Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
JDG wrote: I'm continually amazed at our ability to talk past each other on this issue. Of course Bill Clinton would have fallen victim to using much of the same intelligence. That's because neither Administration was treating intelligence as a black box.They weren't saying I wonder if Iraq has some WMD's still left - perhaps I should consult some intelligence to find out.The existence of WMD's in Iraq was a GIVEN.We knew Iraq had WMD's because we had seen Iraq use them - and it seemed highly implausable that Iraq would spend twelve years dodging inspections and enduring sanctions if it had really, bona fide disarmed as the UN had mandated. One of the reasons we keep talking past each other is because you continue to use the phrase knew when in fact you should be saying we thought we knew. In fact we didn't know as recent events have demonstrated. Another is that you keep using events that occurred 20 years ago, prior to the fist war (and with the tacit approval of the Republican administration at the time) to justify the second war. Furthermore, we've seen time and again that the Bush administration exaggerated the threat and continued to use discredited information long after other administration officials had admitted that the information was false. Bush approached the situation in Iraq with tunnel vision once he had found his justification in 911. When he should have been concentrating on the overall anti-terror picture his mind was set on Iraq and little else. Moreover, we also knew that even if Iraq had no WMD's now that it surely was still trying to acquire them now - or else would immediately do so as soon as France and Russia had their way an ended sanctions on Iraq. While this may be true it in no way justifies invasion. It justified the inspections that were taking place prior to the war and which were proving effective. They were not the instant gratification Bush was hoping to achieve with the invasion, but they don't have the baggage that came with the invasion and they could conceivably been used to force other internal reforms. I know you'll probably scoff at that last, but it's my opinion that gradual changes are more effective and less disruptive than abrupt ones. At this point I think that the very best we can hope for is a state similar to Iran, with a hatred for Israel (the site of yet another Bush disaster) and western society in general and the U.S. in particular. The only purpose of pursuing the intelligence that ultimately proved to be faulty was to make it politically untenable for the French to continue to stand in our way. The reason it was used is because all humans are naturally susceptible to believe things which confirm what they know to be true. In this case, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton shared the same knowledge of the truth. I'm relatively certain that Clinton would never have brought in a fox to asses whether or not it was a good idea to raid the hen house. -- Doug Slow and steady wins the race maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
At 11:15 PM 5/20/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote: Since Bill Clinton himself has stated on many occasions that he agreed with the Bush Administration's interpretation of Iraqi threat, that's a remarkable statement of his omniscience there, Doug. Would Clinton have depended on stove piped intelligence from expatriate Iraqis with an agenda to make the case for invasion, while ignoring evidence to the contrary from more reliable sources? Would Clinton have commissioned a study on the costs and difficulties of a war on Iraq and then ignored its results? Would Clinton have cut short the new inspection regimen that was revealing that Iraq had no stockpiles of WMDs? I'm continually amazed at our ability to talk past each other on this issue. Of course Bill Clinton would have fallen victim to using much of the same intelligence. That's because neither Administration was treating intelligence as a black box.They weren't saying I wonder if Iraq has some WMD's still left - perhaps I should consult some intelligence to find out.The existence of WMD's in Iraq was a GIVEN.We knew Iraq had WMD's because we had seen Iraq use them - and it seemed highly implausable that Iraq would spend twelve years dodging inspections and enduring sanctions if it had really, bona fide disarmed as the UN had mandated. Moreover, we also knew that even if Iraq had no WMD's now that it surely was still trying to acquire them now - or else would immediately do so as soon as France and Russia had their way an ended sanctions on Iraq. The only purpose of pursuing the intelligence that ultimately proved to be faulty was to make it politically untenable for the French to continue to stand in our way. The reason it was used is because all humans are naturally susceptible to believe things which confirm what they know to be true. In this case, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton shared the same knowledge of the truth. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
At 09:00 PM 5/17/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote: JDG wrote: The right idea: -military assaults on no less than four of its neighbors -10,000 children dying per month (per UNICEF and WHO) -a near permanent US presence in the Muslim Holy Land outraging Arabs -four years and counting of defiance of UN weapons inspections -torture of political prisoners -brutality against Olympic athletes -a near-permanent lukewarm war with Iraqis shooting at our pilots -child prisons -funding of international terrorists, particularly in Palestine -no elections, no freedom of speech, religion, assembly, or the press -anti-Semitic propaganda/brainwashing of 38 million Arabs -genocide of the Marsh Arab culture -the constant threat that Hussein would someday succeed in acquiring either a ready-made nuclear bomb, or the necessary ingredients of a nuclear bomb -plundering of oil revenues to build palaces while impoverishing the people -numerous mass graves -12+ years of sanctions, lies, broken promises, and failed negotiations The right idea being that a poorly planned, abysmally administrated invasion and subsequent reconstruction, using the trademark Bush administration tactic of ignoring experts that don't come up with the right answer, would do little or nothing to solve most of the above problems. Exactly which of the above problems have not been solved? And how does this compare to the number of the above problems that have been solved? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
Gautam wrote: Since Bill Clinton himself has stated on many occasions that he agreed with the Bush Administration's interpretation of Iraqi threat, that's a remarkable statement of his omniscience there, Doug. Would Clinton have depended on stove piped intelligence from expatriate Iraqis with an agenda to make the case for invasion, while ignoring evidence to the contrary from more reliable sources? Would Clinton have commissioned a study on the costs and difficulties of a war on Iraq and then ignored its results? Would Clinton have cut short the new inspection regimen that was revealing that Iraq had no stockpiles of WMDs? You are right (and I was wrong), Clinton believed that Iraq was a threat. But he never would have approached the problem in the haphazard, incompetent manner the Bush administration has. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You asked in a different post if Clinton would have been able to get France to join the coalition. Clinton (or Gore for that matter) would have been able to interpret the intelligence well enough to realize that Iraq wasn't a real threat, and would have built on the good will in the wake of 911 to create a _real_ coalition of free nations united in the fight to rid the world of the blight of terrorism. Doug Since Bill Clinton himself has stated on many occasions that he agreed with the Bush Administration's interpretation of Iraqi threat, that's a remarkable statement of his omniscience there, Doug. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price. http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
On Mon, 17 May 2004 21:09:51 -0400, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 06:54 PM 5/13/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote: And are you so sure that some in the U.S. don't have motives that are less than honest? Whatever their motives, at this point it sure looks like the French (Chineese, Russians, Germans, Canadians etc. etc.) had the right idea. The right idea: Let me turn all of these around. -military assaults on no less than four of its neighbors Assault of Iran, supported and funded by the US and Saudi Arabia. Assault on Kuwait, only after getting the go-ahead from the US ambassador. Gulf War 1, after the US refused to recognize it's offer to withdraw. Attacks on Kurds pre-Gulf War 1 with no objections by the US. No attacks on Israel but did reward the families of suicide bombers - as did religious groups and members of the royal family in Saudi Arabia. Attacks on Shiites with no intervention by the US after Bush 1 encourage them to revolt. -10,000 children dying per month (per UNICEF and WHO) 10,000 children dying per month due to the embargo on food and medicine imposed on Iraq by the US. -a near permanent US presence in the Muslim Holy Land outraging Arabs As in the above who are you blaming, Saddam or the US? -four years and counting of defiance of UN weapons inspections The UN inspectors were withdrawn after the US said they would likely be harmed if they didn't withdraw. -torture of political prisoners See above, the US or Saddam? -brutality against Olympic athletes Stretching there. -a near-permanent lukewarm war with Iraqis shooting at our pilots After Bush took office an escalation of attacks on all military and quasi-military targets in the non-UN sanctioned no-fly zones with the purpose to roll up all defenses and possibly provoke some response worthy of massive retaliation. -child prisons Photos not available in the US yet depicts the children and women's wing of Iraqi prisons. -funding of international terrorists, particularly in Palestine No known funding of terrorists except for the family survivor money. This in contrast to Saudi funding. -no elections, no freedom of speech, religion, assembly, or the press NO elections, last year reports of how Bremer defunded the election preparations. The start of the civil war occurred when the CPA shut down a Shiite newspaper for critical reporting. Prisoners and relatives of prisoners have reported many are in jail because neighbors have made false accusations of being against the CPA. This spring things started to go bad in the north after US troops fired on marches. -anti-Semitic propaganda/brainwashing of 38 million Arabs Criticism of Israel policies not caring how many innocents are killed to hit one possible terrorist now non-existent in most US media. -genocide of the Marsh Arab culture Revolt encouraged by Bush. Many Shiites believe now to enable Saddam to destroy their culture. -the constant threat that Hussein would someday succeed in acquiring either a ready-made nuclear bomb, or the necessary ingredients of a nuclear bomb US CIA repeatedly informed by reliable sources that nuclear bomb development ended as specified in the Gulf War 1 treaty -plundering of oil revenues to build palaces while impoverishing the people As reported at the time with no action taken. -numerous mass graves US responsible for mass graves of thousands in Gulf War 1. After Gulf War 1, Bush refused to intervene to stop mass killings after encouraging revolts. -12+ years of sanctions, lies, broken promises, and failed negotiations You are talking about the U.S. aren't you? Oh yes, Doug - France, China, Russia, and Germany had the right idea allright. Without George Bush, things would have been so much better in Iraq. Don't you agree Absolutely, we would have gotten rid of Saddam with world cooperation or verified that he was not a threat to his neighbors. In fact, we might have done what Cheney suggested in 1998 and ended sanctions and reopened trade so Halliburton could make money without costing US taxpayers $200 billion and what will soon be over a thousand US soldier lives. JDG - Who doesn't seriously expect anyone here to have the guts to actually say that. Surprise, This war was a massive failure, planned in the 90's, entered into illegally, immorally, with patriotic speeches and sleazy back door corrupt deals. It may have permanently damaged the reputation of the US in the rest of the world. It not only clearly demonstrates the corruption of this administration but it's massive incompetence. Saddam was a brutal mass murdering thug supported by the US until some people had better plans for Iraq. I am glad he is gone, but this administration's only sorry excuse now that they are in charge of Iraq is that at least they are not as bad as the worst in the world. FYI, before Bush took office I was considered a moderate and took grief from
