclear weapons and uses them to destroy New York? Is the US justified in responding? What is the (maximum) acceptable scale of its response? Of course the US would be justified in responding. No one has ever said that they wouldn't be, and the scale of response to such a terrible crime would no doubt be huge, to prevent anyone else from ever trying it again. There's nothing wrong with that. But why on Earth would Saddam Husein attack America? He'd have to be an idiot, since he has no territorial disputes with the US, and no possible way of beating them in a war. There's no reason. Saddam Hussein acquires nuclear weapons and _threatens_ to destroy New York. Same two questions. Not the same question at all. In the first case a crime has been committed, and in the second case, he's threatening to commit a crime. In the second case, the US should make it very clear to him what the consequences of such an action would be. (The obliteration of Baghdad, no doubt, and maybe other cities as well.) What if he has that capacity and takes over Kuwait, Saudia Arabia and the UAE, stating that he will hit 20 European cities if he is met with US or European resistance. He has already rolled the dice in trying to kill Bush Sr, so he is clearly willing to risk his life to meet his goals. How willing would the US be to send in an army to stop this invasion? The crime model assumes that there is a state that has overwhelming power with respect to the individual. The reason we can afford to wait until a crime has been committed is the fact that the state can still protect itself in that manner. If we use the criminal model for world affairs, we will need to resign ourselves to a world where many small states and terrorist have the ability to kill millions of people in any country. That, in my opinion, is a recipe for disaster. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
Robert Seeberger wrote: Soviet Russia used to do things like this, and you never saw this level of protest over it. China is still in Tibet and the protest is minimal in comparison. A lot is made by the rest of the world of Americas inconsistencies in foreign policy. But the rest of the world has been pretty inconsistent in the pursuit of peace. Yes, Russia and China have done terrible things, in both this century and the last one. If it was possible, they should be brought to account for their crimes. But at the moment, they're just too powerful. A war to liberate Chechyna or Tibet would kill too many people to be worth the cost. The world is inconsistent about preventing aggression, and it shouldn't be. But at the moment, it's the only world we've got. The thing that bothers me so much here is that this time it's *America* who's the aggressor. The one major power that has (almost) never acted in an imperialistic manner, the country that has helped other nations far more than it has harmed them. A country that has, up until now, been an inspiration and model for the world. Yes, we expect more of the United States than other countries. And the United States should expect more of itself. Kevin Street ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Impressions almost two weeks into the war
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I differ with this assessment. Rumsfeld started talking about units surrendering en mass on the first day of the ground campaign. He supplied the extraordinarily high standards that he is being held to. I'm pretty sure that I've seen him state, either at the start of the war or just before, that we were talking about weeks, not months of war. I'd like a quote on this. Rummy has actually been pretty cautious about saying stuff like that. In those cases where he has, it has seemed pretty clear that it was, in large part, psychological warfare. The best way to convince the Iraqis to surrender was to create the perception of an inevitable defeat. This was an extremely difficult task - we're trying to defeat Iraq without killing anyone except fanatical Ba'ath loyalists. Everything that I've seen indicates that he overruled military rules about the force to use, relying on Shock and Awe to destroy the Iraq army with an absolute minimal use of force. He appeared to be convinced that we did not need the additional forces that the Powell doctrine suggested to win quickly and decisively. I have no doubt that we can win the war; the question is whether we can do it without allowing tens of thousands of civilians to die from disease, hunger, etc. Even though it will be the result of the actions of Hussein's forces, the deaths will be laid at the US's doorstep. Most major media has a plethora of retired military officers offering them advice. My understanding of CNN, for example, is that the general flavor is strongly favorable to the military. The greatest negative that I've picked up from the overall coverage is the suspicion lower level managers have of micromanagement by top management. Dan M. The first mark of a successful Defense Secretary is a military establishment that is deeply unhappy with him. I think you're missing two things, Dan. The