Re: Who is the sheriff?
Just finished reading the text of Bush's speech. So, 48 hours -- I wish Saddam would take exile, but that seems extremely unlikely. Things that should have happened and didn't -- US diplomacy before bullying, UN Security Council taking firmer steps to convince SH that they meant *real* disarmament, SH realizing that he'd been out-chickened. So. War. Strained relations with friends, allies and neutrals for the US. Loss of both face and relevance for the UN. Potential for disaster according to other posters (mass civilian casualties, torched oilfields, etc.) -- I devoutly hope not, for everyone's sake. I hope the outcome is as rosy as some have posited. Time to sign off and try to sleep. Debbi __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
- Original Message - From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 3:09 PM Subject: Re: Who is the sheriff? I worry about them too, of course. Heck, I'm one of them. But the only way I see this working out well for the US and the world is a quick, clean, and overwhelming victory on the part of the United States and its allies. You can guarantee that France and Germany will pounce on every report of mistakes or civilian casualties as a way of inflaming the Arab world against the US, as will (of course) various malefactors in the Arab/Islamic world. This only works not just if we win (which is virtually guaranteed) but win spectacularly and immediately. Counting on a flawless military campaign is not usually a winning bet. It's the skill and will and courage of our men and women that will determine the course of the 21st century, and the bar they will have to clear is incredibly high. Given this assessment, it seems to me that we will need a bit of luck...unless the US has tricks up its sleeve that I can't begin to comprehend. Lets assume a reasonable worst case scenario for what we cannot control. The Republican guard decides to have a last ditch stand in Baghdad. It goes to ground, and locates in various buildings in Baghdad, say 50k strong spread through the streets of Baghdad. It uses children as runners for communications, and ambushes the US in such a manner that it is very difficult to separate civilians from the Republican Guard. The point will not be victory for Hussein, but to make the victory for the US as costly as possible. How can the US spectacularly and immediately win an urban war like this? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Given this assessment, it seems to me that we will need a bit of luck...unless the US has tricks up its sleeve that I can't begin to comprehend. Lets assume a reasonable worst case scenario for what we cannot control. The Republican guard decides to have a last ditch stand in Baghdad. It goes to ground, and locates in various buildings in Baghdad, say 50k strong spread through the streets of Baghdad. It uses children as runners for communications, and ambushes the US in such a manner that it is very difficult to separate civilians from the Republican Guard. The point will not be victory for Hussein, but to make the victory for the US as costly as possible. How can the US spectacularly and immediately win an urban war like this? Dan M. We _definitely_ need luck. There are two ways to win that scenario. The first, and preferable one, is to make sure that it doesn't happen. The battle plan looks, to me, like something of a race. We're trying to sprint to Baghdad before the Republican Guard can redeploy and turn it into an urban battlefield. Our airpower will be used to pin them down and slow their movement while American armored forces try to meet and annihilate them outside the city. This is possible. If it _does_ get to city fighting, things get a lot uglier. The Army has been thinking about this for a long time, and they have plans using PGMs to hit city strongpoints, and so on. In urban warfare individual unit training becomes the decisive factor (it always is, but even more so than in manuever battle or meeting engagements, where technology can play a role). That is, however, the arena in which American superiority is probably strongest, so it might not be as bad as people think. Even the elite Iraqi units probably don't have the small unit discipline to maintain battle in a hopeless cause if they have the opportunity to desert. Mixed in with the population of Baghdad is ideal conditions to decide that you'd rather be a civilian than get killed fighting Americans. Historically, armies with close contact with civilian society are the ones most likely to crumble (for example, the mass mutiny by French soldiers in 1918, when British soldiers under the same conditions kept fighting). My guess is that in that scenario Allied forces will surround the city, launch lightning strikes to seize strategic positions, use special operations raids and so on to destroy enemy concentrations with minimal damage to surrounding areas, and wait for Iraqi forces to dissolve. I think. I honestly don't know, and I'm not thrilled with this option. Change is _always_ a major factor in warfare, in this one like any other. _But_, it's important not to under-emphasize the creativity and ability of the people in the American armed forces who are thinking about these things. They have already reinvented the battle of maneuver, and they did so successfully. It's not impossible that they have done the same for urban combat. Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [Humor] RE: Who is the sheriff?
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Humor] RE: Who is the sheriff? Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 22:49:48 -0600 Ronn!Blankenship wrote: (And I bet some people are glad that no one brought up that *other* slang meaning of John . . .) I was biting my tongue, figuratively speaking, actually. I figured that nobody here by that name would appreciate any smart-alecky remark I might make along those lines, and not wishing to get *all* of them upset at me, I refrained. :) Julia Thanks. :) Although I'd bet at least some of us have a sense of humor about it. :) Jon _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
Marvin Long, Jr. wrote: And yet. I feel that this particular course of action, and this particular timing, has pretty much been force-fed to the American people by a propaganda campaign based on scanty facts and half-truths to convince us all that Hussein presents to America the same degree of threat today that al Qaeda presented on Sept. 10, 2001. I feel the object of an, If you can't blind 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit campaign. Which in turn makes me feel that the options for creating a broader world consensus for action existed and were deliberately discarded before they were ever explored. Why? I just came across this article that explores Bush's ineffective diplomacy and the reasons behind it, and had been debating whether to post it. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-17-anti-diplomacy-usat_x.htm Right or wrong, Bush stuck to his instincts By Judy Keen, USA TODAY, 3-17-03 WASHINGTON - More than any other episode in his presidency, the diplomatic battle at the United Nations over war with Iraq put President Bush's strengths and flaws on stark display. To the president, most issues are matters of right or wrong, good or evil. He has great faith in his own impulses: I'm an instinct player, he once said in an interview. After he decides on a course of action, Bush moves forward with little vacillation or retrospection. Those who disagree are simply mistaken. Bush's friends consider those traits a sign of confident leadership. Vice President Cheney said Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press that he likes the idea of having a president who practices cowboy diplomacy. He cuts to the chase, he is very direct, and I find that very refreshing, Cheney said. But Bush's critics say the president practices bulldozer diplomacy - arrogant, disrespectful and sometimes naive. This administration has all the diplomatic subtlety of an Abrams tank, says Ted Galen Carpenter, a foreign policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, a Washington think tank. It tends to demand accommodation by other countries and it throws the foreign-policy equivalent of a temper tantrum when it does not get its way. In his unsuccessful effort to win U.N. Security Council approval of a new resolution paving the way for war with Iraq, Bush often ignored diplomatic protocol: Instead of hashing out disputes with longtime allies France, Germany and Russia behind closed doors, he publicly challenged them to a showdown that he seemed almost to relish. He tried to bully reluctant leaders, such as Mexican President Vicente Fox, an old pal from Bush's days as Texas governor, into joining him. Bush's aides were scornful of those who declined. Last week they openly mocked France, noting with sarcasm that it rejected a British compromise even before Saddam Hussein did. Bush embarrassed some countries, including Turkey, by failing to keep confidential his offerings of aid and other considerations in exchange for support. His undeterred march to war has already claimed diplomatic casualties. Bush's most steadfast ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who led the battle for a U.N. resolution opening the door to war, faces strong objections and sinking approval ratings at home. Former British foreign secretary Robin Cook, the appointed Leader of the House of Commons, resigned from the British government Monday in opposition to Blair's push for war. Instead of establishing and sticking to a rationale for an unprovoked war with Iraq, Bush offered a shifting series of reasons and left the impression that he was searching for one that would close the sale. He started with the idea that the Saddam regime must be removed because of the threat of chemical and biological weapons, then moved on to Iraq's violations of its citizens' human rights, Saddam's supposed links to the al-Qaeda terrorist network, then argued that ousting Saddam would aid peace in the Middle East, and finally the imperative that the United States defend itself from the threat of Iraq-sponsored terrorism. He challenged the United Nations to prove its relevance by endorsing war with Iraq, then said he would go to war whether he got the endorsement or not. Only in the final week before the Security Council vote did Bush embark intently on diplomacy. By that point, most of his advisers had given up on an outright victory. They were hoping for the nine votes needed to pass a resolution, so that despite France's veto Bush could say a majority of the Security Council backed war. He choreographed a series of phone calls - his own and dozens by Secretary of State Colin Powell and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice - to the leaders of nations represented on the Security Council and other heads of state who might have influence over them. It was too late. By the end of last week, the
Re: Who is the sheriff?
From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Who is the sheriff? Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 11:04:26 -0600 - Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 11:00 AM Subject: Re: Who is the sheriff? Horn, John wrote: From: Doug Pensinger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Why? Hitler and Nazism symbolize more than the holocaust. I associate fascism, secret police and several other nasty things with him and his regime. I think it's in poor taste but not anti-Semitic. (It's taken me a long time to get a chance to answer this one...) It seems to me that 99 times out 100, when you see a swastica it is being used in either an anti-Semitic or racist manner and is being used to intimedate. In the US, certainly. In other parts of the world, no. Gotta keep these things in context. IIRC, the swastika used by the Nazis is unique. The Hindu symbol points in the opposite direction. I haven't read this entire thread yet, but this is inaccurate: I posted this link last Friday on the Humor thread (in response to Doug) :) http://www.indiaprofile.com/religion-culture/swastika.htm Excerpt: Surrounding their use of the image there exists a widespread misconception concerning the representation of the symbol. It is commonly thought that the motif of the Third Reich was an inverted swastika, a deviation from the original ancient design. The point needs clarification. Regardless of the swastika's configuration, i.e. right-angled or left-angled, the symbol's significance does not suffer; it merely indicates two opposing principles, evolution and dissolution. Jon GSV Clarification _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Bryon Daly wrote: I just came across this article that explores Bush's ineffective diplomacy and the reasons behind it, and had been debating whether to post it. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-17-anti-diplomacy-usat_x.htm Thanks. Here's another interesting one: http://slate.msn.com/id/2080262/ It speculates on what might have been if Bush's approach had more closely resembled his father's in Gulf I and Clinton's in Kosovo. Marvin Long Austin, Texas Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Poindexter Ashcroft, LLP (Formerly the USA) http://www.breakyourchains.org/john_poindexter.htm ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
- Original Message - From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 9:33 AM Subject: Re: Who is the sheriff? --- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Given this assessment, it seems to me that we will need a bit of luck...unless the US has tricks up its sleeve that I can't begin to comprehend. Lets assume a reasonable worst case scenario for what we cannot control. The Republican guard decides to have a last ditch stand in Baghdad. It goes to ground, and locates in various buildings in Baghdad, say 50k strong spread through the streets of Baghdad. It uses children as runners for communications, and ambushes the US in such a manner that it is very difficult to separate civilians from the Republican Guard. The point will not be victory for Hussein, but to make the victory for the US as costly as possible. How can the US spectacularly and immediately win an urban war like this? Dan M. We _definitely_ need luck. There are two ways to win that scenario. The first, and preferable one, is to make sure that it doesn't happen. The battle plan looks, to me, like something of a race. We're trying to sprint to Baghdad before the Republican Guard can redeploy and turn it into an urban battlefield. Our airpower will be used to pin them down and slow their movement while American armored forces try to meet and annihilate them outside the city. This is possible. So, the next two days are important for this, right? If they start redeploying to Baghdad now, then the chances of doing this are greatly reduced. If it _does_ get to city fighting, things get a lot uglier. The Army has been thinking about this for a long time, and they have plans using PGMs to hit city strongpoints, and so on. I did a websearch and the only thing I got was a rocket that carried a thermonuclear warhead. I'll be _very very_ upset with you if this is what you are talking about. :-) My guess is that in that scenario Allied forces will surround the city, launch lightning strikes to seize strategic positions, use special operations raids and so on to destroy enemy concentrations with minimal damage to surrounding areas, and wait for Iraqi forces to dissolve. I think. I honestly don't know, and I'm not thrilled with this option. Change is _always_ a major factor in warfare, in this one like any other. That's my nightmare scenario. Day after day of the US fighting urban guerrillas, with civilian casualties on the nightly news. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Who is the sheriff?
