Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
On 9/21/06, Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you're having gastrointestinal issues, try just a BRAT diet until you're doing better. I work at a school now. Trust me, if we tried to eat any of the little brats, our gastrointestinal issues would be *much* worse... -- Mauro Diotallevi Hey, Harry, you haven't done anything useful for a while -- you be the god of jello now. --Patricia Wrede, 8/16/2006 on rasfc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 10:32 AM Thursday 9/21/2006, Julia Thompson wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 12:24 PM Monday 9/11/2006, Gibson Jonathan wrote: Nonesense. Why do the puppetmasters pushing suicide bombers have less to lose than the soviet aparatchniks did? 'Cuz a cave somewhere in Afghanistan or Pakistan is harder to program into the nav system of a cruise missile than the GPS coordinates for the men's room window of the Kremlin? Is it starve a cold and feed a fever, or other way around? And if you have a cold _with_ fever, should you binge and purge? Not as funny as the one that stopped me last night. :) Sturgeon may be gone, but his law lives on. Yup. And the great ones being rare helps you appreciate them. (And again I hope you are feeling better today than yesterday and keep improving . . . ) In either case, if you're not a vegetarian, chicken broth is decent stuff. And if you are a humanitarian? Or a veterinarian? Having chunks of chicken, plus other stuff such as rice or noodles or various vegetables isn't a bad thing. OTOH with some chunky soups it can be hard to tell if this is the first or second intake pass . . . (I think the starve a fever went out at some point; I didn't write that. I was just trying for a response to it. And at the time I realized that it wasn't one of my best ones. if you're sick, eat what you can to keep up your strength. If you're having gastrointestinal issues, try just a BRAT diet Ice cream, candy, soda, and pizza? Or anything with enough sugar to turn a normally well-behaved kid into a BRAT? Bananas, Rice, Applesauce, Toast. until you're doing better. If you're vomiting, be very easy on your stomach, F'r instance, don't read list mail? Well, technically, it's not my stomach that's having the problem, it's my abs. :) But if you're vomiting a lot, you may be too cranky to read listmail anyway. and if the vomiting doesn't start getting better before you're approaching problematic dehydration, get some meds for it. I personally like promethazine; in an IV, it puts me out fairly soundly, and if I'm in a situation where I'm already on an IV, sleeping probably is beneficial. Yeah, but your recent experience is hopefully relatively rare. I have been on an IV like that 3 times in my life. All in the same hospital, at that. The really weird thing was, this was the first non-birth stay in the hospital, and after the surgery they ended up putting me in the postpartum ward, because there weren't enough beds available in the post-surgery ward. Just like old times. :) (With Sam's birth, I did not have Phenergan through the IV at any time. The other two hospital visits, I did. I'm OK with an epidural, but any other sort of anesthesia given to me in the hospital has upset my stomach rather badly. I didn't need the Phenergan for my stomach as much as needing it to sleep this time, because the milder stuff actually worked this time.) Sure beats freaking out because someone has messed with the carefully-arranged lighting arrangement Frex, brought their million-candlepower flashlight to a night lab or star-gazing session . . . Yup. I think at that point, you confiscate the flashlight, shine it in the offender's eyes, and try to make sure they don't fall off the roof before their eyes get dark-adapted again. and walked out again before you can say anything.) Julia Maru? Maru -- Ronn! :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 12:24 PM Monday 9/11/2006, Gibson Jonathan wrote: Nonesense. Why do the puppetmasters pushing suicide bombers have less to lose than the soviet aparatchniks did? 'Cuz a cave somewhere in Afghanistan or Pakistan is harder to program into the nav system of a cruise missile than the GPS coordinates for the men's room window of the Kremlin? Is it starve a cold and feed a fever, or other way around? And if you have a cold _with_ fever, should you binge and purge? Not as funny as the one that stopped me last night. :) In either case, if you're not a vegetarian, chicken broth is decent stuff. Having chunks of chicken, plus other stuff such as rice or noodles or various vegetables isn't a bad thing. (I think the starve a fever went out at some point; if you're sick, eat what you can to keep up your strength. If you're having gastrointestinal issues, try just a BRAT diet until you're doing better. If you're vomiting, be very easy on your stomach, and if the vomiting doesn't start getting better before you're approaching problematic dehydration, get some meds for it. I personally like promethazine; in an IV, it puts me out fairly soundly, and if I'm in a situation where I'm already on an IV, sleeping probably is beneficial. Sure beats freaking out because someone has messed with the carefully-arranged lighting arrangement and walked out again before you can say anything.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
At 10:32 AM Thursday 9/21/2006, Julia Thompson wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 12:24 PM Monday 9/11/2006, Gibson Jonathan wrote: Nonesense. Why do the puppetmasters pushing suicide bombers have less to lose than the soviet aparatchniks did? 'Cuz a cave somewhere in Afghanistan or Pakistan is harder to program into the nav system of a cruise missile than the GPS coordinates for the men's room window of the Kremlin? Is it starve a cold and feed a fever, or other way around? And if you have a cold _with_ fever, should you binge and purge? Not as funny as the one that stopped me last night. :) Sturgeon may be gone, but his law lives on. (And again I hope you are feeling better today than yesterday and keep improving . . . ) In either case, if you're not a vegetarian, chicken broth is decent stuff. And if you are a humanitarian? Or a veterinarian? Having chunks of chicken, plus other stuff such as rice or noodles or various vegetables isn't a bad thing. OTOH with some chunky soups it can be hard to tell if this is the first or second intake pass . . . (I think the starve a fever went out at some point; I didn't write that. I was just trying for a response to it. And at the time I realized that it wasn't one of my best ones. if you're sick, eat what you can to keep up your strength. If you're having gastrointestinal issues, try just a BRAT diet Ice cream, candy, soda, and pizza? Or anything with enough sugar to turn a normally well-behaved kid into a BRAT? until you're doing better. If you're vomiting, be very easy on your stomach, F'r instance, don't read list mail? and if the vomiting doesn't start getting better before you're approaching problematic dehydration, get some meds for it. I personally like promethazine; in an IV, it puts me out fairly soundly, and if I'm in a situation where I'm already on an IV, sleeping probably is beneficial. Yeah, but your recent experience is hopefully relatively rare. Sure beats freaking out because someone has messed with the carefully-arranged lighting arrangement Frex, brought their million-candlepower flashlight to a night lab or star-gazing session . . . and walked out again before you can say anything.) Julia Maru? Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
Charlie said: Charlie said: Ritu wrote: That has nothing to do with economic justification for war. To say the same thing differently, if there is such a thing as a just war, economics isn't how it is justified. On 20/09/2006, at 10:33 AM, jdiebremse wrote: Somewhere the person who justified war via economics is having a coffee with the person who lauds all abortions. The difference being, wars *used* to be about economics, at least some of them. (Borrow money, invade France, capture nobles, ransom... profit!!!) I'm not sure that anyone has ever (barring that superb Onion piece) lauded all abortions. But I take the point, I think. Umm, you are responding to JDG's line, not mine. That's why it says ritu wrote by what you wrote, and jdiebremse wrote by what JDG wrote... :-) But I wrote none of the lines you quoted. The first bit is Nick's. :) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
On 20/09/2006, at 6:04 PM, Ritu wrote: Charlie said: Charlie said: Ritu wrote: That has nothing to do with economic justification for war. To say the same thing differently, if there is such a thing as a just war, economics isn't how it is justified. On 20/09/2006, at 10:33 AM, jdiebremse wrote: Somewhere the person who justified war via economics is having a coffee with the person who lauds all abortions. The difference being, wars *used* to be about economics, at least some of them. (Borrow money, invade France, capture nobles, ransom... profit!!!) I'm not sure that anyone has ever (barring that superb Onion piece) lauded all abortions. But I take the point, I think. Umm, you are responding to JDG's line, not mine. That's why it says ritu wrote by what you wrote, and jdiebremse wrote by what JDG wrote... :-) But I wrote none of the lines you quoted. The first bit is Nick's. :) Well, why didn't you say that then? :p Sorry Nick. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
Charlie wrote: But I wrote none of the lines you quoted. The first bit is Nick's. :) Well, why didn't you say that then? :p Because I expect the primary attribution to relate directly to the line one is responding to... :p Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
On Sep 19, 2006, at 5:33 PM, jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How do you suppose that armies should get their food, clothing, and boots - if not by purchasing them, at profit, from producers of food, clothing, and boots? That has nothing to do with economic justification for war. To say the same thing differently, if there is such a thing as a just war, economics isn't how it is justified. Somewhere the person who justified war via economics is having a coffee with the person who lauds all abortions. As long as it is free-range, shade-grown, organically grown, sustainably-harvested fair-trade coffee... Dave Hyphenated-Caffeinated American Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