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony L3
- Original Message - From: Andrew Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 3:21 AM Subject: FW: What America Does with its Hegemony From: Dan Minette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't recall all the details of Rwanda or Bosnia, so I take your points as given. I would argue that there was sufficient warlike activity going in both places for the reasonable person to classify them as wars, but you raise a good point. When is it a war and when is it a country perusing its own legitimate internal security program. I would think we all agree that in both these cases what was going on was more then just internal security. But there will be cases where it is less clear. That's true.I'll ask my Zambian daughter about some of the details when she comes home from her trip to South America. But, I was not thinking about the demarkation line as war/legitimate internal security. I'm thinking about it as war/one group in control. The slaughter of the Jews in Germany (which is just part of the Holocaust of course) wasn't a war because the Jewish people didn't have an effective armed resistance. Since Poland offered some initial resistance, then the slaughter of Jews in Poland might be called part of war. I think we agree that both would be worth intervening over, and neither is a legitimate security interest. There should be, in my opinion (and I think Doug discusses this above) some sort of body to make these decisions. The UN is flawed, in many ways, but it does have the only claim to being a world government. But, the reality of world politics is that this will only happen when other sovereign states are threatened. The first Gulf War is a great example of how this works. The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq portented the possibility of Iraq taking over most of the oil production in the Middle East. If the US didn't stop it, there would be chance that Saudi Arabia and the UAE could stand for more than a few days. So, the US got the world's blessing to reverse the invasion, but only to reverse the invasion. They had to promise to leave Hussein in power in order to obtain the world's blessing. Bush Sr. took the gamble that Hussein would fall after a big defeat. It didn't happen. I didn't know that. I have always wondered why they did not take him out. It highlights the current problems with the UN I guess. Who made Bush promise that? It was the only way to get the rest of the world to cooperate. I I understand how that is nice in theory, but it doesn't really happen. The UN just gave its tacit approval to the genocide that is developing in Sudan. The UN insisted that its forces should not stop genocide in Bosnia. The UN refused to consider Yes, and there is the rub. I am thinking of a meaningful UN, cos yes, as it stands, there is too much politics. I think that this may be an indication of the foundation of our differences. While I can admire idealism; I don't think an idealistic goal without a practial plan to get there is a real option. One rule of thumb in engineering is that the best is often the enemy of the good. Let me understand your point clearly then. Take Gautam's example of the advisability of the British and French stopping the remiliterization of the Rhine. By your standards, that would have been wrong. Again, my lack of history is showing here. But I thought that happened after war had been declared over Poland? They didn't start a war over the Rhine did they? Or am I barking up another tree? At http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=enModuleId=10005439 quote In the 1925 Treaty of Locarno, Germany had recognized both the inviolability of its borders with France and Belgium and the demilitarization of the Rhineland. On March 7, 1936, however, Hitler repudiated this agreement and ordered the German armed forces (Wehrmacht) into the demilitarized Rhineland. Hitler's action brought condemnation from Britain and France, but neither nation intervened end quote Many people think that this was a place were WWII could have been stopped, with a relatively small price to be paid. Indeed, since Hitler had ordered his troops to retreat if this move was opposed, the lives lost would have been mostly due to accidents. Looking back at WWI, one of the lessons learned was that the nations were too quick to go to war over treaties. Indeed, the lessons could be said to be overlearned, with France and Germany overcompensating for previous errors and not taking any prudent measures to stop Hitler...until it was too late. It appears to me that you think it was immoral to stop WWII at this point. Well, see, I don't call intervening to prevent genocide as in Rwanda is starting a war of aggression. And I don't want the US to be the one to have to fix it. I want the world community to agree genocide is happening, do all it can diplomatically to prevent it, and then, if needed, assemble
FW: What America Does with its Hegemony
From: Dan Minette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Andrew Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't think Bosnia or Rwanda were/would have been starting wars. Both were civil wars as I see them, in which one, with the full support of the UN, one could justify intervention to end them, not to start them. In Rwanda the tribal war was over. One side had won. After it won, it killed a significant fraction of the tribe that lost as well as those members of its own tribe that protested. So, there was no war to stop, just genocide. The UN would definitely not support intervention, because it would violate the most important principal held by the member nations of the UN: the sovereign nature of each state in the UN. In other words, the right of a nation to handle its own affairs in any way it seems fit is, practically, more important than stopping the evil of genocide. In Bosnia, it is true that there was some resistance to the Serbs, so you could say the war was still going on. But, the UN's position was crystal clear in the Dutchbat report...the UN was not to stop genocide. What is amazing about this report is that it chided Clinton for trying to work as an equal partner with the other nations of NATO instead of telling people what they would do. There was no way this would change at the UN. Supporting the supremacy of the Serbs was in the best interest of the government of Russia. Stopping the war and preventing genocide was clearly in the best interest of Western Europe. Yet, the US had to drag them into the only real solution kicking years after the mess started. At the time I thought Bosnia was a perfect opportunity for the EU to show its ability to take the lead in handling a crisis in its own back yard. It is clear that the countries of Europe had no stomach for it, and relied on the US to force a solution on them. Looking back, this seems to flow naturally from the tragedy of the commons. I don't recall all the details of Rwanda or Bosnia, so I take your points as given. I would argue that there was sufficient warlike activity going in both places for the reasonable person to classify them as wars, but you raise a good point. When is it a war and when is it a country perusing its own legitimate internal security program. I would think we all agree that in both these cases what was going on was more then just internal security. But there will be cases where it is less clear. There should be, in my opinion (and I think Doug discusses this above) some sort of body to make these decisions. The UN is flawed, in many ways, but it does have the only claim to being a world government. But, the reality of world politics is that this will only happen when other sovereign states are threatened. The first Gulf War is a great example of how this works. The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq portented the possibility of Iraq taking over most of the oil production in the Middle East. If the US didn't stop it, there would be chance that Saudi Arabia and the UAE could stand for more than a few days. So, the US got the world's blessing to reverse the invasion, but only to reverse the invasion. They had to promise to leave Hussein in power in order to obtain the world's blessing. Bush Sr. took the gamble that Hussein would fall after a big defeat. It didn't happen. I didn't know that. I have always wondered why they did not take him out. It highlights the current problems with the UN I guess. Who made Bush promise that? And even it would not start wars, it would reluctantly undertake interventions in countries that had gone beyond the limit of what was agreed by the world as being acceptable behaviour. That would not be an easy judgement, and lots of stalling and politics would go on, and lots of indecision, but thats how it should be. Rwanda, Bosnia and a few others would fall into the category of places that one would intervene in. I understand how that is nice in theory, but it doesn't really happen. The UN just gave its tacit approval to the genocide that is developing in Sudan. The UN insisted that its forces should not stop genocide in Bosnia. The UN refused to consider Yes, and there is the rub. I am thinking of a meaningful UN, cos yes, as it stands, there is too much politics. Perhaps, eventually, Iraq would have too, once all other avenues had been fully explored. France has a veto power and it specifically stated that there were no circumstances in which this would happen. Further, France and Russia worked hard between '98 and '01 to remove all restraints on Hussein. Gautam's senior thesis at Harvard gave a very good explaination for this. French comments have supported his thesis. Oversimplifying it, I would say it is nations strive to improve their relative position with the other nations of the world. Thus, since Hussein poses a difficult challange to the US, keeping Hussein in power weakens the US. If France gains commercial contracts with Hussein, France benefits. Thus, Hussein
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
At 06:54 PM 5/13/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote: And are you so sure that some in the U.S. don't have motives that are less than honest? Whatever their motives, at this point it sure looks like the French (Chineese, Russians, Germans, Canadians etc. etc.) had the right idea. The right idea: -military assaults on no less than four of its neighbors -10,000 children dying per month (per UNICEF and WHO) -a near permanent US presence in the Muslim Holy Land outraging Arabs -four years and counting of defiance of UN weapons inspections -torture of political prisoners -brutality against Olympic athletes -a near-permanent lukewarm war with Iraqis shooting at our pilots -child prisons -funding of international terrorists, particularly in Palestine -no elections, no freedom of speech, religion, assembly, or the press -anti-Semitic propaganda/brainwashing of 38 million Arabs -genocide of the Marsh Arab culture -the constant threat that Hussein would someday succeed in acquiring either a ready-made nuclear bomb, or the necessary ingredients of a nuclear bomb -plundering of oil revenues to build palaces while impoverishing the people -numerous mass graves -12+ years of sanctions, lies, broken promises, and failed negotiations Oh yes, Doug - France, China, Russia, and Germany had the right idea allright. Without George Bush, things would have been so much better in Iraq. Don't you agree JDG - Who doesn't seriously expect anyone here to have the guts to actually say that. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
At 09:54 PM 5/13/2004, you wrote: Steve Sloan wrote: Doug Pensinger wrote: What did the U.S. have to gain by intervening in Rwanda? Diddly squat, but that doesn't mean dedicated critics of the US couldn't come up with something. Presumably, Rwanda had something useful enough for past European imperialists to colonize the country, and the critics could use that. There have been very few critics of our intervention in Bosnia. Even those who were opposed to it at the time point to it as proof of our good intentions. If we were successful in preventing a genocide and that was our clear motive in interveneing, the success of our mission would speak for itself. If, instead of asking for another $25 B for Iraq, we put that kind of money and effort towards ending the AIDS epidemic, who could doubt our motive was pure? Critics would claim the politicians who proposed it were using African AIDS victims as an excuse for taking money from taxpayers, and giving it to their buddies in the pharmaceutical companies. Only those who have dishonest motives themselves. France's dishonest motives for opposing the war in Iraq haven't hurt them so far. Are you sure about that? Were _all_ of France's motives for opposing the war dishonest? And are you so sure that some in the U.S. don't have motives that are less than honest? Whatever their motives, at this point it sure looks like the French (Chineese, Russians, Germans, Canadians etc. etc.) had the right idea. -- Doug Sure they had the right idea. Filling up their treasuries and lining individual pockets with stolen lucre and sweetheart deals while innocents died by the thousands, ten thousand a month.who wouldn't support that? Kevin T. - VRWC Devil in the details ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