first is the internal dynamics of the Pentagon, the second is the proper relationship between a civilian Administration and a military establishment. For the second, I'd suggest reading Eliot Cohen's _Supreme Command_, the only book I've ever read where I said that I agreed with _everything_ in it, largely because I once wanted to _write_ it, but he beat me to it. Damn it. But, in brief, the job of the civilian establishment is to force the military to do things it does not want to do. See Lincoln in the Civil War, Roosevelt in WW2, and so on. The failure in Vietnam was not micromanagement, but a failure of civilian control. No one in the civilian establishment ever went to the Joint Chiefs and asked them how the hell they planned to win. Rumsfeld certainly forced the Army to do something it did not want to do. It wasn't _just_ Rumsfeld - it was Rumsfeld in cooperation with all of the Jedi Knights in the Pentagon - i.e. the entire Air Force, most of the Marines, and the entire Special Operations community. In an intramural debate within the Armed Forces, he picked a side. It happens to be the side I agree with (mostly) but there were plenty of professional military people who agreed with him and (more) don't talk to the press afterwards. What you're seeing in the press are leaks by the Heavy Metal crowd in the Army that isn't happy with what's going on. It's not terribly surprising. I think I could probably _name_ who some of the leakers are, actually, just from the press coverage. War is the continuation of politics by other means. Because of that, even the smallest details of war are subject to political supervision, because means and tactics have political affects. The military doesn't like that. It's not supposed to, as long as it obeys. As for the Shock and Awe thing - it's not a big deal. If it had worked, it would have been great. It wasn't a total success. It had some good effects, but it didn't go all the way. OK. But there wasn't any harm in trying. A war plan that tries something and fails is only wrong if it doesn't have any fallback plans. We have fallback plans - you're seeing them put into play now. With every passing moment Iraqi forces are further eroded, while American strength in the theater swells. Because of the early and decisive action, Iraq was unable to do many things that could have been disastrous for our efforts, while we are in a strategically highly advantageous position. Things are, on the whole, going well. Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://platinum.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Impressions almost two weeks into the war
5. I was unaware of the shipment of advanced Russian anti-tank missiles to Iraq, possibly via Syria. Of all of the developments of the war so far, this may be the most worrisome, and the most undercovered by the mainstream press. From what I've heard those missiles are far from advanced. The only missile identified in the news reports I have access to is the Sagger or AT-3, an early generation ATGM with a useful warhead against lighter armored vehicles, though hindered by an antiquated guidance system. If you have information (i.e. identification) of the actual ATGM I would be very curious to hear. BTW, I agree thoroughly with this post; anyone who thinks this is going poorly despite a few setbacks is obviously not a student of military history. Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Ace's BRDM-1 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
Dan Minette wrote: If we use the criminal model for world affairs, we will need to resign ourselves to a world where many small states and terrorist have the ability to kill millions of people in any country. That, in my opinion, is a recipe for disaster. But that's the world we live in now, and the situation isn't going to change anytime soon, if ever. Weapons of mass destruction are getting cheaper and easier to make all the time, and individuals and/or terrorist groups are going to get ahold of them sooner or later. That woud be the case even if the US pacified the world through the use of pre-emptive wars. The danger is an inescapable byproduct of modern civilization. But what world would have fewer terrorists - a world writhing under a Pax Americana, seething with discontent and rage against the United States, or a world where all the nations work together and rogue states are brought back into the international community - a world where we can help places like North Korea, Somalia and Iraq bcome more civilized by opening our civilization up to them, and finally putting a stop to the root causes of terrorism once and for all? IAAMOAC is something we should all keep in mind. Kevin Street ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