From: Doug Pensinger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Bush and Sharone are a lot of things but they aren't Nazis. Of course not, the poster was obvious hyperbole, but not necessarily anti-Semitic. How about we agree to disagree? I don't think I'm gonna change your mind and I'm not sure you are gonna change mine! - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, the next two days are important for this, right? If they start redeploying to Baghdad now, then the chances of doing this are greatly reduced. Yes, very much so. According to NPR this morning, interestingly enough, Baghdad is _not_ being fortified. I don't quite know what to make of that. I did a websearch and the only thing I got was a rocket that carried a thermonuclear warhead. I'll be _very very_ upset with you if this is what you are talking about. :-) Not quite :-). Precision Guided Munitions, sorry. I just know that there's been a lot of thought about how to use close air support in an urban setting. I don't know much in the way of details, just that some of the USAF hard-core guys are all enthused at the concept. That's my nightmare scenario. Day after day of the US fighting urban guerrillas, with civilian casualties on the nightly news. Dan M. It's one of mine, but not the worst. The urban fighting they seem to have something of a handle on, at least conceptually. _My_ nightmare scenario is that as US troops get close to Baghdad, Saddam releases VX on the population and proclaims that we did. Or even smallpox. Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Who is the sheriff?
-Original Message- From: Gautam Mukunda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 01:45 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Who is the sheriff? --- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, the next two days are important for this, right? If they start redeploying to Baghdad now, then the chances of doing this are greatly reduced. Yes, very much so. According to NPR this morning, interestingly enough, Baghdad is _not_ being fortified. I don't quite know what to make of that. The Mongolian Defense? (Show an obvious weakness to draw in your opponent, but be deployed to react to such a move) It's one of mine, but not the worst. The urban fighting they seem to have something of a handle on, at least conceptually. _My_ nightmare scenario is that as US troops get close to Baghdad, Saddam releases VX on the population and proclaims that we did. Or even smallpox. That's certainly on my list of nightmares. -j- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Who is the sheriff?
--- Miller, Jeffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Mongolian Defense? (Show an obvious weakness to draw in your opponent, but be deployed to react to such a move) -j- No, that involves superior tactical mobility, and tactical mobility is one of the hallmarks of American fighting forces. If _that's_ his approach, then we'll already have exploited the weakness by the time he realizes that the attack has begun. Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Who is the sheriff?
-Original Message- From: Gautam Mukunda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 02:11 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: RE: Who is the sheriff? --- Miller, Jeffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Mongolian Defense? (Show an obvious weakness to draw in your opponent, but be deployed to react to such a move) -j- No, that involves superior tactical mobility, and tactical mobility is one of the hallmarks of American fighting forces. If _that's_ his approach, then we'll already have exploited the weakness by the time he realizes that the attack has begun. Mobility has nothing to do with it. -j- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
On Monday, March 17, 2003, at 10:37 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- John Garcia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I recently read a paper by an associate of John Boyd outlining what a snipped John, If you could tell me how to get a copy of that paper, or post it, or a URL, or something like that, I would greatly appreciate it. I've never been able to get a copy of one of Boyd's legendary briefings. Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l For you, Gautam, and for others who may be interested, go to http://www.d-n-i.net/index.html. From there, you can go to Fourth Generation Warfare page where you can download a number of files including some of Boyd's briefings in PDF format. Boyd is a fascinating man, and I plan to read Robert Coram's biography of Boyd after Waging Modern War by Wesley Clark. john ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
--- John Garcia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Boyd is a fascinating man, and I plan to read Robert Coram's biography of Boyd after Waging Modern War by Wesley Clark. john I'm not a big fan of Wes Clark's, but I am looking forward to the Coram bio. I have to ask my USAF friend what he thinks of Boyd - I'll tell you what he says. Of course, his aide just told me he was TDY, so I have a feeling he might be, umm, occupied right now. Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
On Monday, March 17, 2003, at 11:30 PM, Reggie Bautista wrote: John Garcia wrote: I recently read a paper by an associate of John Boyd outlining what a military force organized on his principles of strategy would look like. ... What I can glean from the public statements made by our strategists, the plan is to get inside the Iraqi's decision cycle (the OODA loop: Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) by setting up multiple threats in different areas. When Saddam reacts to one of those threats, he will be weakened in some other area, and our opportunities in that area will be enhanced. Also, there is a strong element of psywar involved in 4GW, and I believe we can see some evidence of this in the President's appeals to Iraqi troops to not resist, and in the general's statements about how we will have instructions for any Iraqi force that wants to on how to make itself a non-target. It's a bold concept, requiring among other things, total battlespace awareness and troops who can quickly seize unforeseen opportunities. As a person who's pretty new to the whole concept of 4th generation warfare, this sounds to me a little like Ender's Dragon army in _Ender's Game_ by Orson Scott Card, especially the last part about quickly seizing unforseen opportunities and total battlespace awareness. Is it reasonably fair to say that Ender's strategies might be described as 4GW? My background includes very little history of military tactics, and I'm just trying to get a handle on 4GW using any comparison that I can get my hands on and understand pretty easily... Reggie Bautista Disclaimer: I am not an expert on military or national strategy. I just read a lot. Here is a working definition of 4th Generation Warfare (4GW) from a paper presented at a 4GW conference: 4GW encompasses attempts to circumvent or undermine an opponents strengths while exploiting weaknesses, using methods that differ substantially from an opponents usual mode of operations. If we accept the definition above, then certainly the tactics used by Ender in Ender's Game would fall under 4GW. Even more so since IIRC, Ender was still an adolescent when he planned his battles (which in his reference frame were games), and (presumably) his opponent was adult. This would certainly be a method that differs substantially from an opponent's usual mode of operations. Now that I think of it, Gordon Dickson's Childe Cycle contains 4GW battles in the books Tactics of Mistake, and the short story collection, Spirit of Dorsai. In Spirit of Dorsai, a planet's population defeats an occupying army, even though the planet's fighting forces are all off planet. If you' re feeling like digging deeper, start with Sun Tzu's classic The Art of War. john ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
On Tuesday, March 18, 2003, at 08:59 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- John Garcia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Boyd is a fascinating man, and I plan to read Robert Coram's biography of Boyd after Waging Modern War by Wesley Clark. john I'm not a big fan of Wes Clark's, but I am looking forward to the Coram bio. I have to ask my USAF friend what he thinks of Boyd - I'll tell you what he says. Of course, his aide just told me he was TDY, so I have a feeling he might be, umm, occupied right now. Gautam Clark was (and is) controversial. I do want to read his side of the story. By all means let me know what your AF friend thinks of Boyd. He's highly regarded in the Marine Corps. john ps good luck to your friend. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
--- John Garcia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: john ps good luck to your friend. John - thanks. He'll need it - but his enemies will need it a lot more. A different USAF pilot described him to me as someone who would cause the Red Baron to expletive deleted his pants if he found out they were in the same air space. I believe it. Quite an introduction :-) From everything about Boyd that I've read, they would actually have something in common, except that he's a really nice guy and Boyd, well, wasn't. Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
iaamoac wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unfortunately, now we are being hosted by leagin the US troops prepared^^ to carry out this resolution in the lurch in the Gulf. Typo correction: That should be leaving, not leagin. Actually... I meant hoisted... which means the same thing as hosed. Unfortunately, now we are being hosited, by leaving the US troops prepared to carry this resolution in the lurch in the Gulf. I'm sure this final amended sentence makes perfect sense to you, but. Do you perhaps mean posited, not hosited??? JDG - Not the best sentence I've ever written, Maru. :) Can't argue with that! Regards, Ray. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Who is the sheriff?
From: Doug Pensinger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Why? Hitler and Nazism symbolize more than the holocaust. I associate fascism, secret police and several other nasty things with him and his regime. I think it's in poor taste but not anti-Semitic. (It's taken me a long time to get a chance to answer this one...) It seems to me that 99 times out 100, when you see a swastica it is being used in either an anti-Semitic or racist manner and is being used to intimedate. Maybe it's just me, but I only see the American Nazi party or the KKK using symbols like that. And generally they aren't just critizing the government when they are doing it. Bush and Sharone are a lot of things but they aren't Nazis. - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: [Humor] RE: Who is the sheriff?
From: Horn, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Humor] RE: Who is the sheriff? Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:07:44 -0600 From: Jon Gabriel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] We do NOT all look alike! ;-) Too many Johns There is definitely a joke in there somewhere but *I'm* not gonna say it. And I'm much obliged ya didn't go there. All we need is for Ronn to get on another 'American Standard' posting kick. *grin* - jmh That's why I use 'jmh' actually... Yet, (un)surprisingly, it didn't work. :) Jon GSV 400 Posts To Go. _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
- Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 11:00 AM Subject: Re: Who is the sheriff? Horn, John wrote: From: Doug Pensinger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Why? Hitler and Nazism symbolize more than the holocaust. I associate fascism, secret police and several other nasty things with him and his regime. I think it's in poor taste but not anti-Semitic. (It's taken me a long time to get a chance to answer this one...) It seems to me that 99 times out 100, when you see a swastica it is being used in either an anti-Semitic or racist manner and is being used to intimedate. In the US, certainly. In other parts of the world, no. Gotta keep these things in context. IIRC, the swastika used by the Nazis is unique. The Hindu symbol points in the opposite direction. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 11:00 AM Subject: Re: Who is the sheriff? Horn, John wrote: From: Doug Pensinger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Why? Hitler and Nazism symbolize more than the holocaust. I associate fascism, secret police and several other nasty things with him and his regime. I think it's in poor taste but not anti-Semitic. (It's taken me a long time to get a chance to answer this one...) It seems to me that 99 times out 100, when you see a swastica it is being used in either an anti-Semitic or racist manner and is being used to intimedate. In the US, certainly. In other parts of the world, no. Gotta keep these things in context. IIRC, the swastika used by the Nazis is unique. The Hindu symbol points in the opposite direction. But you've got to know the difference. And I'm sure that a number of the people using it in the US don't. :( Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
- Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 11:07 AM Subject: Re: Who is the sheriff? Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 11:00 AM Subject: Re: Who is the sheriff? Horn, John wrote: From: Doug Pensinger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Why? Hitler and Nazism symbolize more than the holocaust. I associate fascism, secret police and several other nasty things with him and his regime. I think it's in poor taste but not anti-Semitic. (It's taken me a long time to get a chance to answer this one...) It seems to me that 99 times out 100, when you see a swastica it is being used in either an anti-Semitic or racist manner and is being used to intimedate. In the US, certainly. In other parts of the world, no. Gotta keep these things in context. IIRC, the swastika used by the Nazis is unique. The Hindu symbol points in the opposite direction. But you've got to know the difference. And I'm sure that a number of the people using it in the US don't. :( Does anyone have an example of a backwards swastika being used by mistake in the US? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
On Sat, 15 Mar 2003, Erik Reuter wrote: say) to listen more than talk. And I think it does me good to just listen to what you and Gautam and John G., for instance, have to say. Not that you meant it that way, but it struck me as funny that you grouped me in with JDG politically. I don't think he would agree with that! :-) Ha! I group you three as people who have advanced persuasive pro-war arguments that made me stop and think about my prejudices and fears. Which remain, but their accuracy remains to be seen. Marvin Long Austin, Texas Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Poindexter Ashcroft, LLP (Formerly the USA) http://www.breakyourchains.org/john_poindexter.htm ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
--- Marvin Long, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ha! I group you three as people who have advanced persuasive pro-war arguments that made me stop and think about my prejudices and fears. Which remain, but their accuracy remains to be seen. Marvin Long Why thank you Marvin. I'm not posting right now (except for this) I did 110+ hours at the office last week (including 2:00am Saturday, which _sucked_, let me tell you) and would be looking at the same this week, except I leave for Denmark on Friday. But if you think you're scared - I'm so jittery right now I can barely think straight. As far as I can tell, the battle plan looks like a template for 4th generation warfare - OODA loops, engagement at multiple levels, information dominance, the works. Lots of very smart people came up with those ideas. A fair number of less smart people have been arguing that they were a good idea for a while now (count me in that second group). But they're just theories. No one, in the entire history of the world, has ever tried anything remotely like this. There are about a million ways things can go wrong, and we have _no_ margin for error. In my lifetime the stakes have never been so high, for the US and the world. Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