Dan wrote: So, let my put forth a hypothetical. Lets assume this was done by an administration that had shown a real sucess rebuilding Afganistan, and had a very good team ready to work in reconstructing Iraq, and had laid out the real costs to the American people and gotten buy in. Lets suppose that Bush had not exaggerated the level of certainty for WMD from there are very strong indications...even French intelligence thinks so to total certainty. In this case, with proper preparation for sucess, would completing the Gulf War have been wrong?...especially since it faded into a often violated cease fire agreement instead of ending in '91. I'm a bit confused. You seem to be talking about the current struggle at the beginning of the paragraph and the first Gulf war at the end of it. But if the question is would I have supported the present war had the administration been better prepared and told the truth about its intentions and motivations, the answer is a definate maybe. I think that's the kind of thing you can't really speculate on unless you know all the details of the situation. I'll be honest with you though, Bush's interest in Iraq is too much like a bear's interest in a honey tree for me to feel comfortable with his judgement in this situation. And the fact that the UN repeatedly insisted on not acting. As Gautam said, stopping the slaughter violated international law. This brings up the obvious question: what is the value in international law when it requires us to, when asked, stand aside so genocide can occure? Are we required to follow the wishes of the UN and allow genocide to take place, or are we morally compelled to stop genocide. (I will argue strongly that the third option, getting the UN to stop genocide is often not a real option.) Some laws are just wrong. The U.N. is a flawed institution, but the idea of an impartial world governing body that can solve these kinds of problems is, IMO, a good one. We need to either fix the U.N. or create something that works. I just don't think we can expect the rest of the world to be saddled and ridden by the U.S. That said, I agree with the criticism of European nations in matters such as the Yugoslavia debacle. I agree that the US should have intervened. Do you agree, if it would have done so, it would have been dissed by a great deal of the world for imperealism? Should we have been willing to violate international law to save half a million human lives? What did the U.S. have to gain by intervening in Rwanda? If we were successful in preventing a genocide and that was our clear motive in interveneing, the success of our mission would speak for itself. If, instead of asking for another $25 B for Iraq, we put that kind of money and effort towards ending the AIDS epidemic, who could doubt our motive was pure? Only those who have dishonest motives themselves. One thing I think a lot of people don't understand. Terrorism and the war against it are not about convincing the terrorists that they are right or convincing those that fight terrorism that they are right - its about convincing those people that aren't sure who to believe who is right. Terrorists can behead a hundred Americans and it won't be as damaging to their reputation as the prison guard scandal is to us. We're the ones waving the flag of freedom and democracy and human dignity, and the scandal calls our sincerity into question. That the terrorists are murdering, gutless scumbags is not breaking news, but the prison scandal reinforces the idea that they _have_ to be murdering, gutless scumbags in order to combat this mega-power that humiliates their people. Please don't construe the above as justifying anything the terrorists do. Terrorism needs to be eliminated, but we're going about it all wrong. Win the hearts and minds of the undecided. Prove your sincerity in a manner it's difficult to question. Intervening in Rwanda with nothing to gain other than knowing we we're doing the right thing, is the kind of thing that convinces the undecided that we are sincere. Invading Iraq where our motives are more easily questioned, no matter how sincere we might be, is a much more difficult proposition. I've got to cut this off and get some sleep. Hopefully I can finish tomorrow. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
Doug Pensinger wrote: I agree that the US should have intervened. Do you agree, if it would have done so, it would have been dissed by a great deal of the world for imperealism? Should we have been willing to violate international law to save half a million human lives? What did the U.S. have to gain by intervening in Rwanda? Diddly squat, but that doesn't mean dedicated critics of the US couldn't come up with something. Presumably, Rwanda had something useful enough for past European imperialists to colonize the country, and the critics could use that. If we were successful in preventing a genocide and that was our clear motive in interveneing, the success of our mission would speak for itself. If, instead of asking for another $25 B for Iraq, we put that kind of money and effort towards ending the AIDS epidemic, who could doubt our motive was pure? Critics would claim the politicians who proposed it were using African AIDS victims as an excuse for taking money from taxpayers, and giving it to their buddies in the pharmaceutical companies. Only those who have dishonest motives themselves. France's dishonest motives for opposing the war in Iraq haven't hurt them so far. __ Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama = [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brin-L list pages .. http://www.brin-l.org Science Fiction-themed online store . http://www.sloan3d.com/store Chmeee's 3D Objects http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee 3D and Drawing Galleries .. http://www.sloansteady.com Software Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links Science fiction scans . http://www.sloan3d.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
Steve Sloan wrote: Doug Pensinger wrote: What did the U.S. have to gain by intervening in Rwanda? Diddly squat, but that doesn't mean dedicated critics of the US couldn't come up with something. Presumably, Rwanda had something useful enough for past European imperialists to colonize the country, and the critics could use that. There have been very few critics of our intervention in Bosnia. Even those who were opposed to it at the time point to it as proof of our good intentions. If we were successful in preventing a genocide and that was our clear motive in interveneing, the success of our mission would speak for itself. If, instead of asking for another $25 B for Iraq, we put that kind of money and effort towards ending the AIDS epidemic, who could doubt our motive was pure? Critics would claim the politicians who proposed it were using African AIDS victims as an excuse for taking money from taxpayers, and giving it to their buddies in the pharmaceutical companies. Only those who have dishonest motives themselves. France's dishonest motives for opposing the war in Iraq haven't hurt them so far. Are you sure about that? Were _all_ of France's motives for opposing the war dishonest? And are you so sure that some in the U.S. don't have motives that are less than honest? Whatever their motives, at this point it sure looks like the French (Chineese, Russians, Germans, Canadians etc. etc.) had the right idea. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
- Original Message - From: Andrew Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 8:08 AM Subject: RE: What America Does with its Hegemony I dont think Bosnia or Rwanda were/would have been starting wars. Both were civil wars as I see them, in which one, with the full support of the UN, one could justify intervention to end them, not to start them. In Rwanda the tribal war was over. One side had won. After it won, it killed a significant fraction of the tribe that lost as well as those members of its own tribe that protested. So, there was no war to stop, just genocide. The UN would definately not support intervention, because it would violate the most important principal held by the member nations of the UN: the soverign nature of each state in the UN. In other words, the right of a nation to handle its own affairs in any way it seems fit is, practically, more important than stopping the evil of genocide. In Bosnia, it is true that there was some resistance to the Serbs, so you could say the war was still going on. But, the UN's position was crystal clear in the Dutchbat report...the UN was not to stop genocide. What is amazing about this report is that it chided Clinton for trying to work as an equal partner with the other nations of NATO instead of telling people what they would do. There was no way this would change at the UN. Supporting the supremacy of the Serbs was in the best interest of the government of Russia. Stopping the war and preventing genocide was clearly in the best interest of Western Europe. Yet, the US had to drag them into the only real solution kicking years after the mess started. At the time I thought Bosnia was a perfect opportunity for the EU to show its ability to take the lead in handling a crisis in its own back yard. It is clear that the countries of Europe had no stomach for it, and relied on the US to force a solution on them. Looking back, this seems to flow naturally from the tragedy of the commons. There should be, in my opinion (and I think Doug discusses this above) some sort of body to make these decisions. The UN is flawed, in many ways, but it does have the only claim to being a world government. But, the reality of world politics is that this will only happen when other soverign states are threatened. The first Gulf War is a great example of how this works. The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq portented the possibility of Iraq taking over most of the oil production in the Middle East. If the US didn't stop it, there would be chance that Saudi Arabia and the UAE could stand for more than a few days. So, the US got the world's blessing to reverse the invasion, but only to reverse the invasion. They had to promise to leave Hussein in power in order to obtain the world's blessing. Bush Sr. took the gamble that Hussein would fall after a big defeat. It didn't happen. And even it would not start wars, it would reluctantly undertake interventions in countries that had gone beyond the limit of what was agreed by the world as being acceptable behaviour. That would not be an easy judgement, and lots of stalling and politics would go on, and lots of indecision, but thats how it should be. Rwanda, Bosnia and a few others would fall into the category of places that one would intervene in. I understand how that is nice in theory, but it doesn't really happen. The UN just gave its tacit approval to the genocide that is developing in Sudan. The UN insisted that its forces should not stop genocide in Bosnia. The UN refused to consider Perhaps, eventually, Iraq would have too, once all other avenues had been fully explored. France has a veto power and it specifically stated that there were no circumstances in which this would happen. Further, France and Russia worked hard between '98 and '01 to remove all restraints on Hussein. Gautam's senior thesis at Harvard gave a very good explaination for this. French comments have supported his thesis. Oversimplifying it, I would say it is nations strive to improve their relative position with the other nations of the world. Thus, since Hussein poses a difficult challange to the US, keeping Hussein in power weakens the US. If France gains commercial contracts with Hussein, France benefits. Thus, Hussein represents a benefit to France...and it is in France's best interest to keep Hussein in power. It is also in France's best interest for the US to check that power, since a nuclear armed Hussein would pose a danger to France. But, since France can count on Israel and the US to check these ambitions, it even behooves France to help Hussein become a nuclear power. Back to the Gulf War. Hussein started a new campaign of killing (which looked like the start of genocide) after recovering a bit from the first Gulf War. The US and GB intervened to stop it, maintaining a uneasy status quo. So, the Gulf War was more ongoing than the civil war