JDG wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think there is an economic formula in existence that justifies making money in a cause for which people are giving their very lives. Is not the logical conclusion of this that we should have an all-volunteer army, lest soldiers make money in a cause for which people are giving their very lives? Umm, soldiers *are* the people who are giving their very lives...y'know, the people who get shot at and shoot others so that civilians like us can sit comfortably in our homes and discuss politics over the internet...Saying people shouldn't profit from the soldiers' sacrifice is very different from saying that the soldiers shouldn't be paid for what they do, the risks they take. I am amazed that the difference isn't apparent to you. Or at least to only pay a death stipend? That'd work just fine if you have no problems with a rookie army with no training and experience. If you want professionals, you'll have to pay them for their time and training. How do you suppose that armies should get their food, clothing, and boots - if not by purchasing them, at profit, from producers of food, clothing, and boots? There is a difference between procurement and profiteering. Ensuring that the US soldiers in Iraq have proper armours is procurement, or at least should have been procurement. Halutz taking the time out to sell his war portfolio on the 12th of July is profiteering. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How do you suppose that armies should get their food, clothing, and boots - if not by purchasing them, at profit, from producers of food, clothing, and boots? That has nothing to do with economic justification for war. To say the same thing differently, if there is such a thing as a just war, economics isn't how it is justified. Somewhere the person who justified war via economics is having a coffee with the person who lauds all abortions. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
Ritu wrote: That has nothing to do with economic justification for war. To say the same thing differently, if there is such a thing as a just war, economics isn't how it is justified. On 20/09/2006, at 10:33 AM, jdiebremse wrote: Somewhere the person who justified war via economics is having a coffee with the person who lauds all abortions. The difference being, wars *used* to be about economics, at least some of them. (Borrow money, invade France, capture nobles, ransom... profit!!!) I'm not sure that anyone has ever (barring that superb Onion piece) lauded all abortions. But I take the point, I think. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
Charlie said: Ritu wrote: That has nothing to do with economic justification for war. To say the same thing differently, if there is such a thing as a just war, economics isn't how it is justified. On 20/09/2006, at 10:33 AM, jdiebremse wrote: Somewhere the person who justified war via economics is having a coffee with the person who lauds all abortions. The difference being, wars *used* to be about economics, at least some of them. (Borrow money, invade France, capture nobles, ransom... profit!!!) I'm not sure that anyone has ever (barring that superb Onion piece) lauded all abortions. But I take the point, I think. Umm, you are responding to JDG's line, not mine. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
On 20/09/2006, at 2:31 PM, Ritu wrote: Charlie said: Ritu wrote: That has nothing to do with economic justification for war. To say the same thing differently, if there is such a thing as a just war, economics isn't how it is justified. On 20/09/2006, at 10:33 AM, jdiebremse wrote: Somewhere the person who justified war via economics is having a coffee with the person who lauds all abortions. The difference being, wars *used* to be about economics, at least some of them. (Borrow money, invade France, capture nobles, ransom... profit!!!) I'm not sure that anyone has ever (barring that superb Onion piece) lauded all abortions. But I take the point, I think. Umm, you are responding to JDG's line, not mine. That's why it says ritu wrote by what you wrote, and jdiebremse wrote by what JDG wrote... :-) Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
On 9/15/06, Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 15 Sep 2006 at 6:39, Nick Arnett wrote: And there are people out there who use that argument to say any game involving violence shouldn't make a profit either. Or gun makers for the civilian market. Or... For what it's worth, I try to make a strong distinction between my expressing my opinion that something is wrong v. declaring that people should not do it. Those shoulds are a source of great misery, in my experience. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think there is an economic formula in existence that justifies making money in a cause for which people are giving their very lives. Is not the logical conclusion of this that we should have an all-volunteer army, lest soldiers make money in a cause for which people are giving their very lives?Or at least to only pay a death stipend? How do you suppose that armies should get their food, clothing, and boots - if not by purchasing them, at profit, from producers of food, clothing, and boots? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
On 9/18/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is not the logical conclusion of this that we should have an all-volunteer army, lest soldiers make money in a cause for which people are giving their very lives?Or at least to only pay a death stipend? No, that's not a logical conclusion at all. How do you suppose that armies should get their food, clothing, and boots - if not by purchasing them, at profit, from producers of food, clothing, and boots? That has nothing to do with economic justification for war. To say the same thing differently, if there is such a thing as a just war, economics isn't how it is justified. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Nuclear MAD Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
On Sep 14, 2006, at 9:21 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gibson Jonathan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Because the USA may be the target of nuclear terrorism. OTOH,
nuclear terrorists might explode a bomb anywhere they can, just
to show they have it.
OK.
How does this make any difference? We faced nuclear megadeath
of enormous proportions for decades w/o erosion of our rights -
well, actually we have, but that's another topic - or, at least
the ones we curtailed are a comfortable pain we are already
long familiar with.
Nuclear Islamic Terrorism is far more dangerous than Nuclear
Communism. They had something to lose, while the islamic fanatics
don't - not even if the retaliation would reduce every sacred
islamic place to radioactive dust.
Nonesense. Why do the puppetmasters pushing suicide bombers have less
to lose than the soviet aparatchniks did? There are any number off
technical, political, cultural, etc, reasons for a ffoolish leadership
to intentionally, or by blender, trigger nuclear bombs. The scale of
mistakes is obviously much worse under the old Cold War than an
isolated nuke going off here or there. Losing Morder, er Washington
DC, to an attack would be bad, but nothing compared to
globe-straddling
nuclear winter after a typical US-v-USSR script.
The scale is obvious and one you don't address.
I can think of a number of reasons.
1) In a world with numerous sources of nuclear bombs, it may be
impossible for the victim of nuclear bomb terrorism to identify with
certainty the source of the terrorism.
I've been stewing on this for a decade as a minor plot point in a
story. Certain isotope ratios can help trace the origin, but this may
not always lead to an actual instigator and it would be easily to set
up a third country as the fall guy. Still, it's a risk zealots are
probably willing to make because retribution may be hard to deliver
exactly as well.
I still argue the nuclear winter scenario is much worse - and there are
many nukes still ready to go relatively quickly both in the US and
Russia. We almost went over this brink a number of times for a number
of reasons. We still could.
2) The source of the terrorism may be a non-State actor. For example,
if Osama bin Laden steals a Pakistani nuclear weapon and ships it on a
container ship to Seattle - how does the US retalitate? What does he
have to lose?
Do you think an enraged American electorate will care? Look at the
Depleted Uranium we prodigiously dumped on Iraq already w/o a care. DC
would blanket the entire region with mushroom clouds - certainly if
this administration is still holding the levers. CheneyCo is ready to
act on some 1% likelihood, if what we read in David Siskinds' new book
is accurate.
3) Nuclear weapons are primarily suitable for killing civilians and
destroying infrastructure. Most modern democracies have officially
disavowed the tactic of intentionally killing civilians in warfare and
retaliation. As such, an Islamic terrorist may reasonably conclude
that the US would not retaliate with nuclear weapons to an incident of
nuclear terrorism. Note: *whether* the US would actually retaliate
with nuclear weapons is not of first-order importance. It is only
important, at the first order, that it is possible for an Islamic
terrorist to *believe* that the US would not retaliate with nuclear
weapons.
JDG
Gee, I thought all modern warfare had the aim of reducing populations
instead of battlefield theaters - the civ death rates certainly went up
dramatically once the modern era of industrial warfare began last
century.
Look at GwB's Schlock Offal campaign trying to decapitate {Oh, was
it after this the jihadi's decided to behead victims?} the Iraqi
leadership - fecklessly as it happens with some zero for fifty score.
Only civilians died around this precision ultra-clean {cough} method.
I was reading yesterday how a senior Israeli commander denounced his
dropping cluster bombs across southern Lebanon villages - bomblettes
manufactured right here in the good ol' USA and now maiming children
daily.