- Original Message - From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 12:32 PM Subject: Re: Who is the sheriff? But if you think you're scared - I'm so jittery right now I can barely think straight. As far as I can tell, the battle plan looks like a template for 4th generation warfare - OODA loops I had to look it up http://www.mindsim.com/MindSim/Corporate/OODA.html Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Gautam Mukunda wrote: Why thank you Marvin. I'm not posting right now (except for this) I did 110+ hours at the office last week (including 2:00am Saturday, which _sucked_, let me tell you) and would be looking at the same this week, except I leave for Denmark on Friday. You're welcome. Get some sleep. But if you think you're scared - I'm so jittery right now I can barely think straight. As far as I can tell, the battle plan looks like a template for 4th generation warfare - OODA loops, engagement at multiple levels, information dominance, the works. Lots of very smart people came up with those ideas. A fair number of less smart people have been arguing that they were a good idea for a while now (count me in that second group). But they're just theories. No one, in the entire history of the world, has ever tried anything remotely like this. There are about a million ways things can go wrong, and we have _no_ margin for error. In my lifetime the stakes have never been so high, for the US and the world. I think we have very different nightmares. :-) I have every confidence in our armed forces, even if things don't go entirely as planned. Not that I'm especially familiar with all the operational wrinkles of modern warfare. I also believe that to whatever degree politics permits it, our men and women in uniform will be the ultimate evidence of America's basic decency after the occupation begins. It's the people on *this* side of the Atlantic I worry about. Marvin Long Austin, Texas Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Poindexter Ashcroft, LLP (Formerly the USA) http://www.breakyourchains.org/john_poindexter.htm ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Marvin Long, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ha! I group you three as people who have advanced persuasive pro-war arguments that made me stop and think about my prejudices and fears. Which remain, but their accuracy remains to be seen. Marvin Long Why thank you Marvin. Thank you as well. But if you think you're scared - I'm so jittery right now I can barely think straight. And let me second this as well. I know that I probably come off as pretty cavalier about US foreign policy, and the need for liberation in Iraq and elsewhere. This comes out of my strong moral conviction that we must do the right thing, and that sometimes the right thing brings with it not only great benefits (like a far more free and peacefull world) but also great costs. I probably don't say it often enough, but I truly believe that the US is in the middle of a Second World War-scale struggle, both in terms of the stakes (the survival of western civilization) and the costs (tremendous sacrifice by almost all Americans, including the lives of many soldiers.) Moreover, I think that Gautam used exactly the right word to describe my mood this moring - scared. I think that there is probably a better than even chance that Saddam Hussein will use chemical weapons - perhaps on a massive scale. I expect them to be almost certainly used on US troops (particularly once we encircle Baghdad, as seems to be the current war plan), I expect it to be highly likely that they are used against Israeli civilians, and I think that there is a not insignificant chance that Hussein will use them on his own people (or at least try to do so), so as to create the US's worst nightmare: masses of humanity, possibly fleeing a chemical attack, running straight into our armed forces. I don't think words can express just how bad such a situation might become for us. I remain optimitic that this war can be won quickly and easily, but the *fear* of what could go wrong is definitely present. So for probably the first and only time in my life, I will quote US Sen. Arlen Specter: The risks of going to war are great, the risks of not going to war are greater. In my lifetime the stakes have never been so high, for the US and the world. Well, I might rank the world situation in 1986-1991 (Rejykavik - Soviet coup), as on par with this situation, but yeah, exactly right. If the US fails* here in disarming a rogue State, even before it goes nuclear, the prospects for Western Civilization in the Terrorism Age look grim. JDG - Turning Point, Maru * - fails defined as paying such a heavy price, ala Vietnam, that the US would almost never consider engaging in such a disarmament anytime in the near-to-medium term. P.S. A question mostly for Gautam, since he seems to circulate in Poli Sci circles much more than most (its his degree after all), but is it just me, or is the Soviet Coup one of the least-studied and least-analyzed events of the last 15-25 years, or what? I mean, whatever happened to those guys? How did it happen? And how could it happen again? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 08:53:13PM -, iaamoac wrote: struggle, both in terms of the stakes (the survival of western civilization) and the costs (tremendous sacrifice by almost all I really don't think 'western civilization' is at stake here... kind of overdramatising. -- Paul * Progress (n.): The process through which Usenet has evolved from smart people in front of dumb terminals to dumb people in front of smart terminals. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (obscurity) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
--- Marvin Long, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're welcome. Get some sleep. Not part of the job description, unfortunately :-( It's the people on *this* side of the Atlantic I worry about. Marvin Long I worry about them too, of course. Heck, I'm one of them. But the only way I see this working out well for the US and the world is a quick, clean, and overwhelming victory on the part of the United States and its allies. You can guarantee that France and Germany will pounce on every report of mistakes or civilian casualties as a way of inflaming the Arab world against the US, as will (of course) various malefactors in the Arab/Islamic world. This only works not just if we win (which is virtually guaranteed) but win spectacularly and immediately. Counting on a flawless military campaign is not usually a winning bet. It's the skill and will and courage of our men and women that will determine the course of the 21st century, and the bar they will have to clear is incredibly high. If any group of people in history can do it, they can. But still - Bismarck once said that God looks after children, fools, and the United States of America. Right now we we can only hope that he was right. Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
John G said: Well, I might rank the world situation in 1986-1991 (Rejykavik - Soviet coup), as on par with this situation, but yeah, exactly right. If the US fails* here in disarming a rogue State, even before it goes nuclear, the prospects for Western Civilization in the Terrorism Age look grim. Why is this the Terrorism Age? We've seen some not awfully impressive use of chemical weapons in terrorist attacks in Japan, some letters with anthrax in them posted in the US, and a rather spectacular new terrorist use of airliners, but that hardly makes terrorism the defining characteristic of the age. Indeed, a number of countries have faced much more sustained terrorist campaigns (for example, by the IRA in Britain or by groups supported by Pakistan in India) for decades and that hasn't pushed terrorism to centre-stage. It's not even as if the threat of nuclear terrorism is a new concern - there were studies of September 11 style attacks by aircraft carrying nukes conducted by the UK's ministry of defence way back in the 1950s which concluded that such attacks were a real danger. It seems to me that the central novelty now is the undermining of the traditional system of states: by the fracturing of existing states along ethnic-linguistic faultlines or by the total failure of governments and the collapse into anarchy. We've seen such things in the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the fragmentation of Yugoslavia, the collapse of Somalia into a series of warlord-states, the anarchy in parts of western Africa, the attempts of the Kurds to create an independent Kurdistan, the secession of the Cechens, and maybe we're going to see such a tranformation in China, which might convert itself into a collection of special economic areas. The responses of the great powers to this has been generally inconsistent and only recently are they starting to realise that perhaps such chaos isn't such a good idea, especially as it greatly weakens the partial monopoly of states on organised use of violence. Terrorism being pretty much such organised use of violence by non-state groups, the War Against Terror is perhaps better seen as an attempt to uphold and strengthen the monopoly of states on the machinery of modern warfare. P.S. A question mostly for Gautam, since he seems to circulate in Poli Sci circles much more than most (its his degree after all), but is it just me, or is the Soviet Coup one of the least-studied and least-analyzed events of the last 15-25 years, or what? I mean, whatever happened to those guys? How did it happen? And how could it happen again? I'd also like to know more about this. Are there any good books on the subject? Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: [Humor] RE: Who is the sheriff?
At 11:39 AM 3/17/03 -0500, Jon Gabriel wrote: From: Horn, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Humor] RE: Who is the sheriff? Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:07:44 -0600 From: Jon Gabriel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] We do NOT all look alike! ;-) Too many Johns There is definitely a joke in there somewhere but *I'm* not gonna say it. And I'm much obliged ya didn't go there. All we need is for Ronn to get on another 'American Standard' posting kick. *grin* I thought about it, but I'm generally loath to respond when there's no challenge . . . (And I bet some people are glad that no one brought up that *other* slang meaning of John . . .) ;-) Since You Asked For It Maru --Ronn! :) Bathroom humor is an American-Standard. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: [Humor] RE: Who is the sheriff?
From: Ronn!Blankenship [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (And I bet some people are glad that no one brought up that *other* slang meaning of John . . .) That's one of the jokes I had in mind... Sometimes I hate my name... - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
At 11:21 AM 3/17/03 -0600, Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 11:07 AM Subject: Re: Who is the sheriff? Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 11:00 AM Subject: Re: Who is the sheriff? Horn, John wrote: From: Doug Pensinger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Why? Hitler and Nazism symbolize more than the holocaust. I associate fascism, secret police and several other nasty things with him and his regime. I think it's in poor taste but not anti-Semitic. (It's taken me a long time to get a chance to answer this one...) It seems to me that 99 times out 100, when you see a swastica it is being used in either an anti-Semitic or racist manner and is being used to intimedate. In the US, certainly. In other parts of the world, no. Gotta keep these things in context. IIRC, the swastika used by the Nazis is unique. The Hindu symbol points in the opposite direction. But you've got to know the difference. And I'm sure that a number of the people using it in the US don't. :( Does anyone have an example of a backwards swastika being used by mistake in the US? No, but I would think it likely that some individuals spray-painting synagogues at midnight might make such errors . . . -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foamÂ… God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 09:36:41PM +, Richard Baker wrote: Terrorism being pretty much such organised use of violence by non-state groups, the War Against Terror is perhaps better seen as an attempt to uphold and strengthen the monopoly of states on the machinery of modern warfare. I don't better see it that way. You left out a key phrase in your terrorism being pretty much sentence: AGAINST CIVILIANS. Don't you see a difference between intentionally killing civilians vs. attacking military targets? Are police better seen as attempting to uphold and strengthen the monopoly of governments on the machinery of modern bounty hunting? -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
At 09:36 PM 3/17/03 +, Richard Baker wrote: John G said: Well, I might rank the world situation in 1986-1991 (Rejykavik - Soviet coup), as on par with this situation, but yeah, exactly right. If the US fails* here in disarming a rogue State, even before it goes nuclear, the prospects for Western Civilization in the Terrorism Age look grim. Why is this the Terrorism Age? We've seen some not awfully impressive use of chemical weapons in terrorist attacks in Japan, some letters with anthrax in them posted in the US, and a rather spectacular new terrorist use of airliners, but that hardly makes terrorism the defining characteristic of the age. Indeed, a number of countries have faced much more sustained terrorist campaigns (for example, by the IRA in Britain or by groups supported by Pakistan in India) for decades and that hasn't pushed terrorism to centre-stage. It's not even as if the threat of nuclear terrorism is a new concern - there were studies of September 11 style attacks by aircraft carrying nukes conducted by the UK's ministry of defence way back in the 1950s which concluded that such attacks were a real danger. It seems to me that the central novelty now is the undermining of the traditional system of states: by the fracturing of existing states along ethnic-linguistic faultlines or by the total failure of governments and the collapse into anarchy. We've seen such things in the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the fragmentation of Yugoslavia, the collapse of Somalia into a series of warlord-states, the anarchy in parts of western Africa, the attempts of the Kurds to create an independent Kurdistan, the secession of the Cechens, and maybe we're going to see such a tranformation in China, which might convert itself into a collection of special economic areas. The responses of the great powers to this has been generally inconsistent and only recently are they starting to realise that perhaps such chaos isn't such a good idea, especially as it greatly weakens the partial monopoly of states on organised use of violence. Terrorism being pretty much such organised use of violence by non-state groups, the War Against Terror is perhaps better seen as an attempt to uphold and strengthen the monopoly of states on the machinery of modern warfare. P.S. A question mostly for Gautam, since he seems to circulate in Poli Sci circles much more than most (its his degree after all), but is it just me, or is the Soviet Coup one of the least-studied and least-analyzed events of the last 15-25 years, or what? I mean, whatever happened to those guys? How did it happen? And how could it happen again? I'd also like to know more about this. Are there any good books on the subject? The only one I have read was Gorbachev's account of the coup, published not long after the event. -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foamÂ… God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
Horn, John wrote: (It's taken me a long time to get a chance to answer this one...) Well it would help if I had referred to the right person. 8^) It seems to me that 99 times out 100, when you see a swastica it is being used in either an anti-Semitic or racist manner and is being used to intimedate. Maybe it's just me, but I only see the American Nazi party or the KKK using symbols like that. And generally they aren't just critizing the government when they are doing it. But in this case, the demonstrator was using the symbology to describe someone else. In the cases your referring to - the spray painting of a swastika on a synagogue for instance, the vandals are using the symbol to represent themselves. At least that's the way I see it. Bush and Sharone are a lot of things but they aren't Nazis. Of course not, the poster was obvious hyperbole, but not necessarily anti-Semitic. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