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
Dan Minette wrote: I understand how that is nice in theory, but it doesn't really happen. The UN just gave its tacit approval to the genocide that is developing in Sudan. The UN insisted that its forces should not stop genocide in Bosnia. The UN refused to consider Consider what? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
- Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 10:23 AM Subject: Re: What America Does with its Hegemony I had an unfinished thought...sorry. I understand how that is nice in theory, but it doesn't really happen. The UN just gave its tacit approval to the genocide that is developing in Sudan. The UN insisted that its forces should not stop genocide in Bosnia. The UN refused to consider the genocide in Rwanda in any serious manner. They only way that it would have been stopped in time was for the US to make a plausible threat to immediately intervene with all due speed and all necessary means to stop it. The US would be called all sorts of names for this, of course, if the genocide were stopped early enough most of the rest of the world would have denied its existence...but the disgust of the rest of the world would have been the necessary price paid by the US to stop genocide. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 11:08 AM Subject: Re: What America Does with its Hegemony Dan wrote: wrong with overturning a genocidal dictator. I think the world needs a mechanism to deal with these crisis. This would obviously require the cooperation of many disparate nations and after the current debacle is more of a pipe dream than ever. What Bush has tried to do is to tell the world how things are going to be and I think that the lesson we are learning is that no matter how powerful we are, we're not going to get the Middle East or any other region of the world to tow the line based on our say so. To be fair to him, I think what he was trying to do was change the nature of the game. The thought was, just like Japan and Germany, people would be happy with a good representative government in Iraq. This happiness would make them very protective of that government, and in short order we'd have a shining example of what could be in the mid-East. This would be the first step in draining the swamp. In principal, it is a worthwhile goal. Our own Gautam has been trying to risk his life to help accomplish this goal. I think that the folks who pushed for this from way back are idealists...complete with the blindness to reality that some realists have. I fault the Bush administration for acting as if, once Hussein was overthrown, things would work out very straightforwardly. They were horrendously unprepared, and acted as a typical leadership team caught up in management by wishful thinking. They considered those who pointed out real difficulties nay-sayers and either ignored them or pushed them out. So, let my put forth a hypothetical. Lets assume this was done by an administration that had shown a real sucess rebuilding Afganistan, and had a very good team ready to work in reconstructing Iraq, and had laid out the real costs to the American people and gotten buy in. Lets suppose that Bush had not exaggerated the level of certainty for WMD from there are very strong indications...even French intelligence thinks so to total certainty. In this case, with proper preparation for sucess, would completing the Gulf War have been wrong?...especially since it faded into a often violated cease fire agreement instead of ending in '91. Our action in Bosnia was the culmination of a problem that had festered in eastern Europe for a decade or so. It wasn't just the 'cleansing' that was taking place at the time that prompted the action, but the fact that a series of atrocities had occurred over the years and it became obvious that the cycle of violence had to be ended. And the fact that the UN repeatedly insisted on not acting. As Gautam said, stopping the slaughter violated international law. This brings up the obvious question: what is the value in international law when it requires us to, when asked, stand aside so genocide can occure? Are we required to follow the wishes of the UN and allow genocide to take place, or are we morally compelled to stop genocide. (I will argue strongly that the third option, getting the UN to stop genocide is often not a real option.) While I'm asking questions, I should explictly give my own position here. The best thing to have happened was for NATO to intervene with all force necessary immediately...with Europe in the lead...with or without UN blessing. The next best thing was for the US to prod Europe into doing this. Rwanda is probably the most persuasive argument for a policing mechanism. There is very little political interest in these poor African nations and just as importantly there is little interest in the press. The AIDS epidemic is a festering wound and our lack of decisiveness to combat it is going to come back to bite us. Big time. So yes, we should have taken action in Rwanda and I think that if Clinton had tried to he could have made a huge difference there. Its a black mark on his record, and no one knows it more than he does. I agree that the US should have intervened. Do you agree, if it would have done so, it would have been dissed by a great deal of the world for imperealism? Should we have been willing to violate international law to save half a million human lives? Iraq was (and remains) a much more difficult problem. In basing our economy around oil we have accorded an importance to the nations of the Middle East that they would never have achieved otherwise. One of Bush's big mistakes, IMO, was to reverse the trend towards trying to develop alternatives to the oil that fuels this exaggerated importance. You might recall a post that JDG made about how we are much less vulnerable to inflation as the result of a fuel shortage than we were in the late '70s, reason being we are _less_ dependant on that fuel. Well, yes and no. Natural gas was always available. Oil imports are now a greater
[L3] Re: Warhorses (was: What America Does with its Hegemony)
Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [I wrote] I'll try to find some on-line pix of the various riding styles (knight vs. Moor) etc. The reason why I inquired is because, as you may know, I have a history degree, and would tenatively describe myself as a military historian. I have plenty of source material on the subject. But when you say that Arabians revolutionized cavalry, you must be very careful to define specifically what you mean. Arabians and Barbs, I wrote; the 'revolution' was in the changeover from heavier-type horses to lighter, more responsive ones -- although this is certainly from the horseman's perspective, and I daresay the introduction of guns had a far more revolutionary impact on warfare than a change of riding technique. It was not overnight, as the Muslim invasion began in ~711 AD, and conflict continued for centuries. http://www.sulphurs.com/history.htm Regardless of the exact influence of one breed over another [Iberian Sorreia and North African Barb - there is some evidence that the Barb came from the Sorreia and not the other way 'round], it is evident that the exchange of blood was mutually beneficial and that it produced many similarities between the two breeds, to the point that the modern Barb resembles the Iberian stock and the Criollo horses of South America. During the almost eight hundred years in which Spain and Portugal were in constant war with the Moors, horse and horsemanship had become finely attuned to the war exercises. This superb war horse was the one that the conquistadors introduced and dispersed throughout the New World together with the a la gineta style of riding, which influenced the horse cultures of the Gauchos, Charros and Llaneros. They spell it gineta. (I'd seen it as something more like jineta.) [This site is somewhat biased in favor of the antiquity of the Iberian horse and its influence - but so are Arabian, Appaloosa and many other breeders/sites! IMHO, the Arabian and the Iberian are both very important in the history of horsebreeds - but not coincidentally, I adore both.] I also mentioned 'other oriental horses' and they were introduced to the Iberian Penninsula at various times: http://www.appaloosa-crossing.com/history101.htm Great quantities of Oriental blood were introduced into Spain centuries prior to the birth of Christ. Periods of civilization and/or invasion of the peninsula include those of the Iberians (originally from north of Africa), peoples of the Alamanni, Basques (province of Navarre), Carthaginians, Celts, Cimbrians, Franks, Greeks, the Moorish invasion of 172-175 A.D., the Muslim invasion of 711 A.D., Ostragoths, Phoenicians, Romans, Suebi, Teutons, Vandals, Vistigoths, and perhaps some others (and not in order given). Each of these civilizations brought horses that had an influence on the native horses of Spain. [although the Sorreia-type has I think the more ancient claim and influence, and I believe that it is also found in cave paintings.] For example, I'm a big proponent of the Late Medieval military revolution of using fully mounted armies. This revolution was strategic, rather than tactical (most of the troops would ride to the battlefield, but dismount to actually come to grips with the enemy). So obviously our terms differ. OK - and I'm coming at it from a horseman's perspective as well. But then is this site incorrect, WRT the Battle of Hastings? http://www.imh.org/imh/kyhpl2a.html#xtocid165601 In 1066, William the Conqueror of Normandy put 3,000 horses on 700 small sailing ships and headed across the channel to England. William had come to secure his right to the English throne from King Harold. They met in a valley near Hastings where William's army was victorious due largely to his cavalry assisted by archers. They charged into the wall of shields put up by the Saxon infantry, but shields were little defense against war-horses and knights. For more information, I would highly reccommend looking at medieval history books. In particular, Michael Prestwich in _Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages: The English Experience_ has some good info on warhorses in medieval England (which would probably be applicable to other areas of Europe, especially as the English busily imported breeding stock from Spain during the 14th C). grin And from Friesland as well: http://www.imh.org/imh/bw/friesian.html From records of the past we know that the Friesian horse of old was famous. There is information from as early as 1251 and there are books in which Friesian horses were mentioned and praised from as early as the 16th century. Armored knights of old found this horse very desirable, having the strength to carry great weight into battle and still maneuver quickly. Later, its suppleness and agility made the breed much sought after for use in riding schools in Paris and Spain during the 15th and 16th centuries... ...The well-known English writer on horses, Anthony Dent, and
Re: [L3] Re: Warhorses (was: What America Does with its Hegemony)