As for nukes, it seems to me that our policy is still pre-emption on
the suspicion that someone has such weapons and might {that slim 1%,
again} do us harm. Certainly was the main skeery-monster pretext for
an invasion of Iraq. As I said, I find it hard to believe that after
our global knee-jerking overreaction to 9-11 that such terrorists would
believe the Republican Guard dug in around DC wouldn't gleefully smite
with righteous vindication anybody who makes a sour face at us - so to
speak.
Jonathan Gibson
www.formandfunction.com/word
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gibson Jonathan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That you can phrase the question as should a defense company be making sub-standard profits - whatever that means in this realm - is amazing to read. If you have any direct experience I'd like to hear about it. They've always been astronomical That's interesting. One way to prove this assertion, would be to examine the profits of defense companies. Perhaps you some evidence then that the stock value of publicly-traded defense companies has historically exceeded those of other industries? My point about sub-standard profits was directly related to the trend in the early 90's when many defense contractors went out-of-business during peacetime. Additionally, my point was expressly designed to focus the discussion on the quantifiable. The war is an emotional issue, and it is easy to criticize businesses for excessive profits. By asking what is the difference between excessive and standard profits, it helps to focus the discussion. The US military from the Continetal Army under George Washington to the armed forces of today has *never* been self-sufficient - the military has always depended upon services provided by outsiders. Presumably, those outsiders have provided those services as a profit. Hence my questions. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
JDG wrote: Nick Arnett wrote: A while ago, somebody said This country isn't at war, only our military is at war. I think that was profound. It bugs the heck out of me, to put it mildly, that our leaders ask no one except the troops to make sacrifices for the current wars. What is huge profits? Is there some level of profits for these companies that you would accept as not being huge? I'm normally loath to speak for other listmembers, but I think you may have missed Nick's point, John. There's no sense of shared sacrifice in this Iraq war; we're cutting taxes while spending extra money on fighting. We're not being asked to sacrifice anything. And if you don't ask people to sacrifice, there's few that will. And I would think regardless of one's ideology that reducing your income while increasing your expenses just wouldn't make sense. It seems like buying a bigger house after getting a pay cut to me. Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
On 9/14/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is huge profits? Is there some level of profits for these companies that you would accept as not being huge? Particularly after accounting for the fact that companies which provide services to the military naturally find their services to be in much greater demand during wartime than in peacetime? I don't think there is an economic formula in existence that justifies making money in a cause for which people are giving their very lives. To justify war profits with supply and demand is to put economics ahead of life. Not one cent that anybody made was worth the lives of those who gave their lives and limbs for a war. Not one. You can't put Wes and all the rest on your balance sheet. Also, do you have a problem with defense companies making sub-standard profits during peacetime? Do you believe that defense companies should receive profits during wartime that would compensate them in the long run for the risks they beared while their services were not in much demand during peacetime? I believe that anything that creates economic incentives for war is wrong. The greater the incentive, the more wrong it is. Yet it happens all the time. I hope and pray that the vast majority of people still believe that making profits from death and destruction is wrong, that every red cent is tainted with the blood of the fallen, even if it can be justified by economics. -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
At 08:39 AM Friday 9/15/2006, Nick Arnett wrote: I don't think there is an economic formula in existence that justifies making money in a cause for which people are giving their very lives. And yet for most of the world's history that has been a very real part of the economic system. It still is in many cases, even in this country . . . coal mining, frex, or other jobs involving underground tunneling, where the expression a man a mile talks about the human cost of performing the job. Even in many less intrinsically dangerous situations, the difference between eliminating 99.9% of the expected casualties and absolute safety becomes a matter of diminishing marginal returns as the cost of eliminating that last 0.1% works out to perhaps trillions of dollars per life saved. (I am not mentioning this to make light of your argument about the current war, but just to point out that in many other cases we accept a human cost as necessary part of the cost of getting a job done.) -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
On 9/15/06, Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (I am not mentioning this to make light of your argument about the current war, but just to point out that in many other cases we accept a human cost as necessary part of the cost of getting a job done.) Accepting it and quantifying it are two different things. I accept that some things cost lives. That's a separate issue from war profiteering. Even if there were a war that cost no lives, profiting from violence is just wrong. And happens all the time. I'm imagine that I have indirectly made money from violence, although not intentionally. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
On Sep 15, 2006, at 4:56 AM, jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gibson Jonathan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That you can phrase the question as should a defense company be making sub-standard profits - whatever that means in this realm - is amazing to read. If you have any direct experience I'd like to hear about it. They've always been astronomical That's interesting. One way to prove this assertion, would be to examine the profits of defense companies. Perhaps you some evidence then that the stock value of publicly-traded defense companies has historically exceeded those of other industries? My point about sub-standard profits was directly related to the trend in the early 90's when many defense contractors went out-of-business during peacetime. I agree with you, but lack any such study off-hand. I'm a little busy just now, but will keep my eye open in the meantime. I will note that the defense budget didn't dropped under Clinton - it simply didn't grow as it had decade after decade. The stories I recall were more about mergers than belly-ups due to the high expectations these organizations set and the lower profits management was unwilling to accept: hence lots of golden parachutes for those who could no longer fit even as their beat marched onward. By any thumbnail, off-the-cuff, first-person anecdotal definition I can offer up the current model gets the heading Wretched Excess. One wonders what this minor Clinton adjustment to the budget, social relaxation, economic stimulus defense companies repurposing their tech to commercial uses might do for us again... our society spends a hug amount of mental energy alone on the topic of security. Additionally, my point was expressly designed to focus the discussion on the quantifiable. The war is an emotional issue, and it is easy to criticize businesses for excessive profits. By asking what is the difference between excessive and standard profits, it helps to focus the discussion. The US military from the Continetal Army under George Washington to the armed forces of today has *never* been self-sufficient - the military has always depended upon services provided by outsiders. Presumably, those outsiders have provided those services as a profit. Hence my questions. JDG And there I'd like to see the big picture of cost and roles and sheer personnel numbers through the centuries. Somebody must have done such a tooth-to-tail ratio. Anybody know of a Napoleon's 1812 Moscow campaign style histograph of our own numbers? http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/posters - Jonathan - ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
On 15 Sep 2006 at 6:39, Nick Arnett wrote: I hope and pray that the vast majority of people still believe that making profits from death and destruction is wrong, that every red cent is tainted with the blood of the fallen, even if it can be justified by economics. And there are people out there who use that argument to say any game involving violence shouldn't make a profit either. Or gun makers for the civilian market. Or... Y'know what this reminds me of? A (*this* on is worksafe, others on the site are not) PLIF comic: http://plif.andkon.com/archive/wc161.gif (I admitedly really like some of PLIF and in particular that comic, which single handedly sparked my The Arcadia Project scifi setting) AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A while ago, somebody said This country isn't at war, only our military is at war. I think that was profound. It bugs the heck out of me, to put it mildly, that our leaders ask no one except the troops to make sacrifices for the current wars. Although I certainly had some idea that corporations were making huge profits off the war, this editorial offers facts... although it's certainly not just the CEOs who are making all the money. What is huge profits? Is there some level of profits for these companies that you would accept as not being huge? Particularly after accounting for the fact that companies which provide services to the military naturally find their services to be in much greater demand during wartime than in peacetime? Also, do you have a problem with defense companies making sub-standard profits during peacetime? Do you believe that defense companies should receive profits during wartime that would compensate them in the long run for the risks they beared while their services were not in much demand during peacetime? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brazilian's current drug civil war may have a body count of this magnitude. If there was a way to trade 100,000 and solve the drug problem, I think I would accept this price. Easy for you to say. Make sure you're number 1 of 100,000, if you want your bravado to mean anything. Do you know how many people die every day because of the drug war? Even children are murdering their parents in order to get drugs. Unless those people are Palestinians probably not JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Nuclear MAD Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gibson Jonathan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Because the USA may be the target of nuclear terrorism. OTOH, nuclear terrorists might explode a bomb anywhere they can, just to show they have it. OK. How does this make any difference? We faced nuclear megadeath of enormous proportions for decades w/o erosion of our rights - well, actually we have, but that's another topic - or, at least the ones we curtailed are a comfortable pain we are already long familiar with. Nuclear Islamic Terrorism is far more dangerous than Nuclear Communism. They had something to lose, while the islamic fanatics don't - not even if the retaliation would reduce every sacred islamic place to radioactive dust. Nonesense. Why do the puppetmasters pushing suicide bombers have less to lose than the soviet aparatchniks did? There are any number off technical, political, cultural, etc, reasons for a ffoolish leadership to intentionally, or by blender, trigger nuclear bombs. The scale of mistakes is obviously much worse under the old Cold War than an isolated nuke going off here or there. Losing Morder, er Washington DC, to an attack would be bad, but nothing compared to globe-straddling nuclear winter after a typical US-v-USSR script. The scale is obvious and one you don't address. I can think of a number of reasons. 1) In a world with numerous sources of nuclear bombs, it may be impossible for the victim of nuclear bomb terrorism to identify with certainty the source of the terrorism. 2) The source of the terrorism may be a non-State actor. For example, if Osama bin Laden steals a Pakistani nuclear weapon and ships it on a container ship to Seattle - how does the US retalitate? What does he have to lose? 3) Nuclear weapons are primarily suitable for killing civilians and destroying infrastructure. Most modern democracies have officially disavowed the tactic of intentionally killing civilians in warfare and retaliation. As such, an Islamic terrorist may reasonably conclude that the US would not retaliate with nuclear weapons to an incident of nuclear terrorism. Note: *whether* the US would actually retaliate with nuclear weapons is not of first-order importance. It is only important, at the first order, that it is possible for an Islamic terrorist to *believe* that the US would not retaliate with nuclear weapons. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
On Sep 14, 2006, at 8:54 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A while ago, somebody said This country isn't at war, only our
military is at war. I think that was profound. It bugs the heck out
of me, to put it mildly, that our leaders ask no one except the troops
to make sacrifices for the current wars. Although I certainly had
some idea that corporations were making huge profits off the war, this
editorial offers facts... although it's certainly not just the CEOs
who are making all the money.