--- Marvin Long, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We'll see what happens in a couple of days, I guess. Pondering the vagaries of human psychology, it seems to me that a stunning and spectacular victory might work as badly against us as somewhat prolonged and messy one. People fight an irresistable force by stabbing it in the back. Marvin Long Well, yes, that's exactly what France just did. There's a rumor that Villepin described what France is doing as shooting America in the back. I don't know how true that is, but it's not a bad description. In Europe that might be the case. I am not as worried about Europe. First, because we have so many interests in common that if France's challenge to American predominance is rapidly put down, the long-term relationship is not so much at risk. The best way to do that, of course, is to go into Iraq, find the weapons of mass destruction, and rub Chirac's nose in them a bit. And second because these are fading societies. With _every day_ that passes Europe becomes less important on the world stage because of the simple and inexorable math of demographics. That is not going to change. But things in the Middle East can still go well or poorly, and that is dependent on the outcome of the war. What, btw, do you _want_ Marvin? If it goes well, that's bad. But if it goes poorly, that's bad. If we don't do this, Saddam eventually gets nuclear weapons. If we do do this, there's no outcome that seems favorable. What I haven't seen from you - from anyone, but particularly from you, since I know you're capable of it - is an argument balancing the risks of action versus those of inaction. Yes, the war can go badly. Look at the Middle East. Do you feel that peace is going _well_? What, given the options, would you do? Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
At 11:07 AM 3/17/2003 -0600, you wrote: Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 11:00 AM Subject: Re: Who is the sheriff? Horn, John wrote: From: Doug Pensinger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Why? Hitler and Nazism symbolize more than the holocaust. I associate fascism, secret police and several other nasty things with him and his regime. I think it's in poor taste but not anti-Semitic. (It's taken me a long time to get a chance to answer this one...) It seems to me that 99 times out 100, when you see a swastica it is being used in either an anti-Semitic or racist manner and is being used to intimedate. In the US, certainly. In other parts of the world, no. Gotta keep these things in context. IIRC, the swastika used by the Nazis is unique. The Hindu symbol points in the opposite direction. But you've got to know the difference. And I'm sure that a number of the people using it in the US don't. :( Julia Easy once you 'see' it. As it rotates, the arms look like Ls. http://whiterabbitcult.com/NWO/Swastika.html The eastern one is the other way, farther down the page. Kevin T. - VRWC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
On Monday, March 17, 2003, at 01:32 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Marvin Long, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ha! I group you three as people who have advanced persuasive pro-war arguments that made me stop and think about my prejudices and fears. Which remain, but their accuracy remains to be seen. Marvin Long Why thank you Marvin. I'm not posting right now (except for this) I did 110+ hours at the office last week (including 2:00am Saturday, which _sucked_, let me tell you) and would be looking at the same this week, except I leave for Denmark on Friday. But if you think you're scared - I'm so jittery right now I can barely think straight. As far as I can tell, the battle plan looks like a template for 4th generation warfare - OODA loops, engagement at multiple levels, information dominance, the works. Lots of very smart people came up with those ideas. A fair number of less smart people have been arguing that they were a good idea for a while now (count me in that second group). But they're just theories. No one, in the entire history of the world, has ever tried anything remotely like this. There are about a million ways things can go wrong, and we have _no_ margin for error. In my lifetime the stakes have never been so high, for the US and the world. Gautam I recently read a paper by an associate of John Boyd outlining what a military force organized on his principles of strategy would look like. One of the interesting comments made was that Sherman's campaign after leaving Chattanooga and entering Savannah a form of 4th Generation Warfare (4GW). Sherman's strategy of avoiding battle, converging columns around entrenched Southern troops, and disregard for his rear confused the Southern military authorities so much, that they replaced the general who had an idea what Sherman was up to with one who had no clue. Consequently Hood sent his army into four battles against Sherman, losing all of them and leaving the way open to Atlanta and Savannah afterward. By December, 1864 Sherman was on the coast, threatening Lee's rear. What I can glean from the public statements made by our strategists, the plan is to get inside the Iraqi's decision cycle (the OODA loop: Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) by setting up multiple threats in different areas. When Saddam reacts to one of those threats, he will be weakened in some other area, and our opportunities in that area will be enhanced. Also, there is a strong element of psywar involved in 4GW, and I believe we can see some evidence of this in the President's appeals to Iraqi troops to not resist, and in the general's statements about how we will have instructions for any Iraqi force that wants to on how to make itself a non-target. It's a bold concept, requiring among other things, total battlespace awareness and troops who can quickly seize unforeseen opportunities. If it works, the war is over quickly, with a minimal loss of lives and property. That would also be an event similar to the sea battle between the Monitor and Merrimac, or the development of the phalanx. john ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
--- John Garcia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I recently read a paper by an associate of John Boyd outlining what a military force organized on his principles of strategy would look like. One of the interesting comments made was that Sherman's campaign after leaving Chattanooga and entering Savannah a form of 4th Generation Warfare (4GW). Sherman's strategy of avoiding battle, converging columns around entrenched Southern troops, and disregard for his rear confused the Southern military authorities so much, that they replaced the general who had an idea what Sherman was up to with one who had no clue. Consequently Hood sent his army into four battles against Sherman, losing all of them and leaving the way open to Atlanta and Savannah afterward. By December, 1864 Sherman was on the coast, threatening Lee's rear. What I can glean from the public statements made by our strategists, the plan is to get inside the Iraqi's decision cycle (the OODA loop: Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) by setting up multiple threats in different areas. When Saddam reacts to one of those threats, he will be weakened in some other area, and our opportunities in that area will be enhanced. Also, there is a strong element of psywar involved in 4GW, and I believe we can see some evidence of this in the President's appeals to Iraqi troops to not resist, and in the general's statements about how we will have instructions for any Iraqi force that wants to on how to make itself a non-target. It's a bold concept, requiring among other things, total battlespace awareness and troops who can quickly seize unforeseen opportunities. If it works, the war is over quickly, with a minimal loss of lives and property. That would also be an event similar to the sea battle between the Monitor and Merrimac, or the development of the phalanx. john John, If you could tell me how to get a copy of that paper, or post it, or a URL, or something like that, I would greatly appreciate it. I've never been able to get a copy of one of Boyd's legendary briefings. Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
Guatam wrote: But if you think you're scared - I'm so jittery right now I can barely think straight. As far as I can tell, the battle plan looks like a template for 4th generation warfare - OODA loops Dan replied: I had to look it up http://www.mindsim.com/MindSim/Corporate/OODA.html 4th generation warfare and OODA loops are all about making the best choice possible from the best information possible as quickly as possibly -- hopefully, more quickly and with better info than the enemy. Here's a link from RAND that has a little more detail. It's a chapter called Information and Warfare: New Opportunities for U.S. Military Forces. http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1016/MR1016.chap6.pdf or http://makeashorterlink.com/?G5F9128D3 This chapter is from Strategic Appraisal: The Changing Role of Information in Warfare. The whole document is available at: http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1016/ It's the third volume in the Strategic Appraisal series from RAND. The Strategic Appraisal series is intended to review, for a broad audience, issues bearing on national security and defense planning. Sounds like info of interest to many on brin-l. Reggie Bautista _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
John Garcia wrote: I recently read a paper by an associate of John Boyd outlining what a military force organized on his principles of strategy would look like. ... What I can glean from the public statements made by our strategists, the plan is to get inside the Iraqi's decision cycle (the OODA loop: Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) by setting up multiple threats in different areas. When Saddam reacts to one of those threats, he will be weakened in some other area, and our opportunities in that area will be enhanced. Also, there is a strong element of psywar involved in 4GW, and I believe we can see some evidence of this in the President's appeals to Iraqi troops to not resist, and in the general's statements about how we will have instructions for any Iraqi force that wants to on how to make itself a non-target. It's a bold concept, requiring among other things, total battlespace awareness and troops who can quickly seize unforeseen opportunities. As a person who's pretty new to the whole concept of 4th generation warfare, this sounds to me a little like Ender's Dragon army in _Ender's Game_ by Orson Scott Card, especially the last part about quickly seizing unforseen opportunities and total battlespace awareness. Is it reasonably fair to say that Ender's strategies might be described as 4GW? My background includes very little history of military tactics, and I'm just trying to get a handle on 4GW using any comparison that I can get my hands on and understand pretty easily... Reggie Bautista _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Gautam Mukunda wrote: What, btw, do you _want_ Marvin? If it goes well, that's bad. But if it goes poorly, that's bad. Sorry, that's my kneejerk pessimism again. If we don't do this, Saddam eventually gets nuclear weapons. If we do do this, there's no outcome that seems favorable. What I haven't seen from you - from anyone, but particularly from you, since I know you're capable of it - is an argument balancing the risks of action versus those of inaction. Yes, the war can go badly. Look at the Middle East. Do you feel that peace is going _well_? What, given the options, would you do? At the moment we've run out of options, or squandered whatever options there once were, so I see no choice but to go forward with fingers crossed for luck. As for the peace I agree with Ronn that there isn't one. Several weeks ago in one of my musings, I said that one of the best arguments for war is that we're already at war have been for over a decade, and we have to choose whether to win it or lose it. I even agree that Hussein would almost certainly have to have been disarmed forcefully at some point, that we were never going to negotiate or inspect him out of his WMDs. And yet. I feel that this particular course of action, and this particular timing, has pretty much been force-fed to the American people by a propaganda campaign based on scanty facts and half-truths to convince us all that Hussein presents to America the same degree of threat today that al Qaeda presented on Sept. 10, 2001. I feel the object of an, If you can't blind 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit campaign. Which in turn makes me feel that the options for creating a broader world consensus for action existed and were deliberately discarded before they were ever explored. Why? Here's what I want. I want an America that went to the world a year ago and said that the cold-war era mission of NATO is over and that solicited a new or modified alliance of democratic nations whose purpose would be (in addition to mutual defense) to promote democracy and suppress terrorism along a carrot-and-stick model: on the one hand, unprecented amounts of aid for nations willing to democratize and pluralize their societies along with golden-parachute deals for leaders whose positions would be compromised by such changes; on the other, the promise of multilateral military actions against regimes known to fund support terrorism or that otherwise pose a threat to the peace of the world. In other words, establish a western alliance to pursue not just defensive security but the kind of long term humanitarian good and political reform that must be the basis of long-term security and prosperity, and then place the war against Iraq within that context (if this involves acknowledging that the UN isn't up to the whole of this task, fine). Instead we have a rather vaguely defined war on terror that relies on evidentiary slight-of-hand to provide shaky justifications for a war on Iraq that shouldn't *need* shaky justifications, but we seem to have provided them as a kind of international pacifier, or because the domestic audience can be expected to swallow what Europe won't but we don't care too much about Europe anyway. I realize that such a plan would cause a huge amount of unhappiness for those nations that benefit from maintaining the status quo. But it seems to me that there are a lot of nations that would benefit from a new status quo, and if we had offered such a thing to the westernized world first, our motives in Iraq today would be far more credible. Maybe after Iraq something can happen. But I don't think it will because the US doesn't want to be tied down by friends. Friends have to be treated like peers, more or less, but treating people like peers means you can't always dictate terms. And we want to be in a position to dictate terms when we desire. In our recent diplomacy we seem to have treated our allies more like pets than peers. We certainly haven't helped the leaders of allied nations win points with their constituencies. So what I want now is (a) for the Bush plan to succeed and prove me an ignorant ninny, which I know that I am to some degree anyway since international politics is hardly a specialty of mine, and (b) to see evidence that the US will pursue a far more multilateral and proactively humanitarian approach for the sake of providing carrots along with the sticks we have in abundance; and, frankly, for the sake of keeping our own growing power in some kind of check. Sorry if this seems terribly naive, or naive in its cynicism, or whatever...I've already confessed I'm a third-rate wonk (if that). Marvin Long Austin, Texas Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Poindexter Ashcroft, LLP (Formerly the USA) http://www.breakyourchains.org/john_poindexter.htm ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [Humor] RE: Who is the sheriff?
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: (And I bet some people are glad that no one brought up that *other* slang meaning of John . . .) I was biting my tongue, figuratively speaking, actually. I figured that nobody here by that name would appreciate any smart-alecky remark I might make along those lines, and not wishing to get *all* of them upset at me, I refrained. :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Check: http://www.symbols.com/encyclopedia/15/151.html I believe there was an American Indian Tribe that used the symbol as well. And this site makes me think the Navajo rug I saw as a child had the 'anti-swastika' (funny that I remember the colors so clearly, but the shape less so). Debbi __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
Erik Reuter wrote: Ok, but AFAIK serious consequences should be something worse than the current siege warfare against Iraq, and I fail to see what can be more serious than a siege if you don't mean war Siege with attitude? Maybe. Bombing Iraq with pamphlets saying that Saddam eats pork? Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is the sheriff?