--- Kevin Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But why on Earth would Saddam Husein attack America? He'd have to be an idiot, since he has no territorial disputes with the US, and no possible way of beating them in a war. There's no reason. He was willing to assassinate George Bush. What do you think our response would have been had he succeeded? Why do you think _your_ standards of reasonability are the same as those of someone who has people dropped feet first into shredding machines? His standards are (hopefully) different. Saddam Hussein acquires nuclear weapons and _threatens_ to destroy New York. Same two questions. Not the same question at all. In the first case a crime has been committed, and in the second case, he's threatening to commit a crime. In the second case, the US should make it very clear to him what the consequences of such an action would be. (The obliteration of Baghdad, no doubt, and maybe other cities as well.) Why would he care? Does he have any history of solicitude for the lives of his people? For that matter, would we really do it? Kill millions of innocents because of the actions of one man? Maybe in 1945, but now? Saddam Hussein acquires nuclear weapons and makes no explicit threats. Same two questions. It's a completely different situation, Gautam. In this case, diplomatic and economic presure should be brought to bear on Iraq to make him disarm. Or failing that, at least pledge not to attack other nations pre-emptively. And you think this would work why? After 12 years of diplomatic and economic pressure such as no other country in the world has ever seen, it took 250,000 American soldiers on his border to force him to accept weapons inspectors and _not_ cooperate with them. Wo what sort of diplomatic and economic pressure do you think someone who _does not care_ about public opinion or the economic status of his people is likely to respond to? I don't understand how you can draw that conclusion. It just doesn't follow from your premises. Of course Saddam should be prevented from developing nuclear weapons, by diplomatic and economic means. If hasn't commited a crime yet, or even threatened anyone, how can you punish him? That's just vigilantism, the enemy of law and order. That kind of flawed reasoning would have gotten us all into world war III a long time ago if earlier statesmen had thought the same way. _What_ diplomatic and economic means. You can keep chanting that, but you kind of have to give an example. Maybe 12 years of sanctions, total diplomatic isolation, and (just to kap things off) repeated bombing campaigns? Except that didn't work. Invading Iran. Invading Kuwait. Using chemical weapons on his own population. Attempting to assassinate George Bush. Violating a ceasefire agreement in which he agreed to give up WMD. Violating _18_ UN Resolutions calling on him to give up WMD. Which one of these actions is _not_ a crime? For that matter, this isn't about punishment. It's about prevention. If 5 million Americans have died, it's too damn late. The world has changed. An old joke in my old office - what's the easiest way to get a nuclear weapon into the US? Federal Express. In fact, given that we _still_ haven't caught the anthrax terrorists, why do you think we'd catch Saddam if he tried something like that? Heck, that might have been him. _We don't know_. Don't you think he might have noticed that? We live in a dangerous world, Gautam, and while I certainly don't want to see New York destroyed or attacked, I certainly don't want the US (or anyone else) pre-emptively trying to neutralize threats to its safety by getting into unnecessary conflicts that only make the situation worse. So yes, I really do oppose pre-emptive wars, at least in the case where no aggressive act has been committed. Hopefully, no one will ever be stupid enough to attempt to destroy New York or anywhere else with weapons of mass destruction - but unfortunately, that's a risk we all have to live with. No. It's a risk _I_ have to live with. And Bob, plus any other New Yorkers on the list. It is, rather noticeably, _not_ a risk you have to live with. That's really one of the central distinctions, isn't it. If your proposed containment policy goes wrong, we do the dying. That changes the calculus a little bit, doesn't it? In this particular case, however, we have _multiple_ aggressive acts committed. So, even if I accepted the general principle you have described - and I don't - it doesn't apply in this case in even the tiniest degree. Again, you're saying that the US would have to wait until after NYC is destroyed before acting - before, I didn't think that anyone could seriously believe that, but I think that actually _is_ what you're saying. We have here: 1. An aggressive leader (multiple invasions of his neighbors) 2. Who is willing to use WMD 3. Who supports terrorists 4. Who has
Re: Impressions almost two weeks into the war