What is huge profits? Is there some level of profits for these
companies that you would accept as not being huge? Particularly
after accounting for the fact that companies which provide services to
the military naturally find their services to be in much greater demand
during wartime than in peacetime?
Also, do you have a problem with defense companies making sub-standard
profits during peacetime? Do you believe that defense companies
should
receive profits during wartime that would compensate them in the long
run for the risks they beared while their services were not in much
demand during peacetime?
JDG
Here's some insight from one who ostensibly worked under DoD through
2001.
When I invoiced the Anteon Corporation, they padded their bills to
Rumsfeld shockingly high: For every $10,000 I invoiced they tacked
$7,500 ON TOP of that and sent it along to the Pentagon. Yup, we are
all paying $17,500 for every milestone I made, a 75% shipping
handling fee for them simply accepting my emailed PDF - I never even
met anyone from the company in person and all they did was minor
paperwork - and mailing me a check. This was the pre-9/11, pre-war
levels of bacon and one wonders just what is going on now that
crisis-mode has been in gear, for years. This disturbed me as much
then as it does now. I was glad the job ended.
I see jobs that used to go to Pfc's peeling potatoes now expensively
subcontracted {and farmed out to Philippine, etc, labor brought to
Iraq} in order to keep an American Draft from blowing through the
living rooms of America - kinda makes warfare cleaner and easier and
safely distant, to some. I fully expect the next stage to be Green
Blood ranks as we dangle ever-more US citizenship cards to make up our
military and keep our various wars in motion as cheaply as possible.
Those services rendered mean today, as you read this, mercenaries
from around the world are killing and bribing across Iraq with impunity
in our name since Rummy Co insist they are beyond even local laws.
Oh, and all these billions {we currently spend 3B/week now} in income
is tax free!
That you can phrase the question as should a defense company be making
sub-standard profits - whatever that means in this realm - is amazing
to read. If you have any direct experience I'd like to hear about it.
They've always been astronomical and almost unendingly open-budgets...
it's how the politicians spread the pork to their districts - calling
it white collar welfare is my take after 1st-hand exposure. How about
corruption of the political process as another cost unseen?
Here's something to consider, nationalize the defense industry:
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/stanton/stanton_bigboardwatch.php
How would you define an appropriate system?
Jonathan Gibson
www.formandfunction.com/word
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
Jonathan Gibson wrote:
Nuclear Islamic Terrorism is far more dangerous than Nuclear
Communism. They had something to lose, while the islamic fanatics
don't - not even if the retaliation would reduce every sacred
islamic place to radioactive dust.
Nonesense. Why do the puppetmasters pushing suicide bombers have
less to lose than the soviet aparatchniks did? There are any number
off technical, political, cultural, etc, reasons for a ffoolish
leadership to intentionally, or by blender, trigger nuclear bombs.
The scale of mistakes is obviously much worse under the old Cold
War than an isolated nuke going off here or there. Losing Morder,
er Washington DC, to an attack would be bad, but nothing compared to
globe-straddling nuclear winter after a typical US-v-USSR script.
The scale is obvious and one you don't address.
Of course it's hard to estimate probabilies of future events,
and even harder to estimate probabilities of alternate-history
events [what was the chance, from 1945-1990, of an all-scale
nuclear war? Of a limited nuclear war? Since it didn't happen,
the probability is zero! :-P], but I was thinking, above, about
a single individual risk.
[OTOH, I don't believe that when the next A-bomb explodes
killing millions of civilians, it will be an act of war by
a nation against another nation. Most likely it will be terrorism,
blackmail by international crime, students playing with
things they don't know, or students doing it for fun].
But what is the solution to North Korea's problem? There's no
simple solution. Not even starving the kp-ians to death does
any good. Maybe offering a huge bribe to kp's dictator, making
sure he will spend the rest of his life in some tropical
paradise and nobody will ever touch him or his fortune could
solve that problem, but this would establish a predecent that
would make every dictator try to get the same bonus.
Well, invading Iraq certainly didn't slow them down now did it?
I don't know. Khaddaffi [whatever its spelling] seems quite tame
now.
Additionally, we now lack a sharp military instrument to enforce our
disagreements with them. Simple solutions sold grandly and to a war
drumbeat rarely work and are never really simple.
Engage them. Infiltrate and subvert with hugs and kisses that win
over their people as you disarm their installations. It's a
patience game. One this administration is congenitally unable to
process. It doesn't fit the branding they've pushed lately as uber-macho.
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Did this process work anywhere? It sounds like the opposite of
don't feed the trolls.
I feel for you and yours. Your agitation for action is understandable.
I advocate drying up the weaponry funds by taking out the profits.
They lost some drug profits, not because drugs are legal, but because
they don't control the synthetic drug trade - from what I've heard,
we will remember with nostalgia the good old days when teens smoked
marijuana and snorted coke: these new drugs are one level more evil
than MC.
[I think this message has reached the highest Echelon count:
nukes, drugs, terrorism, Iraq, KP... Did we miss anything?]
Clearly the war on drugs as it has been waged since... Nixon {!}
are failing whereas Holland has an actual working system that
minimizes harm.
I will do the minimal thing; there's an election in a month, and I
will probably vote for those that have these ideas.
BTW, I didn't have data when I wrote, but this Sunday's newpaper
had a study showing that the drug dealers are losing income from
Coke and Marijuana, and they are compensating it with bank robbery
and flash kidnappings - just as I said.
Well, then the correct procedure is to harden those areas and beef
up enforcement.
Easy to say, hard to implement. The police system takes a huge
share of the drug trade.
You can't just shrug and say there is no winning,
because there are victories. You just cited one, but industries
like gangs demand feeding and until the machinery is starved into
downscaling it will grow like a cancer. Marginalizing this crowd is
the only way to make them into mere nuisances instead of dire
threats. Is it starve a cold and feed a fever, or other way around?
If you want to use Medicine methaphors, we can't kill the disease
by killing the patient :-)
Alberto Monteiro
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
On Sep 12, 2006, at 5:29 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Jonathan Gibson wrote:
Nuclear Islamic Terrorism is far more dangerous than Nuclear
Communism. They had something to lose, while the islamic fanatics
don't - not even if the retaliation would reduce every sacred
islamic place to radioactive dust.
Nonesense. Why do the puppetmasters pushing suicide bombers have
less to lose than the soviet aparatchniks did? There are any number
off technical, political, cultural, etc, reasons for a ffoolish
leadership to intentionally, or by blender, trigger nuclear bombs.
The scale of mistakes is obviously much worse under the old Cold
War than an isolated nuke going off here or there. Losing Morder,
er Washington DC, to an attack would be bad, but nothing compared to
globe-straddling nuclear winter after a typical US-v-USSR script.
The scale is obvious and one you don't address.