-Mensagem original- De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Para: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Data: Sábado, 15 de Março de 2003 18:00 Assunto: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is the sheriff? ---Original Message--- From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area; ** Wow! Note the phrase all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area. JDG - Open and Shut, Maru. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l Are we running for the worst quoting technique of the lsit? Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is the sheriff?
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 08:19:25PM -, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Are we running for the worst quoting technique of the lsit? No, just talking about reinsurance companies. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
Erik Reuter wrote: Great idea! I'll look into it. I've never been to a town meeting (or know where and when they are held here), but this is a good time to find that information and attend one. Watch your local paper for information on it. Or contact your representative. Your rep probably has some sort of webpage at http://www.house.gov/ and that might have useful info. (At the very least, there will be an address or phone number to use to contact your rep and let him/her know that you're interested in attending a local constituents' meeting.) If this has already been answered and my info is a duplication, my apologies. My graphics card died shortly after my last post, and we didn't have things up and running again until about an hour ago, so I'm *way* behind in listmail Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ---Original Message--- From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unfortunately, now we are being hosted by leagin the US troops prepared ^^ to carry out this resolution in the lurch in the Gulf. Typo correction: That should be leaving, not leagin. OK, that helps, but it still doesn't quite make sense to me. If hosted were replaced by hosed it would make sense to me, but I'm not sure that's what you meant. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ---Original Message--- From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unfortunately, now we are being hosted by leagin the US troops prepared^^ to carry out this resolution in the lurch in the Gulf. Typo correction: That should be leaving, not leagin. OK, that helps, but it still doesn't quite make sense to me. If hosted were replaced by hosed it would make sense to me, but I'm not sure that's what you meant. Actually... I meant hoisted... which means the same thing as hosed. Unfortunately, now we are being hosited, by leaving the US troops prepared to carry this resolution in the lurch in the Gulf. JDG - Not the best sentence I've ever written, Maru. :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
iaamoac wrote: Actually... I meant hoisted... which means the same thing as hosed. Unfortunately, now we are being hosited, by leaving the US troops prepared to carry this resolution in the lurch in the Gulf. JDG - Not the best sentence I've ever written, Maru. :) Hoisted is a little more polite than hosed. Thank you for the clarification. And no, it's *not* the best sentence you've ever written. :) (You've written some *much* better ones, none outstanding in my mind, but that one was just not up to par for you.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Replacing the UN Re: Who is the sheriff?
At 18:28 14-03-03 -0500, Bryon Daly wrote: Although I really prefer to go for the third option: an improved UN where each country has one vote, where no country has veto power so that no country can force its will upon others, and where all decisions are made by all members, not a small subset of members (like the UNSC). Does one vote per country seem fair to you, when some countries, such as Brunei, with a total population about 70% of that of the *city* of Boston, would get the same representation and decisionmaking power as nations with populations hundreds of times larger? As you correctly pointed out, there will always be people who will be unhappy with the way things are broken down. However, I think the one country, one vote system is the second-best approach (I'll get to the best situation later). The problem with population-based voting is that it would give too much power to just a handful of countries (such US, Russia, PRC) The one country, one vote system also gives you the least amount of paperwork (all you really need is a list with the names of all countries) and prevents fraud. After all, either a country exists or it doesn't. If someone claims to represent the country of Jeroenistan (a country nobody has ever heard of), it can easily be established if it really exists: just let the esteemed representative show us where it is on the map. It's much easier to commit fraud with population figures. If country X claims to have 50 million inhabitants, we'll just have to take their word for it; nobody is going to send in an international team to count heads. How can you be sure that a country doesn't exaggerate its population figure, so that it can get *two* votes while its neighbours only get one vote? OTOH, I'm not sure a purely population-based voting power would be fair either. Perhaps some measure based on a combination of population, democratic representation, monetary dues paid I think that especially the payment of those monetary dues requires strict enforcement. A country that is behind on payments should have its voting right suspended; this is necessary to prevent countries from using payment of dues to blackmail the organisation (If you don't do what we want, we will not pay our dues). Now, onto the ideal situation. The ideal situation is in fact based on population. Ideally, all decisions concerning this planet should be made directly by the inhabitants of the planet -- everyone over a certain age (FREX, 18 years) votes electronically, and voting is mandatory. The problem here is in the cost of setting it up (the technology for it already exists): it would be extremely expensive to set up, especially in sparsely-populated regions. So, until we can afford to set up such a system, the one country, one vote system is the best one available. Jeroen Political Observations van Baardwijk _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Who is the sheriff?
At 21:26 14-03-03 -0500, John Giorgis wrote: I do however think that keeping the pressure on high, while conducting further peacefull inspections is probably the best bet for improvement in the region. Then again I don't see how the US will be prevented from going for the price... oops I mean ... peace. :o) First off, thank you for recognizing the role of US troops in producing inspections in the first place. Unfortunately, it is pretty insulting for you to mock the price of your proposed solution here, as if it were pocket change. I think she wasn't referring to the cost, but to what awaits the US after the invasion (the *prize* of the invasion, rather then the *price* of the invasion). You know, a powerbase in the Middle East, big profits from building contracts, huge profits from oil exploitation contracts... Stuff like that. Indeed, right now, one out of every one thousand Americans is in the Persian Gulf. That is a lot of separate families, a lot of kids that don't have moms and dads around, a lot of lonely wives, husbands, boyfriends, and girlfriends. Heck, some sailors ahve actually already missed their own weddings, after their length of deployment was repeatedly extended. Occupational hazard. Everyone in the US military is there because s/he choose to be there. When you join the military, you can expect to be away from home for a long time. While it definitely sucks to be away from loved ones for such a long time, and while I sympathise with those sailors who had to miss their own wedding, you can't put a military operation on hold just because someone wants to get married. Meanwhile, the uncertainty surrounding the war is keeping oil prices sky high, with devastating effects on the US economy. Inflation was 1.6% this *month*, after rising 1.1% last month. If it is any consolation to you, the US is not the only one feeling the effects. Just to pick one, fuel prices over here are also going in one direction only: UP! Less than a year ago I paid only a little over EUR 0,30 per litre for LPG; now it's over EUR 0,50 per litre. And none of this even counts the hundreds of billions of dollars of direct costs of maintaining this military force in the desert. Yeah, so? There were plenty of voices saying that war was a bad idea. The Bush regime decided to ignore those voices and set the stage for war anyway. If the Bush regime is foolish enough to ignore good advice, it shouldn't complain about the costs. Basically, the principle at work here is the same as the one behind you do the crime, you do the time. And likewise, if the US goes to war it shouldn't complain later on when somebody hits back. Thus, while Saddam Hussein will clearly only permit inspections so long as he is within days of being wiped out - it is the simple truth that the US can't pay this price forever... and I think that the US would greatly appreciate it if France, Germany, and like-minded Europeans, who are bearing none of these costs, but are reaping the benefits of the first Iraqi weapons inspections in FIVE YEARS, could at least recognize that this stuff isn't cheap for us. Oh, we recognise that this isn't cheap for you -- just don't expect sympathy from us for the fact that America's foolish unilateralism is costing them a lot of money. BTW, this *is* costing us money -- or do you think that the stuff and people we've promised (SAM batteries with support troops for Turkey, to name just one) don't cost us any money? But er, exactly what benefits *are* we reaping from the current weapons inspections? I see higher prices, I see increased security measures (we're still on Alert State Alpha), but I can hardly call those things benefits. Jeroen Political Observations van Baardwijk _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Re: Who is the sheriff?
---Original Message--- From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yeah, so? There were plenty of voices saying that war was a bad idea. The Bush regime decided to ignore those voices and set the stage for war anyway. If the Bush regime is foolish enough to ignore good advice, it shouldn't complain about the costs. Basically, the principle at work here is the same as the one behind you do the crime, you do the time. Eh the UN authorized preparations for war under Resolution 1441. That is, it explicitly declared that failure to comply with Resolution 1441 would produce serious consequences. The US complied with resolution 1441 (which France ignored) by preparing to carry out these serious consequences 1441 was clearly authorizing. Unfortunately, now we are being hosted by leagin the US troops prepared to carry out this resolution in the lurch in the Gulf. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Re: Who is the sheriff?
---Original Message--- From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yeah, so? There were plenty of voices saying that war was a bad idea. The Bush regime decided to ignore those voices and set the stage for war anyway. If the Bush regime is foolish enough to ignore good advice, it shouldn't complain about the costs. Basically, the principle at work here is the same as the one behind you do the crime, you do the time. Eh the UN authorized preparations for war under Resolution 1441. That is, it explicitly declared that failure to comply with Resolution 1441 would produce serious consequences. The US complied with resolution 1441 (which France ignored) by preparing to carry out these serious consequences 1441 was clearly authorizing. Unfortunately, now we are being hosted by leagin the US troops prepared to carry out this resolution in the lurch in the Gulf. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Re: Who is the sheriff?
At 06:05 15-03-03 -0500, John Giorgis wrote: Yeah, so? There were plenty of voices saying that war was a bad idea. The Bush regime decided to ignore those voices and set the stage for war anyway. If the Bush regime is foolish enough to ignore good advice, it shouldn't complain about the costs. Basically, the principle at work here is the same as the one behind you do the crime, you do the time. Eh the UN authorized preparations for war under Resolution 1441. That is, it explicitly declared that failure to comply with Resolution 1441 would produce serious consequences. The US complied with resolution 1441 (which France ignored) by preparing to carry out these serious consequences 1441 was clearly authorizing. The UN Resolution says serious consequences, it doesn't say war. The consequence war is merely America's interpretation of the phrase serious consequences; the various UN members are not in agreement about the how it should be interpreted. So, if the US chooses to interpret serious consequences as meaning war, and subsequently starts sending troops to the Middle East to fight that war, they shouldn't complain about the costs. The huge costs of preparing for war are a consequence of America's decision to prepare for war. Jeroen Make love, not war van Baardwijk _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Double postings (was Re: Re: Re: Who is the sheriff?)
At 06:11 15-03-03 -0500, John Giorgis wrote: snip content Er, John, is there a reason why you are sending each (or at least: most) of your messages to the list *twice*? Jeroen Casual Observations van Baardwijk _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 01:41:26PM -0600, Marvin Long, Jr. wrote: That sounds good, but I think it's very hard to do. How would one start, since buidling such a thing would appear to involve scuttling or restructuring NATO and possibly the UN as well? I can't think of a way for anyone to begin such a process unless the US itself were to place such a plan before the UN, or maybe just NATO, as the overall framework for fighting tyrrany and terrorism around the world. (Which perhaps is what the US should have done before leaping towards Iraq, but I'm not sure how doing so would benefit the US - or more specifically, any given US administration - in its immediate goals. If the US can attract a group of allied states that have no votes or veto powers, why create a structure that must limit the US just by existing?) Any ideas, beyond just not blowing the list of blown diplomatic opportunities you gave to John G.? It does seem unlikely that the US would lead the way for the creation of a LoDN. But I do think that the kind of determination that many European countries have shown in opposition to the war would be enough to start such an organization if it were redirected in that way and fueled by the same emotions that are fueling the war protests. The trick would be to get it going without the US, but leave an opening for the US to join later. Since the US would not be a highly privileged member unless it paid a lot of dues (I favor the ideas others have mentioned about democratic population and dues paid forming the basis for LoDN voting power), America would not join at first. But if such an organization made the member states feel empowered, maybe they would be inspired to develop the capability to project military power, and regardless the organization would probably have economic power. The choices made by the organization could have serious impact on the US, so if the US wanted to have a vote it could be enticed to join eventually. The EU probably works against the chances of forming a LoDN, since some will say it isn't necessary because of the EU, but to me the EU seems incapable of forming an effective world government. (Which, in turn, supports the idea the European nations need to spend a hell of a lot more on the ability to project force around the world if they want their views to be taken seriously.) Yes. It is easier, and perhaps more satisfying, to complain about the way somebody else is doing something than to do it better yourself. Which is maybe the biggest hurdle to overcome in trying to start a LoDN. say) to listen more than talk. And I think it does me good to just listen to what you and Gautam and John G., for instance, have to say. Not that you meant it that way, but it struck me as funny that you grouped me in with JDG politically. I don't think he would agree with that! :-) And alas, I have no quick answers to the questions you pose above. I see more obstacles than opportunities...and in any event, these issues deserve their own threads. I'll try to think of something. Oh, plenty of obstacles. Nothing worth doing is easy! But if enough people think about it and work together, perhaps a path can be found. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unfortunately, now we are being hosted by leagin the US troops prepared ^^ to carry out this resolution in the lurch in the Gulf. This didn't make sense. Could you re-state the sentence in a way that makes sense, using words found in the American Heritage College Dictionary (which is the one I have at hand here, and which doesn't contain the word leagin)? Thanks! Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
J. van Baardwijk wrote: While it definitely sucks to be away from loved ones for such a long time, and while I sympathise with those sailors who had to miss their own wedding, you can't put a military operation on hold just because someone wants to get married. You're right, you can't. The advice I have gotten from a couple who went and joined the Marines before getting married and then had a terrible time *getting* married (and this was in more normal times than we're experiencing now) is that if you know before someone joins up that you plan to get married, get married before the enlistment starts. But, given that, the *least* that the countries benefitting from the US buildup without contributing to it could do is pass the hat to help out the US armed forces personnel with things such as non-refundable deposits for weddings that had to be cancelled. ;) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 05:00:44PM -, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Ok, but AFAIK serious consequences should be something worse than the current siege warfare against Iraq, and I fail to see what can be more serious than a siege if you don't mean war Siege with attitude? -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is the sheriff?