--- Damon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 5. I was unaware of the shipment of advanced Russian anti-tank missiles to Iraq, possibly via Syria. Of all of the developments of the war so far, this may be the most worrisome, and the most undercovered by the mainstream press. From what I've heard those missiles are far from advanced. The only missile identified in the news reports I have access to is the Sagger or AT-3, an early generation ATGM with a useful warhead against lighter armored vehicles, though hindered by an antiquated guidance system. If you have information (i.e. identification) of the actual ATGM I would be very curious to hear. BTW, I agree thoroughly with this post; anyone who thinks this is going poorly despite a few setbacks is obviously not a student of military history. Damon. The New Republic identifies it as the AT14 Kornet. I buy this. The Sagger is totally incapable of knocking out an M1-A2. An M1 - maybe. But not anything after the HC variant. That's a bad sign. Check out Gregg Easterbrook's _The Best Laid Plans_ column in TNR. He makes some (fairly obvious) mistakes, but Easterbrook is one of the best journalists in America, and is fairly knowledgeable about the military, so it's still one of the best sources out there. Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://platinum.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
At 07:24 PM 3/31/2003 -0700, you wrote: I wrote: As a Canadian, I really don't care one way or the other about President Bush. He's just a name on the news, really. But this Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive warfare goes against everything I believe, and it really frightens me that a gigantic nation like the United States would even seriously contemplate such a thing, much less actually go to war on it. Dan M. wrote: I'm curious about this. Lets give a simple example, N. Korea without the ability to kill hundreds of thousands in Seoul. Would it have been wrong to stop their development of nuclear weapons and ICBMs? Why is stopping them more frightening than not stopping them? There's certainly nothing wrong with attempting to stop NK's development of nuclear weapons - and the US did in fact try to stop their development - by peaceful means. And until the current crisis, that seemed to be working. Now they say they still have some nuclear bombs, and they never fully disarmed. But with the US (apparently) preoccupied with Iraq, it looks like Kim Jong Il is trying to aggravate the crisis by making threatening gestures and beginning his nuclear arms program again. So the pre-emptive doctrine has already made international relations worse with one country by invading another. It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy, pushing rougue nations towards further aggression because they have nothing left to lose. I can't predict how history would have happened differently if the US (alone, or with a coalition) had invaded North Korea in the seventies or eighties or nineties to stop its nuclear weapons program - but, imo, the situation probably wouldn't have improved. That's because there's no such thing as a simple example - invading North Korea would destabilize all of Southeast Asia, upsetting the balance of power there, kill an unknown number of people, and saddle the US with a costly satrapy that would drain its military and economic resources at a time when many other nations (like China, perhaps) would take advantage of the situation by making aggressive moves of their own. One preventive conflict might lead to many more. But would North Korea be a threat if no one invaded it? Maybe, but then again, maybe not. Almost certainly not if NK wasn't so isolated. I think the better path to follow is economic and political engagement. If Kim Jong Il's government were fully integrated into the world economy the way China is, they would have far less reason to use nuclear weapons or go to war at all. And the same would have true for Saddam's Iraq. Countries that benefit from the status quo have to think very hard before upsetting it. Kevn Street Kevin, slow down. Please, 100% I want to engage you in a peaceful discussion, but I want to make sure we are talking about the same situation. We have been engaging NK for years, they give our aid to the military. Everything they do is for the military. This is the first communist country that had a succession follow bloodlines like kings. There is so much hardnosed control by the rulers that the population has nothing. If they have a radio, it must be set to one station and sealed, no radio free Korea. The population is told that the USA gives NK rice and other supplies as a tribute, to keep NK from attacking the USA or Japan. Your first paragraph is also wrong. The US tried peaceful means and it seemed to be working? Did they build their bombs in the last 18 months? NK will not go to the UN. They will not talk with SK or China or Japan. They are only making noise because they want more money from the US, while not abiding by any rules we'd like them to follow. The US was supposed to build them a nuclear reactor next year. Do you think we should go forward with that agreement? How can we engage them when they don't act rational? Kevin T. - VRWC Sorry, it's late ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Number9Dream