Of course it's hard to estimate probabilies of future events,
and even harder to estimate probabilities of alternate-history
events [what was the chance, from 1945-1990, of an all-scale
nuclear war? Of a limited nuclear war? Since it didn't happen,
the probability is zero! :-P], but I was thinking, above, about
a single individual risk.
[OTOH, I don't believe that when the next A-bomb explodes
killing millions of civilians, it will be an act of war by
a nation against another nation. Most likely it will be terrorism,
blackmail by international crime, students playing with
things they don't know, or students doing it for fun].
Y.
It's a minor background condition of the wee novel I hack away at. I
make the point in context of a global defense system in orbit that has
cost America a huge chunk of her treasure and is left impoverished. A
nuke is slipped in by tramp steamer or 18-wheeler {now that the NAFTA
superHWY is being built} and America is left with nobody to exact
revenge against and the high tech crown does no good.
But what is the solution to North Korea's problem? There's no
simple solution. Not even starving the kp-ians to death does
any good. Maybe offering a huge bribe to kp's dictator, making
sure he will spend the rest of his life in some tropical
paradise and nobody will ever touch him or his fortune could
solve that problem, but this would establish a predecent that
would make every dictator try to get the same bonus.
Well, invading Iraq certainly didn't slow them down now did it?
I don't know. Khaddaffi [whatever its spelling] seems quite tame
now.
That actually begun under Clinton and one of the few negotiated deals
this administration followed through on.
I feel for you and yours. Your agitation for action is
understandable.
I advocate drying up the weaponry funds by taking out the profits.
They lost some drug profits, not because drugs are legal, but because
they don't control the synthetic drug trade - from what I've heard,
we will remember with nostalgia the good old days when teens smoked
marijuana and snorted coke: these new drugs are one level more evil
than MC.
[I think this message has reached the highest Echelon count:
nukes, drugs, terrorism, Iraq, KP... Did we miss anything?]
Hey, I'll take any victory we can.
Clearly the war on drugs as it has been waged since... Nixon {!}
are failing whereas Holland has an actual working system that
minimizes harm.
I will do the minimal thing; there's an election in a month, and I
will probably vote for those that have these ideas.
BTW, I didn't have data when I wrote, but this Sunday's newpaper
had a study showing that the drug dealers are losing income from
Coke and Marijuana, and they are compensating it with bank robbery
and flash kidnappings - just as I said.
Well, then the correct procedure is to harden those areas and beef
up enforcement.
Easy to say, hard to implement. The police system takes a huge
share of the drug trade.
My wife brought home Man On Fire with Denzel Washington last night so I
had a vivid reminder of just what you describe. Fantastic movie.
Maddening, all that vice and corruption.
If the poverty was equalled out the crime wouldn't be as harsh and
prevalent. That's the Achilles Heel of Latin America.
Wishing you well,
- Jonathan -
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
On Sep 11, 2006, at 10:24 AM, Gibson Jonathan wrote: On Sep 11, 2006, at 9:51 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Jonathan Gibson wrote: Because the USA may be the target of nuclear terrorism. OTOH, nuclear terrorists might explode a bomb anywhere they can, just to show they have it. OK. How does this make any difference? We faced nuclear megadeath of enormous proportions for decades w/o erosion of our rights - well, actually we have, but that's another topic - or, at least the ones we curtailed are a comfortable pain we are already long familiar with. Nuclear Islamic Terrorism is far more dangerous than Nuclear Communism. They had something to lose, while the islamic fanatics don't - not even if the retaliation would reduce every sacred islamic place to radioactive dust. Nonesense. Why do the puppetmasters pushing suicide bombers have less to lose than the soviet aparatchniks did? They've got followers who believe they will live forever in paradise with 72 maidens ready to attend to all their needs, for one. The Sovs weren't being motivated by a desire to find eternal bliss; they just wanted to take over the world. They had a vested interest in remaining on this planet in their bodies. The radical Islamics, like any other group of right-wing ultra-religious idiots, do not. Engage them. Infiltrate and subvert with hugs and kisses that win over their people as you disarm their installations. It's a patience game. One this administration is congenitally unable to process. It doesn't fit the branding they've pushed lately as uber-macho. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. It's not just shortsightedness; there's a clear power struggle going on here. One has to wonder why secrecy is so damned important to the administration … and the more one wonders, the less one likes the conclusions. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
On Sep 8, 2006, at 2:50 PM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote:
Jonathan Gibson wrote:
Who's arguing absolute pacifism?
I operate on the Fight end of the Spectrum and not Fear, but that
doesn't mean I need to reduce everything to fisticuffs. I simply face
my fears head on. It's the only way that works for me.
I don't understand your ref to atomic material...
Because the USA may be the target of nuclear terrorism. OTOH,
nuclear terrorists might explode a bomb anywhere they can, just
to show they have it.
OK.
How does this make any difference? We faced nuclear megadeath of
enormous proportions for decades w/o erosion of our rights - well,
actually we have, but that's another topic - or, at least the ones we
curtailed are a comfortable pain we are already long familiar with.
I fail to see what scale of boogeyman is acceptable when North Korea
has become a growing and real nuclear threat, while GwB and that crowd
chase snipes they damn well knew weren't real. I followed the debriefs
of Saddam's defecting in-laws and follow-on UN reports which all track
a reality that BushCo denied in order to make a case for their
pet-projects. This was a world-class canard although I did expect to
find a few nerve and gas casings as we went in. I never thought Saddam
would deploy them on our troops as our retribution would have been
mighty righteous.
do you still believe
Saddam had nukes or even anywhere near to this?!?
I believe that this is irrelevant. We _know_ now that Saddam had no
nukes _then_. We know that Saddam wanted to have nukes - he
would buy nuclear stuff from anyone.
As would others, but this was true BEFORE the fall of the Soviets.
Following more than Fox News and AEI/Heritage flacks will remove a lot
of the mystery from world politics.
I fail to see how everything changed as people like to proffer as
some sort of newthink incantation. This is just cage-rattling to keep
our emotions on edge and our frontal lobes from operating at
full-speed.
BushCo would be touting the rad-counts and beakers-residues high and
low if they could find any. Apparently, your willing to throw your
own family {maybe a better way to phrase this is, you are willing to
sacrifice Somebody Else's family} on a sacrificial alter at the mere
mention of skeery-monster boogeyman of nuclear fire without rationally
assessing facts. I don't even have to raise this issue since you
think
a Drug War is justification enough to lose your family to local
crossfire.
Life is cheap{er}, for some, apparently.
I didn't say that - I said that my family _is right now_ in the
crossfire
of a drug war. I also said that your family is right now in the
crossfire
of another war.
I'd call it something other than a war.
To me it looks more like a provocative set of actions to make
mountains out of mole-hills. It's designed to make our defense
industry an Immovable Object to bill against the Irresistible Force of
the brownskins, well, everywhere... These hind-brain dinosaurs we call
a defense industry need to lean against something or they can't stand
up and w/o a Cold War, etc, they seek justification for the megabucks
they seek.
I've been a US Defense Contractor and know what I speak of.
What if this nice round conceptually dead-simple number of
100K isn't enough dead and the battles continue decades,
and numbers reach millions? When is enough dead enough?
When all you and yours lay at your feet? Are you prepared
for that, because this is a logical {and time-tested!}
course of action your apparently willing to embrace.
Obviously, there's a limit to how many people should die
to prevent a tyrant to have his wishes. It would be wrong
to start a nuclear war to prevent a nuclear war.
So, still no quantification? What exactly is your measure for success
of this effort?
Ok, you want numbers. How many people could die to prevent how
many deaths? How many (precious-to-me) lives could die to
prevent (not-precious-to-me) deaths?
On a first estimation, I don't care how many supporters-of-a-tyranny
die if their deaths prevent just a single innocent death. Call me
callous, but people who chose to support a tyrant have no sympathy.
OTOH, if once far-away innocent person must die to prevent one
friendly person, I will accept this equation - I am no hypocrite that
will say that all lives are equally precious to me.
Now, let's make the inverse count. How many precious-to-me
lives I would sacrifice to save strangers? I don't know, but
here the count is certainly not 1:1!
I fail to see why the criminal elements would pursue ever-more violent
crimes in the face of these profit drains... seems like it's when the
profits soar that they break out weapons.
Is there some study of the Dutch aftermath you are aware of and can
share?