la gineta style of riding, which influenced the horse cultures of the Gauchos, Charros and Llaneros. They spell it gineta. (I'd seen it as something more like jineta.) FYI this seems to be alluding to the Jinetes class of military fighting men of Spain, of lower class and equipment than a knight and IIRC drawn from the free peasantry or possibly holding fiefs as sergeants. They wore little to no armor, and were adept at horsemanship in a way and style that was different from knights and other mtd sergeants then in Europe (using short sturrups and smaller saddles, rather than in other nations, where the trend was towards longer stirrups and higher saddles, which were beneficial when fighting on horseback). OK - and I'm coming at it from a horseman's perspective as well. But then is this site incorrect, WRT the Battle of Hastings? Numbers seem a little off, or rather, a little high. Willian probably had half that number. Additionally, William's knights were less than decisive. In a time when battles lasted a few hours at the most, Hastings apparently (according to the sources) lasted most of the day, from about dawn to dusk. William's cavalry had great difficulty against the English, who had arrayed themselves on a ridge that IIRC straddled the Old Roman road from the coast. So not only was Willaim charging up-hill, but he was additionally charging into the shields and spears of the English. The English fighting style of the day was a shieldwall...essentially fighting men would array themselves much like a Greek phalanx with shields nearly overlapping, presenting the enemy a wall bristling with spears. As long as they kept the formation and remained steady (the front ranks were often made up the best armored and steadiest of men, usually wealthy freemen oweing fyrd service, or even the household troops -- Housecarls -- of the nobles and the King) horses will not charge through such an impedement. Additionally, the terrain was such that Willaim couldn't turn the flanks. Some of the sources suggest that one branch of King Harold Godwinson's army became emboldened at the latest failed charge of Willaims knights and tried to pursue. They broke formation and were destroyed by the knights. This breach allowed the knights then to roll up the flanks and (eventually) kill Harold (though the sources differ on how he was killed). OTOH, this site says they carried under 300#: Yes, I agree more with this. My sources (such as Prestwich, Contamine and Nicolle) suggest the size and power of warhorses were more for the endurance they could provide, rather than sheer lifting (or carrying) power. Additionally (to dispell more myths) a fully armored fighting man in plate armor was quite agile, and probably less burdened than a modern infantryman wearing a full pack. Sources (not to mention modern reenactors) show that a fully armored man could leap over the hindquarters of his mount and do other feats. Additionally, horse armor was rare in European armies until much later. Although there is tantalizing mentions of mail bard for warhorses as early as the late 12th C, horse armor didn't really appear to be popular (unless you count the heraldric bard of earlier times -- trappers and such -- which may have hid padded armor that was surprisingly effective against slashing blows than one would think) until the 14th C, when leather and/or steel armor was used to protect the head and chest of horses. It wasn't until a century later that full plate bard would come to use, probably starting early in the 15th C, but becoming more popular (relatively speaking) around the middle to late 15th C. Damon. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: What America Does with its Hegemony
From: Dan Minette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't agree with Andrew completely. For instance the pre-emptive strike by Israel in the Seven Day War was justified. Thats a tricky one, to be honest I don't know enough about it to comment. Taking a premptive strike, like if the French had launched an attack hours before the Germans invaded in 1940, to gain a strategic advantage over an enemy poised to invade and essentially already at war, I would not view that as starting a war. The balance of strenght is also relevant. I am not opposed to defensive wars, they are unfortunate but beyond ones control really. Its wars of agression that you dont start. For any who wish to cast this as the situation in Iraq, with TWAT as the war already declared, I would seek three bits of info. 1) Where were the poised Iraqi Armies about to invade America, or England, or Australia et al. 2) Where is the evidence that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 etc, ie that he was at war with any of the above. 3)Even if both the above were true, what sort of evidence do we have that America was in any way threated by Iraq. It becomes more obvious every day however, that the invasion of Iraq was unjustified, ill advised and poorly executed (not withstanding the effectiveness of the military whose initial performance was exemplary.) OK, you put brackets on your opinion, which I appreciate. But, let me explore it further. Was our intervention in Bosnia acceptable? Should we have stopped the genocide in Rwanda? Our hands are full, but should somebody stop what's going on in Sudan? What about my position. If Hussein was sill killing people by the tens of thousands per year after we had a success in Afghanistan, and the sanctions were working no better, would it have been justified? I dont think Bosnia or Rwanda were/would have been starting wars. Both were civil wars as I see them, in which one, with the full support of the UN, one could justify intervention to end them, not to start them. Afghanistan is a little more complex, but I can see that as a legitimate response to an attack. The war started on 9/11, and it was clear that the Taliban were a party to it. I dont think that was starting a war, and it had the tacit backing of the world community. The lack of preparation by the Bush administration clearly was a factor in my believing the war in Iraq was unwise. But, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with overturning a genocidal dictator. There should be, in my opinion (and I think Doug discusses this above) some sort of body to make these decisions. The UN is flawed, in many ways, but it does have the only claim to being a world government. And even it would not start wars, it would reluctantly undertake interventions in countries that had gone beyond the limit of what was agreed by the world as being acceptable behaviour. That would not be an easy judgement, and lots of stalling and politics would go on, and lots of indecision, but thats how it should be. Rwanda, Bosnia and a few others would fall into the category of places that one would intervene in. Perhaps, eventually, Iraq would have too, once all other avenues had been fully explored. Soverign nations dont start wars with other soverign nations. Wars are forced upon you, not undertaken cos it seems like a good idea at the time. Anyway, moral issues aside, I just thought it was a stupid idea to invade Iraq. Ohh, I got bitten by an insect ! Hey look there is a bee's nest, lets go and poke a stick in it and swirl it about a bit, that will stop it happening again. Sure.. great idea guys. Andrew ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 1:11 AM Subject: Re: What America Does with its Hegemony I don't agree with Andrew completely. For instance the pre-emptive strike by Israel in the Seven Day War was justified. It becomes more obvious every day however, that the invasion of Iraq was unjustified, ill advised and poorly executed (not withstanding the effectiveness of the military whose initial performance was exemplary.) OK, you put brackets on your opinion, which I appreciate. But, let me explore it further. Was our intervention in Bosnia acceptable? Should we have stopped the genocide in Rwanda? Our hands are full, but should somebody stop what's going on in Sudan? What about my position. If Hussein was sill killing people by the tens of thousands per year after we had a success in Afghanistan, and the sanctions were working no better, would it have been justified? The lack of preparation by the Bush administration clearly was a factor in my believing the war in Iraq was unwise. But, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with overturning a genocidal dictator. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
Dan wrote: OK, you put brackets on your opinion, which I appreciate. But, let me explore it further. Was our intervention in Bosnia acceptable? Should we have stopped the genocide in Rwanda? Our hands are full, but should somebody stop what's going on in Sudan? What about my position. If Hussein was sill killing people by the tens of thousands per year after we had a success in Afghanistan, and the sanctions were working no better, would it have been justified? The lack of preparation by the Bush administration clearly was a factor in my believing the war in Iraq was unwise. But, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with overturning a genocidal dictator. I think the world needs a mechanism to deal with these crisis. This would obviously require the cooperation of many disparate nations and after the current debacle is more of a pipe dream than ever. What Bush has tried to do is to tell the world how things are going to be and I think that the lesson we are learning is that no matter how powerful we are, we're not going to get the Middle East or any other region of the world to tow the line based on our say so. Our action in Bosnia was the culmination of a problem that had festered in eastern Europe for a decade or so. It wasn't just the 'cleansing' that was taking place at the time that prompted the action, but the fact that a series of atrocities had occurred over the years and it became obvious that the cycle of violence had to be ended. Rwanda is probably the most persuasive argument for a policing mechanism. There is very little political interest in these poor African nations and just as importantly there is little interest in the press. The AIDS epidemic is a festering wound and our lack of decisiveness to combat it is going to come back to bite us. Big time. So yes, we should have taken action in Rwanda and I think that if Clinton had tried to he could have made a huge difference there. Its a black mark on his record, and no one knows it more than he does. Iraq was (and remains) a much more difficult problem. In basing our economy around oil we have accorded an importance to the nations of the Middle East that they would never have achieved otherwise. One of Bush's big mistakes, IMO, was to reverse the trend towards trying to develop alternatives to the oil that fuels this exaggerated importance. You might recall a post that JDG made about how we are much less vulnerable to inflation as the result of a fuel shortage than we were in the late '70s, reason being we are _less_ dependant on that fuel. But with the emergence of China as a consumer nation and the maturing of other populous nations such as India, the demand for fossil fuels is rising quickly, and the importance of the Middle East - the relevance of the Middle East is rapidly rising. What does this have to do with the invasion of Iraq? Everything. No matter how desperate the condition of the people in Iraq, any intervention there had to be approached with the utmost delicacy. Our motivations, even with the best of intentions, are automatically suspect by the Iraqis, by all Arab/Middle East nations and indeed by the entire world community. That's why it was even more important to line up an air-tight coalition prior to intervention for humanitarian purposes. Of course, despite the smoke and mirrors thrown up by the supporters of the invasion after the fact, the stated reason for the invasion was not humanitarian in nature. So the question really goes back to did Iraq pose a threat to us and in retrospect, they did not. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
Dan wrote: But, if one supports Andrew's statement as it stands, it would be worthwhile to see how they consider the most obvious counter-examples. I don't agree with Andrew completely. For instance the pre-emptive strike by Israel in the Seven Day War was justified. It becomes more obvious every day however, that the invasion of Iraq was unjustified, ill advised and poorly executed (not withstanding the effectiveness of the military whose initial performance was exemplary.) -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: What America Does with its Hegemony
Gautam wrote: Gautam has spent long enough on this list that his patience is entirely worn out, which occasionally shows up in unwarranted sarcasm. That's perfectly understandable. :) Please feel free to take an occasional swipe at me. After all, it lets me do the same and there *are* times when nothing is quite as satisfying as being sarcastic. Wouldn't you agree? ;) And, Ritu, to be fair to myself I could ask you the same. If you want to posture about how I'm unobjective or the superiority of your foreign news sources, you can certainly expect some of the same back. I daresay I have my own ways of getting information that stand up to those of most people outside the government. Gautam, I don't consider my foreign news sources 'superior'. All I can access atm is the net and that is available to everyone. As for the 'unobjective' bit, that wasn't posturing. It was my honest opinion. I wasn't challenging the validity of your sources, just your interpretation of the news. I don't mean to offend, but I do think that your enthusiasm for this project [democratising the mid-east via Iraq] often clouds your perception of how well the project is shaping up on the ground. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: What America Does with its Hegemony