Early last summer, I sent out a missive requesting books to read for my long commute. Number9Dream was recommended by our very own Rich Baker. I finished this about ten minutes ago. It was weird. Not bad weird, really; mostly good weird, but the kind of good weird that at the end leaves you with the same expression I imagine the first cavemen wore upon seeing fire made for the first time. Mr. Mitchell's writing paints a vivid picture of Tokyo and drops a lot of detail into his scenes; I forced mayself to slow down from usual reading pace just to make sure I didn't miss anything. There are some very good lines in the book, the sort that force you to go back and reread them a few times in appreciation. However, his occasionally disjointed narrative is probably not for everyone. And the ending...well, anyone else who's read the book and has a theory, I'd appreciate your opinions. I enjoyed the book, but the ending, and some of the tangents were a bit puzzling. I'm sure this was intentional, but I was wondering to what end it was intentional, if you take my meaning. Anyway, as I slowly make my way through the volumes of suggestions you all shared, I'll continue to bore you with my opinions of them. :-) Thanks as always! Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Impressions almost two weeks into the war
Where is the 101st, though? That's a question that has been bugging me. Somewhere in the west? It's a light infantry division - strategically, not tactically, mobile. Its Apaches do give it significant striking power though. Rick Atkinson of the Washington Post was embedded with them, but none of his reports for the Post have been From the front stories the last few days. What's going on there, I wonder. IIRC somewhere in central Iraq behind the 3rd ID. Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Ace's BRDM-1 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Impressions almost two weeks into the war
The New Republic identifies it as the AT14 Kornet. I buy this. The Sagger is totally incapable of knocking out an M1-A2. An M1 - maybe. But not anything after the HC variant. That's a bad sign. Check out Gregg Easterbrook's _The Best Laid Plans_ column in TNR. He makes some (fairly obvious) mistakes, but Easterbrook is one of the best journalists in America, and is fairly knowledgeable about the military, so it's still one of the best sources out there. Any AT weapon can knock out an Abrams if it hits the right place...but I disagree that a Sagger can take out an M1 frontally. But the AT-14 is a bit more powerful (1200mm RHA penetration compated to 410mm RHA of penetration) so it a credible threat. Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Ace's BRDM-1 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Impressions almost two weeks into the war
--- Kevin Tarr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: but I've been hearing people talking about this lately, almost sounds like talking points: America won every battle in Vietnam, they had massive superiority everywhere but the problem was they couldn't attack very obvious military targets, they were hamstrung by high level officers, president Johnson once said they can't bomb an outhouse without my approval: http://www.afa.org/magazine/editorial/06edit95.html captured NV officers knew they would win, because they were winning the public opinion side. Just wondering if I read your statement wrong, or I'm hearing the history wrong. Kevin T. - VRWC I think that you're hearing the history that the American military has decided is the correct one - it's just an interpretation that I happen (very strongly) to disagree with. I hope, btw, that this position on a fairly emotional issue puts to rest any accusations of me just parroting the military line. A couple of good books on the subject - Max Boot's _Small Wars_ on small wars in general, with a good focus on Vietnam, and Eliot Cohen's _Supreme Command_, on civilian control of the military in democratic societies, also with a good chapter on Vietnam. I could also probably dig up my undergraduate paper on the subject if you're really interested. It wasn't my best work by any means, but it has the rudiments of the argument. I think you have to distinguish between good micromanagement and bad micromanagement. LBJ did exercise (sometimes ludicrous) control over some facets of the war - but he never exercised real civilian control by forcing the Chiefs to come up with a plan more creative than bomb, and then bomb some more. If he had done as Lincoln would have and just started relieving Generals who didn't get results, instead of sticking with Westmoreland, he would eventually have ended up with either Creighton Abrams in the Army, or Krulak in the Marines. In either of those cases I think the outcome of the war would have been very, very different. Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://platinum.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