No, there's no such study. I am just extrapolating from the behaviour
of criminals in my home city. When one profitable way is cut down,
they switch to another kind of
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
Jonathan Gibson wrote: Because the USA may be the target of nuclear terrorism. OTOH, nuclear terrorists might explode a bomb anywhere they can, just to show they have it. OK. How does this make any difference? We faced nuclear megadeath of enormous proportions for decades w/o erosion of our rights - well, actually we have, but that's another topic - or, at least the ones we curtailed are a comfortable pain we are already long familiar with. Nuclear Islamic Terrorism is far more dangerous than Nuclear Communism. They had something to lose, while the islamic fanatics don't - not even if the retaliation would reduce every sacred islamic place to radioactive dust. I fail to see what scale of boogeyman is acceptable when North Korea has become a growing and real nuclear threat, while GwB and that crowd chase snipes they damn well knew weren't real. But what is the solution to North Korea's problem? There's no simple solution. Not even starving the kp-ians to death does any good. Maybe offering a huge bribe to kp's dictator, making sure he will spend the rest of his life in some tropical paradise and nobody will ever touch him or his fortune could solve that problem, but this would establish a predecent that would make every dictator try to get the same bonus. This was a world-class canard although I did expect to find a few nerve and gas casings as we went in. I never thought Saddam would deploy them on our troops as our retribution would have been mighty righteous. It's surprising that he didn't. Maybe the war was too quick for his thought processes conclude that he would be really deposed, instead of just another 1991 bundle. As would others, but this was true BEFORE the fall of the Soviets. Following more than Fox News and AEI/Heritage flacks (...) If you think Fox News is biased, you don't know Rede Globo :-) I didn't say that - I said that my family _is right now_ in the crossfire of a drug war. I also said that your family is right now in the crossfire of another war. I'd call it something other than a war. Ok, it's not a war, but people are still in the crossfire. To me it looks more like a provocative set of actions to make mountains out of mole-hills. It's designed to make our defense industry an Immovable Object to bill against the Irresistible Force of the brownskins, well, everywhere... These hind-brain dinosaurs we call a defense industry need to lean against something or they can't stand up and w/o a Cold War, etc, they seek justification for the megabucks they seek. I've been a US Defense Contractor and know what I speak of. Yes, Fear is a great motivation for the military industry. No, there's no such study. I am just extrapolating from the behaviour of criminals in my home city. When one profitable way is cut down, they switch to another kind of crime. If suddenly they would lose the huge profit from drug trade, they might use their formidable arsenal to rob homes or mass kidnapping. Thanks, I wanted some thoughts on this to try and get past the handy labels and notions that get bandied. I don't think there is anything to resolve here as your opinion rates casual life-taking too cavalierly for my notions of a stable solution... I am not _that_ callous about life-taking! It's just that I live in fear _now_: I change my routine all the time to chose safer routes, my wife quitted jobs that would expose her when crossing danger zones, my kids can't get in the streets alone, etc. This is a warzone, and we are losing it :-/ BTW, I didn't have data when I wrote, but this Sunday's newpaper had a study showing that the drug dealers are losing income from Coke and Marijuana, and they are compensating it with bank robbery and flash kidnappings - just as I said. I am reminded of the callous adolescent writings of Aynn Rand where she gladly smites innocent children if they've been fed the honey corrupt parents bring home. I am not trying to paint you this way, Alberto, but this conversation hangs in my mind as an echo of Atlas Shrugged. Ayn Rand is in my to-read-list, just after the Gor Masterpiece :-) Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
On Sep 11, 2006, at 9:51 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Jonathan Gibson wrote:
Because the USA may be the target of nuclear terrorism. OTOH,
nuclear terrorists might explode a bomb anywhere they can, just
to show they have it.
OK.
How does this make any difference? We faced nuclear megadeath
of enormous proportions for decades w/o erosion of our rights -
well, actually we have, but that's another topic - or, at least
the ones we curtailed are a comfortable pain we are already
long familiar with.
Nuclear Islamic Terrorism is far more dangerous than Nuclear
Communism. They had something to lose, while the islamic fanatics
don't - not even if the retaliation would reduce every sacred
islamic place to radioactive dust.
Nonesense. Why do the puppetmasters pushing suicide bombers have less
to lose than the soviet aparatchniks did? There are any number off
technical, political, cultural, etc, reasons for a ffoolish leadership
to intentionally, or by blender, trigger nuclear bombs. The scale of
mistakes is obviously much worse under the old Cold War than an
isolated nuke going off here or there. Losing Morder, er Washington
DC, to an attack would be bad, but nothing compared to globe-straddling
nuclear winter after a typical US-v-USSR script.
The scale is obvious and one you don't address.
I fail to see what scale of boogeyman is acceptable when
North Korea has become a growing and real nuclear threat,
while GwB and that crowd chase snipes they damn well knew
weren't real.
But what is the solution to North Korea's problem? There's no
simple solution. Not even starving the kp-ians to death does
any good. Maybe offering a huge bribe to kp's dictator, making
sure he will spend the rest of his life in some tropical
paradise and nobody will ever touch him or his fortune could
solve that problem, but this would establish a predecent that
would make every dictator try to get the same bonus.
Well, invading Iraq certainly didn't slow them down now did it?
Additionally, we now lack a sharp military instrument to enforce our
disagreements with them. Simple solutions sold grandly and to a war
drumbeat rarely work and are never really simple.
Engage them. Infiltrate and subvert with hugs and kisses that win over
their people as you disarm their installations. It's a patience game.
One this administration is congenitally unable to process. It doesn't
fit the branding they've pushed lately as uber-macho.
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Thanks, I wanted some thoughts on this to try and get past the handy
labels and notions that get bandied. I don't think there is
anything to resolve here as your opinion rates casual life-taking
too cavalierly for my notions of a stable solution...
I am not _that_ callous about life-taking! It's just that I live
in fear _now_: I change my routine all the time to chose safer
routes, my wife quitted jobs that would expose her when crossing
danger zones, my kids can't get in the streets alone, etc.
This is a warzone, and we are losing it :-/
I feel for you and yours. Your agitation for action is understandable.
I advocate drying up the weaponry funds by taking out the profits.
Clearly the war on drugs as it has been waged since... Nixon {!} are
failing whereas Holland has an actual working system that minimizes
harm.
BTW, I didn't have data when I wrote, but this Sunday's newpaper
had a study showing that the drug dealers are losing income from
Coke and Marijuana, and they are compensating it with bank robbery
and flash kidnappings - just as I said.
Well, then the correct procedure is to harden those areas and beef up
enforcement. You can't just shrug and say there is no winning, because
there are victories. You just cited one, but industries like gangs
demand feeding and until the machinery is starved into downscaling it
will grow like a cancer. Marginalizing this crowd is the only way to
make them into mere nuisances instead of dire threats.
Is it starve a cold and feed a fever, or other way around?