---Original Message--- From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] The UN Resolution says serious consequences, it doesn't say war. The consequence war is merely America's interpretation of the phrase serious consequences; the various UN members are not in agreement about the how it should be interpreted. ** Get real. Every person in the world new exactly what the US meant when it wrote the words serious consequences. Please, try and keep list discussions in the realm of the serious Jeroen. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Who is the sheriff?
---Original Message--- From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unfortunately, now we are being hosted by leagin the US troops prepared ^^ to carry out this resolution in the lurch in the Gulf. Typo correction: That should be leaving, not leagin. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is the sheriff?
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 8:35 AM Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is the sheriff? ---Original Message--- From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] The UN Resolution says serious consequences, it doesn't say war. The consequence war is merely America's interpretation of the phrase serious consequences; the various UN members are not in agreement about the how it should be interpreted. ** Get real. Every person in the world new exactly what the US meant when it wrote the words serious consequences. Right, but everyone also knows that the US would have preferred to write something along the lines of: quote from 678 Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area; end quote The meaning that the US gives to 1441 is the clear and plain interpretation of the text. It is indeed the interpretation that makes the most sense. At the very least, these consequences would involve significantly more than heavy bombing and intrusive inspections. However, 1441 has wiggle room for France and Russia. Otherwise they would not have voted for it. Its interesting that they are not using this wiggle room, but are instead arguing for a position (a little progress is being made, so we should continue inspections) that is not in 1441. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is the sheriff?
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 8:59 AM Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is the sheriff? ---Original Message--- From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area; ** Wow! Note the phrase all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area. Actually, its not as open and shut as you might think. Whether Iraq now poses a threat to peace and stability in the region is open to interpretation. Don't get me wrong, I agree that it does. But, the US could not get a new resolution like this one passed. That means something. Unfortunately, the reality is that most people in Europe tend to favor the French interpretation of the resolutions. Lost in all of this is the tremendous victory the French are winning in their battle with the US. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is the sheriff?
---Original Message--- From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---Original Message--- From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area; ** Wow! Note the phrase all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area. Actually, its not as open and shut as you might think. Whether Iraq now poses a threat to peace and stability in the region is open to interpretation. * No... that's not what I meant. Resolution 660 authorizes the use of force to enforce *all*subsequent*resolutions. Resolution 1441, not only explicitly recalls Resolution 660 in the Preamble - but takes the unusual diplomatic step of recalling it in a separate preambulatory clause to emphasize its importance. (In normal operations, the Security Council recalls all of its previous resolutions in a single preambulatory.) Thus, Resolution 1441 reads: Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) Thus, the plain meaning of this unanimous resolution is that the US is authorized to use force to uphold it. Unfortunately, the reality is that most people in Europe tend to favor the French interpretation of the resolutions. Lost in all of this is the tremendous victory the French are winning in their battle with the US. Tremendous victory? Let's see what the world looks like some months after the war is over. I personally think that France may be winning a victory, but that they are losing the War. Their influence will only be reduced after this is all said and done. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is the sheriff?
At 09:35 15-03-03 -0500, JDG insultingly wrote: The UN Resolution says serious consequences, it doesn't say war. The consequence war is merely America's interpretation of the phrase serious consequences; the various UN members are not in agreement about the how it should be interpreted. ** Get real. Every person in the world new exactly what the US meant when it wrote the words serious consequences. Please, try and keep list discussions in the realm of the serious Jeroen. John, please limit yourself to attacking the *arguments* you disagree with and refrain from attacking the *people* you disagree with. Insulting your opponents does not provide any positive contribution to the discussions whatsoever but only serves to disrupt this list. Thank you for your cooperation. Quote from the Etiquette Guidelines (full text available at www.brin-l.com): Personal attacks, whether direct or indirect are not welcome. These should be handled off list, and if you disagree with some controversial point, direct the attack at the argument, not the person. I await your on-list apologies. BTW, about a week ago I already asked you to refrain from personal attacks against your opponents. I will not ask it again; the response next time will come in the form of a formal complaint filed with the list admins, with the request to take administrative action against you. Jeroen -- who realises that this particular message from JDG was only posted *on-list* because MailWasher is bouncing his *off-list* messages. _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Replacing the UN Re: Who is the sheriff?
The one country, one vote system also gives you the least amount of paperwork After all, either a country exists or it doesn't. This is a very puzzling statement. What about northern Somalia? It collects taxes, pays civil servants and soldiers, and you can point to it on the map. From what I have heard, it is one of the better run countries in its part of Africa. What about northern Cyprus? Not only does it collect taxes, pays civil servants and soldiers, and exist on the map, but one applicant to the EU recognizes it. -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 12:37:22PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 01:24:04PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: I appreciate your sincerity in this, but I'm curious as to why you think that while an extremely modest effort (about $40 spent per person in Afghanistan is as much as can be done) a massive effort will work in Iraq. I guess you left out has not yet succeeded or something similar. I was referring to statement that there is only so much aid that can be absorbed per year. It was associated with an example of just now getting a unified currency. The point was valid, such a limit exists, but I don't think we are there yet. From below, it appears that we agree. (If you didn't make that statement, I apologize for my hazy memory). I didn't make that statement. Maybe it was JDG or Gautam? I was only referring to the sentence of yours I quoted above -- it doesn't make sense. I think you left something out, and I guessed at what it was. Yes. Go to one of your congressman's town meetings and push it there. Find a way to state it in a manner that sounds real supportive of the general US effort, but that you would like to add to the chance of sucess...especially if your Congressman is Republican like mine. If he's Democratic, try to see his viewpoint and argue for how this supports that viewpoint. I've actually gotten a congressman to ask me for more information at such a meeting before. Great idea! I'll look into it. I've never been to a town meeting (or know where and when they are held here), but this is a good time to find that information and attend one. Do others who think that attacking Iraq is the best option agree with this too? I don't know. Do you think if we did NOT attack Iraq now, that we could spend 5 years or so building in Afghanistan, and then come back with a new President and an international coalition to oust Saddam and rebuild Iraq? -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Replacing the UN Re: Who is the sheriff?
Earlier, I wrote,
What about northern Somalia? It collects taxes, pays civil
servants and soldiers, and you can point to it on the map. From
what I have heard, it is one of the better run countries in its
part of Africa.
By `northern Somalia' I meant the part of the country that has a port
on the Gulf of Aden, Berbera. Some say that the US navy wants to
construct a naval base there although the US government does not
recognize the northern Somalian government. As far as I know, the US
government considers the area to be in rebellion against Somalia
proper, with its capital in Mogadishu.
--
Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises
http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
At 12:23 PM 3/15/03 -0500, Erik Reuter wrote: On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 05:00:44PM -, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Ok, but AFAIK serious consequences should be something worse than the current siege warfare against Iraq, and I fail to see what can be more serious than a siege if you don't mean war Siege with attitude? Add UAVs flying over Baghdad carrying amplified stereo systems blaring out rap music 24/7. -- Ronn! :) Your message here! (Call for rates.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: [Humor] RE: Who is the sheriff?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doug Pensinger Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 1:32 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: [Humor] RE: Who is the sheriff? Jon Gabriel wrote: I checked my archive. That was John Horn who said that, not me. You're referring to your reply to him on 3/5? Oops, sorry about that. *Grin* We do NOT all look alike! ;-) Too many Johns If you do want my opinion on this subject Millions of Buddhist Indians view the swastika as a symbol of life. http://www.indiaprofile.com/religion-culture/swastika.htm So I don't think its use is necessarily _inherently_ antisemitic. But the symbol does represent Naziism to members of western cultures so I do object to its use when the intention is clearly to intimidate Jews, i.e. on a hate site, etc. Agree 100% :) Jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Replacing the UN Re: Who is the sheriff?
At 23:39 12-03-03 -0500, John Giorgis wrote: BTW - Jeroen - a constitutional monarchy is a form of republican government How's that? Under a population-based system, China's population should be measured as being approximately 5,000. This is the number of people who are actually represented by the Chinese government, and this body should reflect that. However, to be consistent with that policy, the population of *every* country should then be measured as the number of people who voted that country's government into power. Or should another criterion be used to allocate power? If so what? Personally. the only acceptable solution I see for the medium-term is a somewhat reformed UN, that nevertheless is mostly consultative in nature, and that does not prevent the US from doing what needs to be done. IOW, you want an international organisation in which countries may give their opinion, but in which the US unilaterally makes all the decisions. That's not democracy, that's dictatorship. Jeroen Make love, not war van Baardwijk _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:45:36 -0600, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Germany has proportional representation. If there are two big parties, each with 47.5% of the legislature, then a party with 5% can claim a pretty high price to make one of the two parties the top dog. Not really. It is all a matter of give and take. One major advantage of this system is that it forces parties to work together and find compromises. But if no compromise can be reached a minority government is also a possibility and then there is the multi-party majority. In the past it has been shown that making the 5 percent hurdle can be a pretty big hindrance for parties to overcome. If they don't get at least 5 percent of all votes they are not represented. This makes for a very cleaned up form of representation and prevents nutter parties from being represented. I had to write a paper once on all the pros and cons I could come up with for different types of representations. It turns out that for all types of representation systems it is possible to come up with scenarios where the representation unfair in respect to the voting result. Actually neither of our current systems is good when you compare it to the direct representation like f.i. that of the ancient Athenians. Then again in ancient Athens only free _male_ citizens had a vote :o) Sonja ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: [Humor] RE: Who is the sheriff?
From: Jon Gabriel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] We do NOT all look alike! ;-) Too many Johns There is definitely a joke in there somewhere but *I'm* not gonna say it. - jmh That's why I use 'jmh' actually... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
At 23:45 12-03-03 -0600, Dan Minette wrote: Germany has proportional representation. If there are two big parties, each with 47.5% of the legislature, then a party with 5% can claim a pretty high price to make one of the two parties the top dog. In theory, yes, but that's not how it works in real life. In a multi-party system (as opposed to a two-party system), one party rarely (if ever) gets that big a share of the votes. To form a government, the party with the most votes will try to form a coalition with one or more of the other major parties, not just to create a majority, but to create as big a majority as possible -- which means broader support for the government. Let me use last January's national elections for the Dutch Congress here as an example. The results (in number of seats, total = 150): CDA : 44SP : 9 D66: 6 PvdA: 42 LPF : 8 CU : 3 VVD : 28 GL : 8 SGP: 2 The winner (CDA -- Christian-Democrats) is politically a lot closer to the VVD (Liberals) than it is to the PvdA (Labour). It also shares viewpoints with the CU and SGP (two small very right-winged Christian parties). Given all the shared viewpoints among these four, it would make sense for them to form a coalition; this would give them 77 seats. However, the CDA didn't do that, but is now working on forming a coalition with Labour -- which will give the coalition 86 seats. Jeroen Political Observations van Baardwijk _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 9:22 AM Subject: Re: Who is the sheriff? At 23:45 12-03-03 -0600, Dan Minette wrote: Germany has proportional representation. If there are two big parties, each with 47.5% of the legislature, then a party with 5% can claim a pretty high price to make one of the two parties the top dog. In theory, yes, but that's not how it works in real life. In a multi-party system (as opposed to a two-party system), one party rarely (if ever) gets that big a share of the votes. To form a government, the party with the most votes will try to form a coalition with one or more of the other major parties, not just to create a majority, but to create as big a majority as possible -- which means broader support for the government. Well, it doesn't work that way all the time, but I was referring to Germany: Lets look at the last election results: SPD 41.6% CDU/CSU 41.1% Green 9.1% FDP 7.8% PDS 0.3% The support of the Green party, with 9.1% of the vote is a required member of any government. This makes them the kingmaker for any new government. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Replacing the UN Re: Who is the sheriff?