- Original Message - From: Kevin Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 9:05 PM Subject: RE: Question for those who are anti-war . . . Robert Seeberger wrote: Soviet Russia used to do things like this, and you never saw this level of protest over it. China is still in Tibet and the protest is minimal in comparison. A lot is made by the rest of the world of Americas inconsistencies in foreign policy. But the rest of the world has been pretty inconsistent in the pursuit of peace. Yes, Russia and China have done terrible things, in both this century and the last one. If it was possible, they should be brought to account for their crimes. But at the moment, they're just too powerful. A war to liberate Chechyna or Tibet would kill too many people to be worth the cost. The world is inconsistent about preventing aggression, and it shouldn't be. But at the moment, it's the only world we've got. The thing that bothers me so much here is that this time it's *America* who's the aggressor. The one major power that has (almost) never acted in an imperialistic manner, the country that has helped other nations far more than it has harmed them. A country that has, up until now, been an inspiration and model for the world. Yes, we expect more of the United States than other countries. And the United States should expect more of itself. It is very kind of you to state things so diplomatically. And I for one appreciate such efforts. Thank you! I serious problem that I see is the propensity for the peace movement to live in the moment with little serious consideration for the future. Where were these supposed peace protestors when France, Russia, China, and NK were not just arming third world nations, but helping them build a WMD infrastructure? The peace movement tends to be blind to the past, unless it is looking for recriminating evidence, and is absolutely blind to the future. Where the peace movement should focus a large share of its attention is upon the weapons manufacturers in their own nations and in creating weapons embargoes on countries like NK. How about a push for a moratorium on the export of artillery and tanks and the like? Ammunition? Land mines? This stuff isn't manufactured onsite, these are export items. A lot could be done to insure a future peace by pushing the UN and working within our own countries. The US is not so much the worlds Sheriff as it is the worlds Janitor. xponent Atomic Janitor Maru rob Workings of man Set to ply out historical life Reregaining the flower of the fruit of his tree All awakening All restoring you Workings of man Crying out from the fire set aflame By his blindness to see that the warmth of his being Is promised for his seeing his reaching so clearly Workings of man Driven far from the path Rereleased in inhibitions So that all is left for you all is left for you all is left for you all this left for you NOW... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: the three laws of robotics are evil, why they mustbe eradicated
At 01:24 PM 3/31/03 -0800, d.brin wrote: From: Alberto Monteiro Perhaps, but then the laws are actually designed for a different specific purpose, that is to prevent the robots from doing things like killing all humans, or becoming bloody dictators. The laws are to protect humans, not to harm robots. And my point is that this is the wrong approach. Once they become smart they will become lawyers and interpret the 'laws' any way they wish. Which is exactly what happens in Isaac's universe. And that's all we need: more bloody lawyers . . . -- Ronn! :) In one respect at least the Martians are a happy people; they have no lawyers. _A Princess of Mars_ by Edgar Rice Burroughs ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
France, again.
Read the fine print on French's mustard, and you'll see that it says, I'm not really French, even though I'm yellow. !*!*mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Down with Texas!
On 3/30/03 7:47 PM, Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matthew and Julie Bos wrote: On 3/30/03 4:19 PM, Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now, which tournament are you talking about -- the men's or the women's? Oh, it really doesn't matter, Michigan State is better. Then why did they lose by, what was it, something like 9 points? :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l Because, even if we lose...it is still no excuse not to turn over cop cars and burn stuff! Actually the loss wasn't that bad. Just call it training for the upcoming Cubs season. Matthew Bos ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Down with Texas!
On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Matthew and Julie Bos wrote: On 3/30/03 7:47 PM, Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matthew and Julie Bos wrote: On 3/30/03 4:19 PM, Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now, which tournament are you talking about -- the men's or the women's? Oh, it really doesn't matter, Michigan State is better. Then why did they lose by, what was it, something like 9 points? :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l Because, even if we lose...it is still no excuse not to turn over cop cars and burn stuff! Actually the loss wasn't that bad. Just call it training for the upcoming Cubs season. Now I don't know whether to feel more sorry for you or not. Cubs? Julia Red Sox fan, trying not to get sucked in this year, but you *know* it'll happen ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