- Jonathan -
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
Some of it seems to be -- the Wiki piece has claims that could easily pass 100K already. The info at http://iraqbodycount.org/ seems to be about half that. But that's current numbers, and I think Nick was projecting through to the end of the war. It wasn't me, it was the article I quoted... but I have an idea of what that number means. It is from a comparison of death rates before and after the invasion, without regard to direct cause. Thus, it is intended to include those who have died due to destruction of the infrastructure, lack of police, etc., in addition to those directly killed by the war. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
At 12:24 PM Monday 9/11/2006, Gibson Jonathan wrote: Nonesense. Why do the puppetmasters pushing suicide bombers have less to lose than the soviet aparatchniks did? 'Cuz a cave somewhere in Afghanistan or Pakistan is harder to program into the nav system of a cruise missile than the GPS coordinates for the men's room window of the Kremlin? Is it starve a cold and feed a fever, or other way around? And if you have a cold _with_ fever, should you binge and purge? -- Ronn! :P Professional Smart-Aleck. Do Not Attempt. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
On Sep 11, 2006, at 10:24 AM, Gibson Jonathan wrote: Nonesense. Why do the puppetmasters pushing suicide bombers have less to lose than the soviet aparatchniks did? There are any number off technical, political, cultural, etc, reasons for a ffoolish leadership to intentionally, or by blender, trigger nuclear bombs. Now we won't be able to take blenders on airplanes. Damn it. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
On 11 Sep 2006 at 10:39, Nick Arnett wrote: Some of it seems to be -- the Wiki piece has claims that could easily pass 100K already. The info at http://iraqbodycount.org/ seems to be about half that. But that's current numbers, and I think Nick was projecting through to the end of the war. It wasn't me, it was the article I quoted... but I have an idea of what that number means. It is from a comparison of death rates before and after the invasion, without regard to direct cause. Thus, it is intended to include those who have died due to destruction of the infrastructure, lack of police, etc., in addition to those directly killed by the war. Yes, and you know what the actual figure in the 2004 Lancet study was, right? 98,000 (95% confidence interval: 8000 to 194000) *Including* combatants. A commentry on their methodology: http://www.slate.com/id/2108887/ There appears to be no 2006 or even 2005 study. AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
On Sep 11, 2006, at 10:24 AM, Gibson Jonathan wrote: Is it starve a cold and feed a fever, or other way around? I believe the old saying is starve a cold, feed a fever. The logic is that by starving a cold, you don't give it a bunch of gunk from which to make mucous (Mmm, tasty) and by feeding a fever, you fuel your body's attempt to fry the bugs. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
On Sep 9, 2006, at 5:10 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 8 Sep 2006 at 7:37, Nick Arnett wrote: researchers will inevitably say that the body count has crossed 100,000. No, not really - it's disputed. Cite, please. All of this madness to stop a madman, Saddam Hussein. Who was killing arround 175 of his subjects a day a rate which excluding the war itself has been slashed by over two thirds. (And by over half, including the war). Cite, please. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
On 10 Sep 2006 at 10:45, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Sep 9, 2006, at 5:10 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 8 Sep 2006 at 7:37, Nick Arnett wrote: researchers will inevitably say that the body count has crossed 100,000. No, not really - it's disputed. Cite, please. http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/dveathby.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_ 2003 Yes, it's based off a *2004* survey. All of this madness to stop a madman, Saddam Hussein. Who was killing arround 175 of his subjects a day a rate which excluding the war itself has been slashed by over two thirds. (And by over half, including the war). Cite, please. http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html I do have better figures but they're offline..I'll see if I can get permission to scan them. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
On Sep 10, 2006, at 5:37 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 10 Sep 2006 at 10:45, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Sep 9, 2006, at 5:10 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 8 Sep 2006 at 7:37, Nick Arnett wrote: researchers will inevitably say that the body count has crossed 100,000. No, not really - it's disputed. Cite, please. http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/dveathby.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_ 2003 Yes, it's based off a *2004* survey. Some of it seems to be -- the Wiki piece has claims that could easily pass 100K already. The info at http://iraqbodycount.org/ seems to be about half that. But that's current numbers, and I think Nick was projecting through to the end of the war. All of this madness to stop a madman, Saddam Hussein. Who was killing arround 175 of his subjects a day a rate which excluding the war itself has been slashed by over two thirds. (And by over half, including the war). Cite, please. http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html I do have better figures but they're offline..I'll see if I can get permission to scan them. I'm not sure which figures from that site you're using to make the claim that Hussein was killing arround 175 of his subjects a day. I think adding the half-million claimed dead due to trade sanctions wouldn't fly with some; after all, he didn't levy the sanctions on his own nation. The guy definitely had his problems, but he was not the reason the WTC was attacked; his nation had nothing to do with it; and all the hand-waving in the world won't change that fact. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
At 11:39 AM Friday 9/8/2006, Nick Arnett wrote: On 9/8/06, Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nick Arnett quoted: (...) researchers will inevitably say that the body count has crossed 100,000. All of this madness to stop a madman, Saddam Hussein. I think it's a small price to pay for the removal of a tyrant. What is the body count of a tyranny? Argentina's military dictatorship of the 70s had a body count like that. And Iraq is so much better off now? Anyway, the point of the editorial is about the profits, not the body count. War is a racket -- Major General Smedley Butler. And it just keeps getting worse. War is good business. -- General Bull Wright (Dan Rowan). -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
At 09:44 AM Friday 9/8/2006, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Nick Arnett quoted: (...) researchers will inevitably say that the body count has crossed 100,000. All of this madness to stop a madman, Saddam Hussein. I think it's a small price to pay for the removal of a tyrant. What is the body count of a tyranny? Argentina's military dictatorship of the 70s had a body count like that. Brazilian's current drug civil war may have a body count of this magnitude. If there was a way to trade 100,000 and solve the drug problem, I think I would accept this price. Even if you knew with certainty going in that your wife and kids would be among the 100K? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
On 8 Sep 2006 at 7:37, Nick Arnett wrote: researchers will inevitably say that the body count has crossed 100,000. No, not really - it's disputed. All of this madness to stop a madman, Saddam Hussein. Who was killing arround 175 of his subjects a day a rate which excluding the war itself has been slashed by over two thirds. (And by over half, including the war). AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
Nick Arnett quoted: (...) researchers will inevitably say that the body count has crossed 100,000. All of this madness to stop a madman, Saddam Hussein. I think it's a small price to pay for the removal of a tyrant. What is the body count of a tyranny? Argentina's military dictatorship of the 70s had a body count like that. Brazilian's current drug civil war may have a body count of this magnitude. If there was a way to trade 100,000 and solve the drug problem, I think I would accept this price. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] A while ago, somebody said This country isn't at war, only our military is at war. I think that was profound. It bugs the heck out of me, to put it mildly, that our leaders ask no one except the troops to make sacrifices for the current wars. Although I certainly had some idea that corporations were making huge profits off the war, this editorial offers facts... although it's certainly not just the CEOs who are making all the money. (Snip article) We will know we've reached a turning point when we get a President who puts the entire nation on a war footing and does not put up with any nonsense from anyone. I'm keeping my eyes peeled for whoever's out there that will do it. Dubya isn't our Lincoln or our FDR - he's our Buchanan or (apologies, Herbert!) our Hoover. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
On Sep 8, 2006, at 7:44 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Nick Arnett quoted:
(...) researchers will inevitably say that the body count
has crossed 100,000.
All of this madness to stop a madman, Saddam Hussein.
I think it's a small price to pay for the removal of a tyrant.
What is the body count of a tyranny? Argentina's military
dictatorship of the 70s had a body count like that.
Brazilian's current drug civil war may have a body count of
this magnitude. If there was a way to trade 100,000 and solve
the drug problem, I think I would accept this price.
Alberto Monteiro
Alberto,
I assume you'll toss your own family into the furnace first just to be
sure we have enough to cover your ethically challenged accounting
methods. What if this nice round conceptually dead-simple number of
100K isn't enough dead and the battles continue decades, and numbers
reach millions? When is enough dead enough? When all you and yours
lay at your feet? Are you prepared for that, because this is a logical
{and time-tested!} course of action your apparently willing to embrace.
Having lived in Holland I've seen what happens when you remove the
profit from drug-running: the mafioso go away. The guns go away.
Petty crime goes down as junkies don't need expensive per-diem fixes.
Same thing with prostitution.
Ghandi said something appropriate {roughly}:
War will not stop war until darkness makes darkness go away
- Jonathan -
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
Jonathan Gibson wrote:
I assume you'll toss your own family into the furnace first
just to be sure we have enough to cover your ethically
challenged accounting methods.
The problem is that my own family _is_ into the furnace right
now. And probably yours too - but a difference furnace, one
powered by fissionable nuclei.
The world is a dangerous place, and absolute pacifism sounds
like unconditional surrender.
What if this nice round conceptually dead-simple number of
100K isn't enough dead and the battles continue decades,
and numbers reach millions? When is enough dead enough?
When all you and yours lay at your feet? Are you prepared
for that, because this is a logical {and time-tested!}
course of action your apparently willing to embrace.
Obviously, there's a limit to how many people should die
to prevent a tyrant to have his wishes. It would be wrong
to start a nuclear war to prevent a nuclear war.
Having lived in Holland I've seen what happens when you
remove the profit from drug-running: the mafioso go away.
The guns go away. Petty crime goes down as junkies don't
need expensive per-diem fixes. Same thing with prostitution.
Ok, but that happened because the drug dealers could easily
cross the borders and continue their trade elsewhere. If
we wanted to have this solution for all western nations, there
would be an enormous increase in crime - because criminals
would find more violent ways to compensate their losses.
Ghandi said something appropriate {roughly}:
War will not stop war until darkness makes darkness go away
Yes, but India's independence only succeeded after England
had suffered a lot in WW2. As much as I admire Ghandi's pacifism,
it could only work in those special circumstances. It would
not be possible, for example, for iraqi citizens to depose
Saddam with hunger strikes.