--- Ritu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As for the 'unobjective' bit, that wasn't posturing. It was my honest opinion. I wasn't challenging the validity of your sources, just your interpretation of the news. I don't mean to offend, but I do think that your enthusiasm for this project [democratising the mid-east via Iraq] often clouds your perception of how well the project is shaping up on the ground. Ritu Ritu, I'm pretty confident that only one person on this list _knows_ what my perception of how well the project is shaping up is. I have been very careful not to share it. If I usually argue that certain reports on the list that things are disastrous are not true, that's because almost everyone else on the list is in the opposite direction and I _loathe_ groupthink. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
- Original Message - From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 11:41 AM Subject: RE: What America Does with its Hegemony If I usually argue that certain reports on the list that things are disastrous are not true, that's because almost everyone else on the list is in the opposite direction and I _loathe_ groupthink. One of the things that I noticed is that discussion on the finer points of the question involved usually trails off into nothing. For example, yesterday Andrew Paul stated that starting a war is always wrong because it always turns out for the worst. Gautam and I question the word always and gave some potential counter examples. Nothing came in response. It seems that this is fertile ground for debate. My guess for a generality is that the right answer is that starting a war is usually wrong but sometimes necessary. The real question is what are the factors. Gautam came up with what sounded like a reasonable set of criteria back before the war started. We could debate those criteria if we disagree with them; we could debate the present circumstance against those criteria if we agree with them. All that would generate more light than heat. IMHO, a good start would either be a defense of Andrew's statement or statements that this is an overgeneralization, but that a better statement would be Xby those who think the Iraq war was a bad idea. Obviously I'm biased here, because I see a very complex question...and naturally see my own position as most reasonable. But, if one supports Andrew's statement as it stands, it would be worthwhile to see how they consider the most obvious counter-examples. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Warhorses (was: What America Does with its Hegemony)
Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [I wrote:] Arabian horses, of course! ;) I'm being a little over-the-top, but since at the time horses were the best overland transport and military assets, the impact of the introduction of Arabian and Barb horses, along with style-of-riding, was huge. As anyone who has worked with heavy/draft horses vs. Arabs their cousins can tell you, the responsiveness of the light horse is remarkable; they changed cavalry tactics -- perhaps not, in retrospect, a thing for the better... Can you put this in historical context? Medieval warhorses were not clydesdales, or draft horses. They were larger, yes, but according to my sources this meant they had larger chests and hindquarters. I'm going to answer from the books I've read, but will check out 'net sources later -- because I've spotted at least one error in _The Encyclopedia Of The Horse_, which is generally a very good sourcebook put out by the British Riding Club (or Association?). The drafts Shire, Belgian and probably the Percheron were all descendents of what is called either the Great Horse of Flanders or the Great Medieval Warhorse (when crossed with native mares in England, it became the Great English Black Horse - eventually the Shire). These horses carried roughly 400# of man, armor, tack and horse-armor, IIRC; as a horse cannot easily carry more than a quarter of its bodyweight for significant periods of time, that would make these animals need to be 1600#, which puts them in the drafter category. The Friesian-type, a lighter draft, goes back for at least 1000 years (it was modified by the addition of Andalusian blood centuries ago, they in turn a result of the crossing of Moorish Barbs and other oriental horses with the Spanish native jennets), and would be less bulky and more nimble than the other drafters (of course the Percheron also was influenced by the introduction of Arabian blood after -IIRC- the Battle of Tours, and they too are a bit lighter and nimbler than the Shire). Interestingly, there were 'clydesdale-type' horses in some prehistoric European cave paintings, as well as Exmoor pony-types and tarpan-types (the latter typical of the Assyrian charioteer horses). However, the modern German Holsteiner (now greatly lightened by the addition of Thoroughbred and other blood) did descend from the German medieval warhorse, and those were more of a carriage-type build than draft-type -- I recall seeing some woodcuts of German knights who appeared to be less heavily-armored, and on lighter horses such as you describe. I'll try to find some on-line pix of the various riding styles (knight vs. Moor) etc. Debbi Don't Throw Me Into That Briar-patch Maru ;) __ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Warhorses (was: What America Does with its Hegemony)
I'll try to find some on-line pix of the various riding styles (knight vs. Moor) etc. The reason why I inquired is because, as you may know, I have a history degree, and would tenatively describe myself as a military historian. I have plenty of source material on the subject. But when you say that Arabians revolutionized cavalry, you must be very careful to define specifically what you mean. For example, I'm a big proponent of the Late Medieval military revolution of using fully mounted armies. This revolution was strategic, rather than tactical (most of the troops would ride to the battlefield, but dismount to actually come to grips with the enemy). So obviously our terms differ. For more information, I would highly reccommend looking at medieval history books. In particular, Michael Prestwich in _Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages: The English Experience_ has some good info on warhorses in medieval England (which would probably be applicable to other areas of Europe, especially as the English busily imported breeding stock from Spain during the 14th C). Don't Throw Me Into That Briar-patch Maru ;) We all have our briar patches... Damon. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: What America Does with its Hegemony
Gary Denton, traitor in waiting: Neo-imperialist or even, as a couple political scientists have pointed, out neo-confederate might be better. Hey, Gary, there's a whole bunch of us not afraid to say that Western democracy is better by far than anything the Muslims have done since the invention of zero. I'm all for imperialism or confederacy or whatever it takes to make the sand Nazis quit cutting off little girls' clits and being racist morons and go out and get a job. Islam sucks. Anybody who can't say that out loud and proud is PC pussy-whipped dhimmi-bait. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
On Thu, 6 May 2004 00:55:04 -0700, Mike Lee claiming not to be pussy whipped wrote: Gary Denton, traitor in waiting: Patriotism isn't screaming at everyone who disagrees with you. Neo-imperialist or even, as a couple political scientists have pointed, out neo-confederate might be better. Hey, Gary, there's a whole bunch of us not afraid to say that Western democracy is better by far than anything the Muslims have done since the invention of zero. I dislike the Wahabi non-separation of government and religion but our own fundies also have that problem. By your statements I haven't seen you as a strong supporter of Western democratic values. I think the high point of Islam culture was about 500 years ago because of their conservative religious practices mixing with politics, science and business.. Will 500 years from now people or AI say that 1999 was America's high point for the same reasons? I'm all for imperialism or confederacy or whatever it takes to make the sand Nazis quit cutting off little girls' clits and being racist morons and go out and get a job. Islam sucks. Troll words, I like women's enjoyment of sex and condemn that practice. Are you advocating back to Somalia and take those scalpels away here or is this leading to another nuke-em all solution. Odd to hear you use the words racist moron after your sand-Nazi's and other statements. Anybody who can't say that out loud and proud is PC pussy-whipped dhimmi-bait. Mixed modifiers there.. ... is a politically correct, meek and dominated by women, Jew or Christian living in an Islamic country - bait. Oh, if you study it does make a twisted sense. I don't think a lot of the GOP leadership could say that, at least not on camera. Sometimes with you I feel like Spock on a Berkley bus. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: What America Does with its Hegemony
Mike said: Hey, Gary, there's a whole bunch of us not afraid to say that Western democracy is better by far than anything the Muslims have done since the invention of zero. The Muslims may have contributed many worthwhile things to civilisation but the invention of zero wasn't one of them. So far as I know, the idea of zero in number systems was independently invented by the Babylonians, the Mayans and the Indians (before Islam!); the Arabs learned about zero from India, and then passed the idea on to Europe. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
Translations of Arabic works helped spark the Renaissance but except for some paper, medicine, mathematics and drugs I am not sure what Europeans acquired that was original to the Islamic world. The loss of the great universities and even the manufacturing sites in Spain also had a lot to do with the decline of Islamic culture. On Thu, 6 May 2004 02:53:17 -0700, Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Muslims may have contributed many worthwhile things to civilisation but the invention of zero wasn't one of them. So far as I know, the idea of zero in number systems was independently invented by the Babylonians, the Mayans and the Indians (before Islam!); the Arabs learned about zero from India, and then passed the idea on to Europe. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
Translations of Arabic works helped spark the Renaissance but except for some paper, medicine, mathematics and drugs I am not sure what Europeans acquired that was original to the Islamic world. That is, if you believe in a Rennaisance... The translation of Greco-roman literature from Arabic sources accounts for only a part of the literature available to Europe. Often underplayed are the scriptorums of Italy and Southern France (amongst others) that busily preserved such literature throughout the MA. Furthermore, much of the foundation for Arabic learning is of course Greco-Roman, and was gained through the contact they had with the Romans in the East (i.e. the Byzantines). Damon. = Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: __ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Richard Baker wrote: The Muslims may have contributed many worthwhile things to civilisation but the invention of zero wasn't one of them. So far as I know, the idea of zero in number systems was independently invented by the Babylonians, the Mayans and the Indians (before Islam!); the Arabs learned about zero from India, and then passed the idea on to Europe. Translations of Arabic works helped spark the Renaissance but except for some paper, medicine, mathematics and drugs I am not sure what Europeans acquired that was original to the Islamic world. Arabian horses, of course! ;) I'm being a little over-the-top, but since at the time horses were the best overland transport and military assets, the impact of the introduction of Arabian and Barb horses, along with style-of-riding, was huge. As anyone who has worked with heavy/draft horses vs. Arabs their cousins can tell you, the responsiveness of the light horse is remarkable; they changed cavalry tactics -- perhaps not, in retrospect, a thing for the better... Debbi A La Jineta And A La Breda* Maru *spelling might be way off; refers to a more forward seat with shorter stirrups vs. long stirruped 'hold the rider in place' riding __ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
Arabian horses, of course! ;) I'm being a little over-the-top, but since at the time horses were the best overland transport and military assets, the impact of the introduction of Arabian and Barb horses, along with style-of-riding, was huge. As anyone who has worked with heavy/draft horses vs. Arabs their cousins can tell you, the responsiveness of the light horse is remarkable; they changed cavalry tactics -- perhaps not, in retrospect, a thing for the better... Can you put this in historical context? Medieval warhorses were not clydesdales, or draft horses. They were larger, yes, but according to my sources this meant they had larger chests and hindquarters. Damon. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