However, to be consistent with that policy, the population of *every* country should then be measured as the number of people who voted that country's government into power. No it should be measured by those who had the *opportunity* to vote. IOW, you want an international organisation in which countries may give their opinion, but in which the US unilaterally makes all the decisions. I think that such an arrangement would be both an improvement over the status quo, and beneficial to the United States. After all, the US hasn't exactly shown itself to be a knee-jerk unilaterlist, even after being attacked a year and half ago. 15 months after the axis of evil speech and five months after Congress voted to authorize force against Iraq, we're still consulting with the international community, even though we didn't have to. So, basically the world could accept such an arrangement as described above, or else continue with the status quo and I think that you will see that the abandonement of the United States by the international community in this time of need, will probably leave the US much more unilateralist in the future as it is today. So, despite your insulting accusation that the US wants a dictatorship, perhaps you should consider that something may be much better than nothing. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
- Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 9:17 PM Subject: Re: Who is the sheriff? It seems to me that in order to be able to use massive amounts of anthrax and nerve agent against the US, Hussein would have to be able to fly planes over the US or else to target us with ICBMs or maybe warships or something else comparable. He can't do that right now. How about cargo containers? I think I was the one who originally brought up cargo containers with regard to attacks before 9-11. They are a very significant risk for a nuclear attack. But, since a biological or chemical agent needs to be properly dispersed to rack havoc, then a cargo container that contains anthrax will not be an effective means of killing a lot of people. Chemical agents would also suffer from the same dispersement problem. Hmmm, maybe I didn't express myself clearly before. I'm not against others trying, in general, to limit the power of America in the future to dictate world events, and I can certainly see how America dictating world events with no checks and balances would be a bad thing, not the least of which because Americans would have a vote and be protected by the Constitution, but foreigners would not. But I fail to see how opposing America on Iraq is likely to limit America's future world power, and it is probably more likely to increase American hegemony. As I said in my previous post, people who are concerned about American hegemony (and I am, although not to the extremes of the viewpoint you mention) should work to create balance in a positive manner, for example, by trying to establish a League of Democratic Nations to provide a vote and something similar to the protections and freedoms guaranteed in the US Constitution to all people in the world. Sorry, I didn't mean to shut you up! I like to hear what you have to say, although I would rather you were using your considerable persuasive writing powers to influence events positively, for example by discussing how to rebuild Iraq after a war or how to check future American excessive power expansion while simultaneously increasing freedom and democracy throughout the world. I think the US has handled this issue about as badly as possible on the diplomatic front - by our bluntness placing at needlessly increased risk the very leaders, like Tony Blair, by whose support we hope to gain international legitimacy. I completely agree. Why do you think Bush is so inept at this sort of thing? He certainly seems to have charmed millions of Americans, why can't he do the same with Europeans? So at this point I'm thinking that if war comes to pass, as it almost certainly will, I'm going to bite my tongue and hope and pray, in my strange and godless way, that everything works out for the best. Any ideas on what we could do, personally, to increase the chances of success in nation building after the war? (I'm thinking along the lines of charities, lobbying groups, spending time on the weekends, writing letters, etc. -- I'm not sure I'm committed enough to quit my job and go to Iraq to help) I appreciate your sincerity in this, but I'm curious as to why you think that while an extremely modest effort (about $40 spent per person in Afghanistan is as much as can be done) a massive effort will work in Iraq. It doesn't seem reasonable that a $200/per person (just under 6 billion/year) effort in Afghanistan will involve so much money the system couldn't handle it. My personal belief is that Afghanistan offers a much easier test case for a lot of things we could try in Iraq. I'll grant you that we will take more control initially in Iraq, but having experience working in a Moslem country should prove invaluable. So, that's my suggestion. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 01:24:04PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: I think I was the one who originally brought up cargo containers with regard to attacks before 9-11. They are a very significant risk for a nuclear attack. But, since a biological or chemical agent needs to be properly dispersed to rack havoc, then a cargo container that contains anthrax will not be an effective means of killing a lot of people. Chemical agents would also suffer from the same dispersement problem. I was thinking along the lines of terrorists in the country who managed to pick up the materials from an incoming cargo container. But I don't know enough details about whether that would be possible. Do you? -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 01:24:04PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: I appreciate your sincerity in this, but I'm curious as to why you think that while an extremely modest effort (about $40 spent per person in Afghanistan is as much as can be done) a massive effort will work in Iraq. I guess you left out has not yet succeeded or something similar. The answer is that I am also interested in how to help in Afghanistan, as I have stated here before. Any ideas? One idea I had was donating to UNICEF and asking that my donation be used for removing land mines in Afghanistan. Also, Afghanistan Children's Fund, http://kidsfund.redcross.org/. I'm still looking for something more nation-building oriented. It doesn't seem reasonable that a $200/per person (just under 6 billion/year) effort in Afghanistan will involve so much money the system couldn't handle it. Agreed. My personal belief is that Afghanistan offers a much easier test case for a lot of things we could try in Iraq. I'll grant you that we will take more control initially in Iraq, but having experience working in a Moslem country should prove invaluable. So, that's my suggestion. Sounds like a good suggestion. I'd appreciate hearing any specific ideas you have! -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Erik Reuter wrote: First of all, I'm not convinced that Hussein has the ability to use massive amounts of anything against the US. I don't doubt that he has stockpiles of the stuff, but that's not the same as being able to deploy them in any significant way against the US. It seems to me that in order to be able to use massive amounts of anthrax and nerve agent against the US, Hussein would have to be able to fly planes over the US or else to target us with ICBMs or maybe warships or something else comparable. He can't do that right now. How about cargo containers? A possibility - our port harbor security isn't great, plus our homland security measures for them are underfunded. But still, I'm under the impression that under sanctions Hussein can't load a container of VX on to an Iraqi ship manned by Iraqi sailors and launched from an Iraqi port and expect to get it to the US. This means he has to find intermediaries he can trust and who don't mind taking the risk of being implicated in the act. That's a pretty big hurdle in itself. Or he could just sell it to al Qaeda or some other terrorist group, but that assumes Hussein is willing to take some big chances on *their* behalf which, though not impossible, seems unlikely unless he can get a tangible long-term benefit from the deal -- pissing off the US, by itself, may not be enough for him to take such a risk. Supposing for the sake of argument that he does manage to get a container of nerve agent to a US port, and there are sympathetic agents in place to take receipt of said container, there are still a number of logistical hurdles to making use of the stuff. Moving the container will be expensive and, the more it's done, risky. Handling the bio/chem agent will require some expertise. A form of effective mass dispersal will need to be found, otherwise you're left pulling an Aum Shinrikyo-type move, and basically you will have gone to enormous effort to do something that could be done as effectively with some traditional explosives or guys with guns. Even with a form of mass dispersal, your effectiveness will be reduced unless you can find a way to contain the target population and prevent it from fleeing the area of effect. Maybe poisoning a water supply is the way to go, but then you forfeit dramatic news footage and the glory of fiery martyrdom (and would a container's worth of agent be sufficient to cause WMD-class fatalities before it's detected? I really don't know.). Nevertheless, it's a possibility worth thinking about and guarding against. But it's not something that Hussein can expect to accomplish by simply issuing an order. And if you're a terrorist working on limited budgets of money and time, importing Iraqi biological or chemical WMD to the US may not be cost-effective. Therefore, it's still an exaggeration to say simply that Hussein (alone or in concert with others) has the ability, at a wish, to use a WMD against the US. He's highly dependent on the help of others to do so...which means he is relatively weak right now, especially compared to the US's ability to retaliate. Weak enough so that we could have spent another year on diplomacy to try to build support instead of announcing ahead of time that war is what will happen no matter what anybody else says and then reluctantly going through the motions of negotiating with the UNSC. I agree that would have been far preferable, but the problem is, we don't have it to do over again. While I think Bush COULD have done it that way if he started a year ago (and weren't so inept at persuading Europeans to his viewpoint), I think that it is virtually impossible for him to persuade Europeans now, even if he were transformed into a brilliant and charming diplomat tomorrow. There has been too much conflict over this issue for any chance of changing most Europeans minds. So, the important question is what to do NOW. Personally, I'm supporting the war in Iraq, even more strongly supporting nation building after the war, and I'm also going to pay a lot of attention to foreign policy and diplomatic ability of presidential candidates when I vote in 2004. I think that's as good a stance as any I've been able to come up with. Secondly, please note that you quoted me out of context above. The quoted statement was originally part of a hypothetical designed to explain why some people might think Hussein in his current state is less dangerous than a United States, power unchecked by any rival, armed with the precedent that preemptive warfare is a legitimate principle whenever our interests are at stake. I believe Erik described this perspective as a selfish ivory tower paranoid fantasy. :-) You forgot irresponsible :-) Yes, thank you! Although, I think irresponsible better describes those who sit on their couches watching Seinfeld reruns and not giving the matter a thought. People who are vocally
Re: Who is the sheriff?