Alberto Monteiro
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
Nick Arnett wrote: I think it's a small price to pay for the removal of a tyrant. What is the body count of a tyranny? Argentina's military dictatorship of the 70s had a body count like that. And Iraq is so much better off now? I don't know. _I_ am much better now [without Saddam] than I was before - how knows what that madman could do? Anyway, the point of the editorial is about the profits, not the body count. Ok. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
On Sep 8, 2006, at 9:52 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Jonathan Gibson wrote:
I assume you'll toss your own family into the furnace first
just to be sure we have enough to cover your ethically
challenged accounting methods.
The problem is that my own family _is_ into the furnace right
now. And probably yours too - but a difference furnace, one
powered by fissionable nuclei.
The world is a dangerous place, and absolute pacifism sounds
like unconditional surrender.
Who's arguing absolute pacifism?
I operate on the Fight end of the Spectrum and not Fear, but that
doesn't mean I need to reduce everything to fisticuffs. I simply face
my fears head on. It's the only way that works for me.
I don't understand your ref to atomic material... do you still believe
Saddam had nukes or even anywhere near to this?!? You are foolishly
mistaken if you do, because this has been disproven six-ways to Sunday.
BushCo would be touting the rad-counts and beakers-residues high and
low if they could find any. Apparently, your willing to throw your
own family {maybe a better way to phrase this is, you are willing to
sacrifice Somebody Else's family} on a sacrificial alter at the mere
mention of skeery-monster boogeyman of nuclear fire without rationally
assessing facts. I don't even have to raise this issue since you think
a Drug War is justification enough to lose your family to local
crossfire.
Life is cheap{er}, for some, apparently.
What if this nice round conceptually dead-simple number of
100K isn't enough dead and the battles continue decades,
and numbers reach millions? When is enough dead enough?
When all you and yours lay at your feet? Are you prepared
for that, because this is a logical {and time-tested!}
course of action your apparently willing to embrace.
Obviously, there's a limit to how many people should die
to prevent a tyrant to have his wishes. It would be wrong
to start a nuclear war to prevent a nuclear war.
So, still no quantification? What exactly is your measure for success
of this effort?
Having lived in Holland I've seen what happens when you
remove the profit from drug-running: the mafioso go away.
The guns go away. Petty crime goes down as junkies don't
need expensive per-diem fixes. Same thing with prostitution.
Ok, but that happened because the drug dealers could easily
cross the borders and continue their trade elsewhere. If
we wanted to have this solution for all western nations, there
would be an enormous increase in crime - because criminals
would find more violent ways to compensate their losses.
Your ignoring my point. There are ways to diffuse a conflict that do
not require more fists and blood. Sun Tzu in the Art of War often
describes the very best way to outwit your enemy is have them lose
heart and disband - giving one victory w/o conflict. The drug laws in
The Netherlands do just that... Now, if their neighbors wish to pursue
a Prohibition-style then they will maintain the mafia they deserve - at
a cost.
I fail to see why the criminal elements would pursue ever-more violent
crimes in the face of these profit drains... seems like it's when the
profits soar that they break out weapons.
Is there some study of the Dutch aftermath you are aware of and can
share?
Ghandi said something appropriate {roughly}:
War will not stop war until darkness makes darkness go away
Yes, but India's independence only succeeded after England
had suffered a lot in WW2. As much as I admire Ghandi's pacifism,
it could only work in those special circumstances. It would
not be possible, for example, for iraqi citizens to depose
Saddam with hunger strikes.
Alberto Monteiro
Um, I understood there was some 17 million Iraqis before we invaded.
Should they all pick and collectively decide to march on his palaces he
would be history. Unlikely, but then I never bought the line he had
nukes this time around. I did my background homework.
- Jonathan -
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
On Sep 8, 2006, at 7:44 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Nick Arnett quoted: (...) researchers will inevitably say that the body count has crossed 100,000. All of this madness to stop a madman, Saddam Hussein. I think it's a small price to pay for the removal of a tyrant. What is the body count of a tyranny? Argentina's military dictatorship of the 70s had a body count like that. Brazilian's current drug civil war may have a body count of this magnitude. If there was a way to trade 100,000 and solve the drug problem, I think I would accept this price. Easy for you to say. Make sure you're number 1 of 100,000, if you want your bravado to mean anything. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
Jonathan Gibson wrote:
Who's arguing absolute pacifism?
I operate on the Fight end of the Spectrum and not Fear, but that
doesn't mean I need to reduce everything to fisticuffs. I simply face
my fears head on. It's the only way that works for me.
I don't understand your ref to atomic material...
Because the USA may be the target of nuclear terrorism. OTOH,
nuclear terrorists might explode a bomb anywhere they can, just
to show they have it.
do you still believe
Saddam had nukes or even anywhere near to this?!?
I believe that this is irrelevant. We _know_ now that Saddam had no
nukes _then_. We know that Saddam wanted to have nukes - he
would buy nuclear stuff from anyone.
BushCo would be touting the rad-counts and beakers-residues high and
low if they could find any. Apparently, your willing to throw your
own family {maybe a better way to phrase this is, you are willing to
sacrifice Somebody Else's family} on a sacrificial alter at the mere
mention of skeery-monster boogeyman of nuclear fire without rationally
assessing facts. I don't even have to raise this issue since you think
a Drug War is justification enough to lose your family to local
crossfire.
Life is cheap{er}, for some, apparently.
I didn't say that - I said that my family _is right now_ in the crossfire
of a drug war. I also said that your family is right now in the crossfire
of another war.
What if this nice round conceptually dead-simple number of
100K isn't enough dead and the battles continue decades,
and numbers reach millions? When is enough dead enough?
When all you and yours lay at your feet? Are you prepared
for that, because this is a logical {and time-tested!}
course of action your apparently willing to embrace.
Obviously, there's a limit to how many people should die
to prevent a tyrant to have his wishes. It would be wrong
to start a nuclear war to prevent a nuclear war.
So, still no quantification? What exactly is your measure for success
of this effort?
Ok, you want numbers. How many people could die to prevent how
many deaths? How many (precious-to-me) lives could die to
prevent (not-precious-to-me) deaths?
On a first estimation, I don't care how many supporters-of-a-tyranny
die if their deaths prevent just a single innocent death. Call me
callous, but people who chose to support a tyrant have no sympathy.
OTOH, if once far-away innocent person must die to prevent one
friendly person, I will accept this equation - I am no hypocrite that
will say that all lives are equally precious to me.
Now, let's make the inverse count. How many precious-to-me
lives I would sacrifice to save strangers? I don't know, but
here the count is certainly not 1:1!
I fail to see why the criminal elements would pursue ever-more violent
crimes in the face of these profit drains... seems like it's when the
profits soar that they break out weapons.
Is there some study of the Dutch aftermath you are aware of and can
share?
No, there's no such study. I am just extrapolating from the behaviour
of criminals in my home city. When one profitable way is cut down,
they switch to another kind of crime. If suddenly they would lose
the huge profit from drug trade, they might use their formidable
arsenal to rob homes or mass kidnapping.
Alberto Monteiro
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
Dave Land wrote: Brazilian's current drug civil war may have a body count of this magnitude. If there was a way to trade 100,000 and solve the drug problem, I think I would accept this price. Easy for you to say. Make sure you're number 1 of 100,000, if you want your bravado to mean anything. Do you know how many people die every day because of the drug war? Even children are murdering their parents in order to get drugs. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
On Sep 8, 2006, at 2:52 PM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: Dave Land wrote: Brazilian's current drug civil war may have a body count of this magnitude. If there was a way to trade 100,000 and solve the drug problem, I think I would accept this price. Easy for you to say. Make sure you're number 1 of 100,000, if you want your bravado to mean anything. Do you know how many people die every day because of the drug war? Even children are murdering their parents in order to get drugs. I don't know, but I could look it up if I wanted. What I do know is that I reject the facile formula if we just kill enough of the bad guys, we will be safe. It's never been true, and killing more bad guys won't make it any more true. I'm not talking about capitulation, but the recognition that we are incapable of killing _just_ the bad guys. I do not accept as lightly as you seem to the killing of innocents along the way. Maybe if we just killed _everybody_, the world would be perfect. During the three strikes and you're out debate in the USA a few years back, as long as it seemed that the rules of Baseball were considered a sound basis for social policy, I came up with a competing four balls and you walk policy. At birth, everyone goes to jail. If, during automatic incarceration, you manage to do four things that positively impact society to the level that crimes negatively impact society, you would be released. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