On Tue, 04 May 2004 20:10:53 -0500, Steve Sloan II [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, that essentially fixes what I was having so much trouble buying. I couldn't see any reason why Saddam would quit trying to build or buy nuclear weapons, because he certainly wouldn't do it out of the goodness of his heart. These articles give a reason, and I *can* believe that his scientists tried for a long time and failed, then he gave it up to move on to some other scheme after Gulf War I wrecked his facilities. Glad to be of help. #1 on google for liberal news ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: What America Does with its Hegemony
/vbbb Gautam Mukunda wrote: http://oxblog.blogspot.com/2004_05_02_oxblog_archive.html#1083 58591971936946 Ritu, Andrew, I'm sure the Iraqis would be _much_ better off if nothing like this ever happened there. I am willing to make a bet that no report of this, or anything like it, will show up in the supposedly independent news sources that you two rely on. Well, I dunno how many papers carried that story - there are thousands of reports on Iraq each day and I don't read all of them. However, I have read this story before as Oxblog is one of my regular haunts. I don't agree with their every assessment but they do spend a lot of time keeping up with the news. Besides, David Adnesik is a pleasure to argue with - not only is he intelligent, he can actually defend his ideas without assuming that everyone who disagrees with him is uninformed. Ritu, who wonders why Gautam keeps on making assumptions about her news sources instead of just asking her ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: What America Does with its Hegemony
--- Ritu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ritu, who wonders why Gautam keeps on making assumptions about her news sources instead of just asking her Gautam has spent long enough on this list that his patience is entirely worn out, which occasionally shows up in unwarranted sarcasm. The masturbatory echo chamber is quite remarkably wearying if you stand against the accepted orthodoxy. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: What America Does with its Hegemony
--- Ritu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ritu, who wonders why Gautam keeps on making assumptions about her news sources instead of just asking her And, Ritu, to be fair to myself I could ask you the same. If you want to posture about how I'm unobjective or the superiority of your foreign news sources, you can certainly expect some of the same back. I daresay I have my own ways of getting information that stand up to those of most people outside the government. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
On Mon, 03 May 2004 20:58:12 -0500, Steve Sloan II [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gary Denton wrote: Well, I learned about the reliability of the American press last year when I went to independent sources and found out that Iraq had shut down its nuclear weapons program immediately after the first Gulf War. Where did this information come from? That definitely sounds like one of those extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence sorta situations... ___ Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama = [EMAIL PROTECTED] God, where have you been? Do you just watch Fox? Sorry, this has been in my blog so many times and finally filtered out to mainstream media months ago. Here Is USATODAY 12/1/03 but I think it is more than a little self-serving and also was set up to provide an out for intel in the US who got it wrong. Iraqi scientists never revived their long-dead nuclear bomb program, and in fact lied to Saddam Hussein about how much progress they were making before U.S.-led attacks shut the operation down for good in 1991, Iraqi physicists say. Other leading physicists, in Baghdad interviews, said the hope for an Iraqi atomic bomb was never realistic. It was all like building sand castles, said Abdel Mehdi Talib, Baghdad University's dean of sciences. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-12-01-iraq-arms_x.htm Now my blog mostly had it from Imad Khadduri who posted it on the web in November of 02. He was a real Iraqi nuclear scientist who escaped to Canada, unlike the fake bombmaker Khidhir Hamza, who Chalabi and the neocons provided the American press. After the first Gulf War all engineers were pressed into service to repair all the damage from US bombing and shut down the nuclear weapons program which Saddam had agreed to do. What is more the CIA and US intelligence knew this from Kamil who told them and provided documents in 94. http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=874 I could go more into the example of Kamil and how his evidence of shut down programs was twisted by neocons, not the CIA, to support a war but that is not what you are asking. My archive search can only reach back to 2/14/03 but you can see by my post I had it earlier: They were getting notoriety for carrying Imad Khadduri, a former Iraqi nuclear scientist who has stated that Iraq's nuclear program was shut down after Gulf War 1 and that Khidhir Hamza, another former Iraqi scientist, and the Bush administration have fabricated and exaggerated claims otherwise. http://elemming2.blogspot.com/2003_02_14_elemming2_archive.html Is that enough, or would three or more examples be better? I really thought that Bush and Cheney should have been providing that extraordinary evidence, didn't you? #1 on google for liberal news http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
- Original Message - From: Andrew Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 11:50 PM Subject: RE: What America Does with its Hegemony My real concern is when facts are wrong, or, as you point out, things are just never reported. Do you think much of the media, be it Arab, American, Indian etc, actually lies about facts? Is there some source of great truth we can check them against, and where is it? The Arab media has repeatedly lied about Jews. From claiming that Jews were warned about the 9-11 attack, which was by Israel to Jewish leaders co-planning the Holocaust, to the Protocol of the Elders of Zion being given as history, regular lies are told. I don't think you will get the same level of fantasy journalism from major US sources. As for the great source of truth, that's a good philosophical question. Even science isn't about the truth, just observations. But, I think it is more than reasonable to require that journalism be consistent with present and historical facts. One can check against them. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
On Tue, 4 May 2004 14:50:33 +1000, Andrew Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think most of us wordly-wise enough to take most of our media with a good dash of salt. Anyway, we all tend to believe what we like and not believe what we don't, in regard to opinions/rumours/slants expressed in the press. My real concern is when facts are wrong, or, as you point out, things are just never reported. Do you think much of the media, be it Arab, American, Indian etc, actually lies about facts? Is there some source of great truth we can check them against, and where is it? I know I take my media with a double chaser, no salt and an aspirin. Since high school if I get interested in something I try to read several opposing viewpoints and try to understand who is more correct and why. Most media reports now are simply what the spokesperson said until someone grabs an interesting story and slant and runs with it and reporters like a flock of blackbirds all take off after. The media does not lie very often, not nearly as often as the people they report on or their spokesmen do. The problem with the media is that they will just print someone in authority's lie and rarely dig deeper. Damn if I know a source of great truth, I do try to determine what is in the interest of the publication to report. TV is easiest, whatever gets the most attention to get more people watching to sell more commercial product. Nearly all of American media is owned by large corporations now so whatever is not in large corporate interests is harder to find. It is much more important to note that most editors and publishers have a corporate bias than that most reporters have a human interest bias. Reporters report on the stories that editors and publishers give them and then they pass through the editor again. If you watch news on CNN or the major networks for an hour or so you can detect that they have a slight agenda in favor of people which might be called a liberal agenda, if you watch Fox for five minutes you see an obvious agenda in favor of simple flag-waving solutions from private enterprise with good guys and bad guys. But it isn't dull. the biggest problem is the never reported stories. My most frustrating never reported story now, Bush aides scrubbed his military records to hide the fact he was administratively punished. The facts are right there in the paperwork and reporters can't read, and can't add, and can't subtract dates, or at least can't get it published. I think the story maybe needs something more to it than it is a federal crime. Perhaps a major credible figure with knowledge to go with the paperwork. The Texas WMD case and the Tiger Force Vietnam atrocities made the back pages of some papers, that is more than this story. I decided a goal for me now is to work for the media for a closer look at the beast. #1 on google for liberal news ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
Gary Denton wrote: Well, I learned about the reliability of the American press last year when I went to independent sources and found out that Iraq had shut down its nuclear weapons program immediately after the first Gulf War. Where did this information come from? That definitely sounds like one of those extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence sorta situations... God, where have you been? Do you just watch Fox? Sorry, this has been in my blog so many times and finally filtered out to mainstream media months ago. Here Is USATODAY 12/1/03 but I think it is more than a little self-serving and also was set up to provide an out for intel in the US who got it wrong. Iraqi scientists never revived their long-dead nuclear bomb program, and in fact lied to Saddam Hussein about how much progress they were making before U.S.-led attacks shut the operation down for good in 1991, Iraqi physicists say. Other leading physicists, in Baghdad interviews, said the hope for an Iraqi atomic bomb was never realistic. It was all like building sand castles, said Abdel Mehdi Talib, Baghdad University's dean of sciences. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-12-01-iraq-arms_x.htm OK, that essentially fixes what I was having so much trouble buying. I couldn't see any reason why Saddam would quit trying to build or buy nuclear weapons, because he certainly wouldn't do it out of the goodness of his heart. These articles give a reason, and I *can* believe that his scientists tried for a long time and failed, then he gave it up to move on to some other scheme after Gulf War I wrecked his facilities. __ Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama = [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brin-L list pages .. http://www.brin-l.org Science Fiction-themed online store . http://www.sloan3d.com/store Chmeee's 3D Objects http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee 3D and Drawing Galleries .. http://www.sloansteady.com Software Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links Science fiction scans . http://www.sloan3d.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
What America Does with its Hegemony
http://oxblog.blogspot.com/2004_05_02_oxblog_archive.html#108358591971936946 Ritu, Andrew, I'm sure the Iraqis would be _much_ better off if nothing like this ever happened there. I am willing to make a bet that no report of this, or anything like it, will show up in the supposedly independent news sources that you two rely on. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
On Mon, 3 May 2004 06:11:04 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am willing to make a bet that no report of this, or anything like it, will show up in the supposedly independent news sources that you two rely on. Yes, I like the internet you can get the reports from all sides. That was an interesting report from a Green Zone. The soccer field is somewhere in neighborhood 76 on this map. You can blow this up (a bad choice of words) about 8 times and still get detail. http://www.humanitarianinfo.org/iraq/maps/280a%20A4%20Baghdad%20districts%20neighbourh%20300dpi.pdf I try to balance Green zone reports with reports from the Red Zones. For example, this report translates Arab news reports:of the Iraqi resistance against the American aggressors. Even less likely to appear on the news. US Marine reacts with hysterical joy when retreating from al-Fallujah. Iraqi police at one location were surprised when they took over a position from retreating Americans to find one US Marine crying and shouting hysterically for joy at the opportunity to leave the defiant city of al-Fallujah. The incident provoked laughter and derision from the policemen, according to the correspondent of Mafkarat al-Islam. Mafkarat al-Islam's correspondent in al-Fallujah writes that eyewitnesses among the residents of al-Fallujah now returning to the city over an-Nu'aymi crossing point report that the US occupation troops were allowing them to cross on condition that they give the Americans cigarettes and food. US troops take cigarettes, food from returning refugees from al-Fallujah. Returnees told the same story Friday at 2:00 and then again at 4:00 local time after the guard at the crossing had changed. With the Iraqi Resistance wrecking havoc with US supplies, the occupation soldiers have been experiencing shortages. http://www.albasrah.net/moqawama/english/0504/iraqiresistancereport_010504.htm But let's not go that far from mainstream news. This seems more important than opening a soccer field, but I can't think of anything that isn't, and it is from the conservative AP news wire: U.S. officials have for months publicly promoted the notion that foreign fighters and terrorists are playing a major role in the anti-American insurgency in Fallujah and the rest of Iraq. By blaming foreigners, U.S. authorities hope to quash the idea that Iraqis are rising up against military occupation and frame the conflict as part of the wider war on terror. However, foreigners play a tiny role in Iraq's insurgency, many military experts say. In Fallujah, U.S. military leaders say around 90 percent of the 1,000 or more fighters battling the Marines are Iraqis. To date, there have been no confirmed U.S. captures of foreign fighters in Fallujah although a handful of suspects have been arrested. Those who have spent time inside Fallujah have described a city consumed with the fight fathers and sons fighting for the local mujahedeen and wives and daughters cooking and caring for the wounded. http://www.boston.com/dailynews/124/world/BAGHDAD_Iraq_AP_U_S_officials_:.shtml Since the Fallujah battle started I could look up several independent journalists reports who went in and out. Bush is a uniter, he unified Sunni and Shiites to rush supplies to Fallujah to support the resistance or try to evacuate the women and children (too late for over 250 of them). The Arab reports of marines blockading the hospital and snipers eliminating the drivers of ambulances had lost this war even before the photos of the reintroduction of Saddam prison atrocities under the Americans and the Brits. Maybe we can stage a farewell soccer game as we declare victory and leave. http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
--- Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I try to balance Green zone reports with reports from the Red Zones. Well, you have to ask yourself how you feel about treating the Arab press as reliable. Do you, for example, believe that the entire war in Iraq is a Jewish conspiracy launched by sinister neocons who are actually pawns of the state of Israel? That would, after all, be the standard story of the war as reported in the Arab press. I tend to trust other media just a tiny bit more... = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
Gautam wrote: http://oxblog.blogspot.com/2004_05_02_oxblog_archive.html#108358591971936946 Ritu, Andrew, I'm sure the Iraqis would be _much_ better off if nothing like this ever happened there. I am willing to make a bet that no report of this, or anything like it, will show up in the supposedly independent news sources that you two rely on. from the blog: A new multipurpose recreation facility has opened in the Al Dura neighborhood, benefiting thousands of residents in Baghdad's Al Rashid district. Ahh, build Recreation Commons, fewer drones. 8^) -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
Gary Denton wrote: Well, I learned about the reliability of the American press last year when I went to independent sources and found out that Iraq had shut down its nuclear weapons program immediately after the first Gulf War. Where did this information come from? That definitely sounds like one of those extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence sorta situations... __ Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama = [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brin-L list pages .. http://www.brin-l.org Science Fiction-themed online store . http://www.sloan3d.com/store Chmeee's 3D Objects http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee 3D and Drawing Galleries .. http://www.sloansteady.com Software Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links Science fiction scans . http://www.sloan3d.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
On Mon, 3 May 2004 17:47:08 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, they did teach us that Marines don't quiver and hide. They particularly when they're winning battles. They lost. You might want to ask, what does it say that your response to that story was That sounds about right. Huh? That isn't there. Are you trying to become a neocon? Where did you go to learn that they did? Not sure what you mean - Canadian press, other countries and some independent press had the reports by Iraqi scientists and engineers you didn't get in the American press. Much of the rest of what you learned from the foreign press happens to be not true, so hey... So hey, you hiding the the WMDs under your bed for Saddam? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: What America Does with its Hegemony
From: Gautam Mukunda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://oxblog.blogspot.com/2004_05_02_oxblog_archive.html#1083 58591971936946 Ritu, Andrew, I'm sure the Iraqis would be _much_ better off if nothing like this ever happened there. I am willing to make a bet that no report of this, or anything like it, will show up in the supposedly independent news sources that you two rely on. I don't recall it making the front pages Gautam, no. That's been reserved for other, more exciting stories. But you forget, I am in Australia. Our SAS was blowing up Iraqi's before war was even declared, so fear not, I am well supplied with biased media on both sides. It is a shame that more of the good stuff does not get told, but that's the way our 'Free Press' works. They want blood and excitement and gore. And that's our fault as much as anyones. Andrew ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
On Mon, 3 May 2004 10:12:18 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, you have to ask yourself how you feel about treating the Arab press as reliable. Do you, for example, believe that the entire war in Iraq is a Jewish conspiracy launched by sinister neocons who are actually pawns of the state of Israel? That would, after all, be the standard story of the war as reported in the Arab press. I tend to trust other media just a tiny bit more... Well, I learned about the reliability of the American press last year when I went to independent sources and found out that Iraq had shut down its nuclear weapons program immediately after the first Gulf War. This was at the same time our VP and President were saying that we could not wait for weapons inspectors because the only warning we would get would be a mushroom cloud. Our press never challenged them. The closest to reliable reporting in mainstream American papers preceeding the war was a few deep buried articles in the Washington Post and some Kight-Ridder stories. I have constantly found out stuff days to years before the American media ever picks it up. When Powell went to the UN within days there was an analysis of his purported claims in the UK. Six months after the war was when the first American newspaper went back and looked at those claims. When Powell's assistant in charge of Iraq weapons quit and went public that there was nothing to Powell's claims this was months old to me. I suppose I should respond to your specifics - Sure the Arab press can be unreliable, so is the American. Live with it and learn the bias. They don't teach that at Harvard? The neocons - no quotes - were very open that they were going to have this war, for two of the latest people who say that look to General Zinni it was an open secret' and former Treasury Secretary O'Neal who had to attend all the NSC meetings - the very first meeting was how to take out Saddam, by force if necessary, military plans were ordered updated. Do you disagree with that? For the earliest neocon plans for the region and the world look up Project for a New American Century, they are quite open about it, but realize the principals were planning it much earlier starting with Bush ! where they formed the uberhawk team B that overhyped threats to the US. They had other informal names in the White House at that time. More neocons are Catholic and Christian than Jewish. While the Likud party approved of the US attacking Iraq and a couple of the neocons have links to the party the neocons are not pawns of Israel. I actually think the name neocon might be a misnomer. Neo-imperialist or even, as a couple political scientists have pointed, out neo-confederate might be better. #1 on google for liberal news ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
-- From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I try to balance Green zone reports with reports from the Red Zones. Well, you have to ask yourself how you feel about treating the Arab press as reliable. Do you, for example, believe that the entire war in Iraq is a Jewish conspiracy launched by sinister neocons who are actually pawns of the state of Israel? That would, after all, be the standard story of the war as reported in the Arab press. I tend to trust other media just a tiny bit more... The Same press that was all over the Texas-Cyanide Bomber story? The One where they captured conspirators with ~~actual~~ WMD, capable of killing tens of thousands. Oh, wait. They _didn't_ report on the Texas-Cyanide Bomber story. - The world Orwell described does not require complete control of the press, just a very large market share. -Kuro5hin Poster ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: What America Does with its Hegemony
From: Gautam Mukunda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I try to balance Green zone reports with reports from the Red Zones. Well, you have to ask yourself how you feel about treating the Arab press as reliable. Do you, for example, believe that the entire war in Iraq is a Jewish conspiracy launched by sinister neocons who are actually pawns of the state of Israel? That would, after all, be the standard story of the war as reported in the Arab press. I tend to trust other media just a tiny bit more... I think most of us wordly-wise enough to take most of our media with a good dash of salt. Anyway, we all tend to believe what we like and not believe what we don't, in regard to opinions/rumours/slants expressed in the press. My real concern is when facts are wrong, or, as you point out, things are just never reported. Do you think much of the media, be it Arab, American, Indian etc, actually lies about facts? Is there some source of great truth we can check them against, and where is it? Andrew ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
The Fool wrote: The world Orwell described does not require complete control of the press, just a very large market share. -Kuro5hin Poster Does anybody remember Neil Postman's excellent Amusing Ourselves to Death from the mid-80's (Amazon: http://tinyurl.com/2uvuo)? Using 1984 and Brave New World, he made pretty much the point above. No central agency of government control is needed to enslave the minds of the masses: just give 'em American Idol, Fear Factor and Fox News (are the last even two different shows?), and they'll gladly enslave themselves, and pay for the privilege. Now, excuse, me, the NBC Blockbuster Television Event 10.5 is on. Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] 408-551-0427 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