Erik Reuter wrote: On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 01:24:04PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: I think I was the one who originally brought up cargo containers with regard to attacks before 9-11. They are a very significant risk for a nuclear attack. But, since a biological or chemical agent needs to be properly dispersed to rack havoc, then a cargo container that contains anthrax will not be an effective means of killing a lot of people. Chemical agents would also suffer from the same dispersement problem. I was thinking along the lines of terrorists in the country who managed to pick up the materials from an incoming cargo container. But I don't know enough details about whether that would be possible. Do you? That's what I've feared: the chem/bio/nuke materials are smuggled into the US (easy enough to do) and disseminated to assorted terror cells. What then: I've heard mention of the possibility of smuggling in drones/UAV's to do airborne delivery of chemical/biological agents. There was also the whole cropduster concern a while back - stealing one of those might not be so difficult. And of course, the US mail system seems to be quite effective as an anthrax delivery vehicle: Imagine not a dozen letters but thousands, mailed from all over the US, simultaneously. But really, a primary point of terrorism is terror. Chem/bio attacks in our subway systems would not kill many thousands of people, but that doesn't make them not a threat. Multiple smaller attacks like that could kill hundreds, spread terror, and cause billions in economic damage. -bryon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
On 14 Mar 2003 at 13:41, Marvin Long, Jr. wrote: On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Erik Reuter wrote: First of all, I'm not convinced that Hussein has the ability to use massive amounts of anything against the US. I don't doubt that he has stockpiles of the stuff, but that's not the same as being able to deploy them in any significant way against the US. It seems to me that in order to be able to use massive amounts of anthrax and nerve agent against the US, Hussein would have to be able to fly planes over the US or else to target us with ICBMs or maybe warships or something else comparable. He can't do that right now. How about cargo containers? martyrdom (and would a container's worth of agent be sufficient to cause WMD-class fatalities before it's detected? I really don't know.). Not really. I'd not worried about *mass* fatalities from a biological or chemical attack (at least - I'd be worried about a US or Russian gene-tailored bioweapon, but not what Saddam can make) but a suitcase nuke IS a worry to me. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
- Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 1:24 PM Subject: Re: Who is the sheriff? I was thinking along the lines of terrorists in the country who managed to pick up the materials from an incoming cargo container. But I don't know enough details about whether that would be possible. Do you? OK, if it is simply a question of getting biological or chemical weapons into the hands of terrorists, then I'd agree that techniques similar to the ones that get illegal drugs into the country may very well work...with the caveat that drug smugglers may very well draw the line at WMD smuggling and turn the guys in. They'd have to emulate instead of use those channels, I think. I know when we got a table through a cargo company many years ago, we had to go down near the docks and go through customs to get it. I cannot imagine being able to slip a whole container pass customs just without them noticing. But, I will not argue that biological weapons cannot be smuggled into the country. If one white powder can be smuggled in, another can. Containers are important for atomic bombs because they can go off and be effective while still waiting to clear customs. Dispersing is always a problem. Look at the low fatality rate for saron gas in Japan in that attack. IIRC, the mail system now irradiates letters. I think that a biological or chemical weapon would be a WMF (Weapon of Mass Fear) not a WMD. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
Erik Reuter wrote: On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 01:24:04PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: I think I was the one who originally brought up cargo containers with regard to attacks before 9-11. They are a very significant risk for a nuclear attack. But, since a biological or chemical agent needs to be properly dispersed to rack havoc, then a cargo container that contains anthrax will not be an effective means of killing a lot of people. Chemical agents would also suffer from the same dispersement problem. I was thinking along the lines of terrorists in the country who managed to pick up the materials from an incoming cargo container. But I don't know enough details about whether that would be possible. Do you? How much Tom Clancy have you read? IIRC, there was one instance of a nuclear bomb (or its components) being smuggled in. I think maybe on a container ship. (Someone has to have read that one more recently than I, help me out here!) Also, in a subsequent novel, a biological weapon was smuggled in in shaving cream containers, and deployed by various individuals at conventions trade shows. That one was pretty nasty. Nothing was detected until the exposed individuals had traveled home or to another stop along their trip. Can you imagine what would have happened to the US computer industry, at least short-term, if someone had successfully deployed such a biological weapon at COMDEX during the fat years of the late 1990s? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 17:47:57 -, Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 14 Mar 2003 at 16:02, S.V. van Baardwijk-Holten wrote: On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:45:36 -0600, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I had to write a paper once on all the pros and cons I could come up with for different types of representations. It turns out that for all types of representation systems it is possible to come up with scenarios where the representation unfair in respect to the voting result. Actually neither of our current systems is good when you compare it to the direct representation like f.i. that of the ancient Athenians. Then again in ancient Athens only free _male_ citizens had a vote :o) If you have it arround I'd love to read it. I just knew someone was going to ask me this. The reason I didn't offer is because it was some 15+ years ago, when I was still in high school. I did what all kids do best at that age. Be totally bored with anything remotely school and focus on being a teenager. I had to write the damn thing to pass my grade. You might say it was some extra curricular stuff. In hindsight I have to say it was probably meant well. The teach must have thought it might get me interested and able to pass the grade. Wrong, wrong and right. Although I got the information chisseled into my brain that way, the exercise also scarred me for life. I aced all the tests on the subject but I was never again even remotely interested in politics. grin For understandable reasons (besides it being in Dutch and for me pre-puter) I didn't keep it around. I do however recall some of the conclusions of it. I am currently pretty frustrated by the UK's First Past the Post system - at no time because of demographics (I've still voted, but...) has my vote counted (I've always supported the minority candidate, it seems. Because I don't like ANY of the three major parties, I vote on personalities of the individuals involved). Lemme see. I recall that this first pass the post system, has the advantage of not having any real minorities. Also there usually aren't major shifts in political colour unless something major upsetting happens within the country. I believe the worst part of the English system was that even if a large minority in the country is voting for one particular party, the spread over the country still makes it hard for that party to get through to the centre of power. But this also keeps the major decision making somewhat easier with large continuity, because there are no really small parties that have to be taken into consideration. In the Netherlands the smaller parties are represented proportionally, without the (German) threashhold of 5% (and you were correct about the reason for that threashold). In the Netherlands you can get really small parties, with itty bitty interests that can make any decision making process grind to a halt. Then again representation is rather fair and the possibility for reaching majorities is multiple. This makes dependences on minorities smaller then in the Geman system. It also keeps the decision making process dynamic, with lots of tradeoffs, compromise and negotiations. This makes for some rather good short time politics. Unfortunatly there is a big potential for shifts during elections which makes long term planning somewhat hair raising and more often then not re-re-re-re-..etc...-reversible. The German system is a mix of passing the post and the Dutch system. It has the advantage of being fairer then the English system while at the same time getting stability without fragmentation. It does however give small parties on occasion a lot of leverage. (Not in Dan's much quoted example however. The goals of some of the parties makes them natural enemies. The greens and the CDU/CSU would never go well together. SPD and greens form a somewhat more natural albeit forced alliance. They both have to work hard to keep the coalition going, which makes for good enough politics to keep them in power.) Sonja GCU I still hate politics. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:24:04 -0600, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 9:17 PM Subject: Re: Who is the sheriff? I appreciate your sincerity in this, but I'm curious as to why you think that while an extremely modest effort (about $40 spent per person in Afghanistan is as much as can be done) a massive effort will work in Iraq. It doesn't seem reasonable that a $200/per person (just under 6 billion/year) effort in Afghanistan will involve so much money the system couldn't handle it. I'm not sure but from all the coverage we got from within the country I didn't get the impression that the iraqi people are undeveloped. They have a great deal of oppresion from above to deal with but most of them are literate and educated rather well by our standards. Even women have the possibility to achieve a high grade of education. So I think that the state Afghanistan is in,in no way can be compared to the state Iraq is in (will be in after Hussein). My personal belief is that Afghanistan offers a much easier test case for a lot of things we could try in Iraq. I'll grant you that we will take more control initially in Iraq, but having experience working in a Moslem country should prove invaluable. So, that's my suggestion. I rather disagree. I think that when there'll be money again and a stable government is in place (with preferable most of the current infrastructure/borders left intact by any invading ... oops sorry liberating ;o) forces), Iraq will be able to take care of itself without much interference from the US. I do however think that keeping the pressure on high, while conducting further peacefull inspections is probably the best bet for improvement in the region. Then again I don't see how the US will be prevented from going for the price... oops I mean ... peace. :o) The thing that is scary is that the Kurds are used as pawns in this powerplay. If the US isn't carefull it'll be looking at the wrong end of the barrel it supplied to (former) allies. again. Sonja ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Julia Thompson wrote: Erik: I was thinking along the lines of terrorists in the country who managed to pick up the materials from an incoming cargo container. But I don't know enough details about whether that would be possible. Do you? How much Tom Clancy have you read? Others have beaten me to it, but my immediate thought was to string off a list of possibilities including faked manifests, dummy corporations, suborned and bribed inspectors, employees, states, etc. :-) Smaller quantities of bad stuff would presumably need less elaborate preparations. It does seem to me, though, that once you talk about using a something like a nerve agent in small enough quantities, one might as well just get creative at the local sporting goods store. Multiple Washington-sniper type attacks all across the country using different makes and models of cars and weapons would be just as effective as multiple sarin gas attacks and probably a hell of a lot cheaper, with better odds of repeatability. Marvin Long Austin, Texas Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Poindexter Ashcroft, LLP (Formerly the USA) http://www.breakyourchains.org/john_poindexter.htm ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
At 02:42 PM 3/14/2003 -0600, you wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 01:24:04PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: I think I was the one who originally brought up cargo containers with regard to attacks before 9-11. They are a very significant risk for a nuclear attack. But, since a biological or chemical agent needs to be properly dispersed to rack havoc, then a cargo container that contains anthrax will not be an effective means of killing a lot of people. Chemical agents would also suffer from the same dispersement problem. I was thinking along the lines of terrorists in the country who managed to pick up the materials from an incoming cargo container. But I don't know enough details about whether that would be possible. Do you? How much Tom Clancy have you read? IIRC, there was one instance of a nuclear bomb (or its components) being smuggled in. I think maybe on a container ship. (Someone has to have read that one more recently than I, help me out here!) Also, in a subsequent novel, a biological weapon was smuggled in in shaving cream containers, and deployed by various individuals at conventions trade shows. That one was pretty nasty. Nothing was detected until the exposed individuals had traveled home or to another stop along their trip. Can you imagine what would have happened to the US computer industry, at least short-term, if someone had successfully deployed such a biological weapon at COMDEX during the fat years of the late 1990s? Julia The porn and snack food industries would be bankrupt? joking I don't remember how Clancy's nuke got into the country. I think it was the same way as the movie, disguised as a freezer or some other common heavy box and shipped in. Then delivered in a plain box truck outside a domed stadium hosting the super bowl in Denver. The bio attack was shaving cream. I think only six or eight foreign agents had canisters. Also the evil doctor's were trying for a very spreadable form of Ebola, they thought they had it but their tests were not strictly controlled, so the ebola was still being passed by contact, not by someone sneezing. Kevin T. - VRWC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
S.V. van Baardwijk-Holten wrote: On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:24:04 -0600, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 9:17 PM Subject: Re: Who is the sheriff? I appreciate your sincerity in this, but I'm curious as to why you think that while an extremely modest effort (about $40 spent per person in Afghanistan is as much as can be done) a massive effort will work in Iraq. It doesn't seem reasonable that a $200/per person (just under 6 billion/year) effort in Afghanistan will involve so much money the system couldn't handle it. I'm not sure but from all the coverage we got from within the country I didn't get the impression that the iraqi people are undeveloped. They have a great deal of oppresion from above to deal with but most of them are literate and educated rather well by our standards. Even women have the possibility to achieve a high grade of education. So I think that the state Afghanistan is in,in no way can be compared to the state Iraq is in (will be in after Hussein). Some infrastructure needs rebuilding in Iraq. This will take some money. But I think that there wasn't really the infrastructure to *re*build in Afghanistan, that there it's a from scratch kind of deal for the most part. As far as the people go, I think you're right. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Kevin Tarr wrote: At 02:42 PM 3/14/2003 -0600, Julia wrote: Can you imagine what would have happened to the US computer industry, at least short-term, if someone had successfully deployed such a biological weapon at COMDEX during the fat years of the late 1990s? The porn and snack food industries would be bankrupt? joking LOL! Time to wipe down the keyboard again Marvin Long Austin, Texas Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Poindexter Ashcroft, LLP (Formerly the USA) http://www.breakyourchains.org/john_poindexter.htm ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
At 09:41 14-03-03 -0600, Dan Minette wrote: In a multi-party system (as opposed to a two-party system), one party rarely (if ever) gets that big a share of the votes. To form a government, the party with the most votes will try to form a coalition with one or more of the other major parties, not just to create a majority, but to create as big a majority possible -- which means broader support for the government. Well, it doesn't work that way all the time, but I was referring to Germany: Lets look at the last election results: SPD 41.6% CDU/CSU 41.1% Green 9.1% FDP 7.8% PDS 0.3% The support of the Green party, with 9.1% of the vote is a required member of any government. This makes them the kingmaker for any new government. Not necessarily. The SPD and CDU/CSU could also form a coalition; that would give them an 82.7% majority. But even if the SPD and the Greens would form a coalition, that wouldn't make the Greens all-powerful. To form a coalition, both sides need to compromise. And should some major dispute arise between the SPD and the Greens, then the Greens still wouldn't be able to force anything, simply because within the coalition the SPD holds roughly 80% of the votes. Jeroen Political Observations van Baardwijk _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Replacing the UN Re: Who is the sheriff?
At 10:44 14-03-03 -0500, John Giorgis wrote: IOW, you want an international organisation in which countries may give their opinion, but in which the US unilaterally makes all the decisions. I think that such an arrangement would be both an improvement over the status quo, and beneficial to the United States. It would certainly be beneficial to the US, but definitely not to the rest of the world. You see, John, just like the US, many countries have had to struggle to gain their independence. And just like the US, we're kind of attached to that independence. So, obviously, we're not looking forward to giving up our independence and have the US dictate to us what we can and cannot do. After all, the US hasn't exactly shown itself to be a knee-jerk unilaterlist, even after being attacked a year and half ago. 15 months after the axis of evil speech and five months after Congress voted to authorize force against Iraq, we're still consulting with the international community, even though we didn't have to. ...and even though the US has repeatedly stated that it will do whatever it wants anyway, whether the rest of the world agrees with it or not. Sounds pretty unilateralist to me. So, basically the world could accept such an arrangement as described above, or else continue with the status quo Given the alternative, I think I'll prefer the status quo... Although I really prefer to go for the third option: an improved UN where each country has one vote, where no country has veto power so that no country can force its will upon others, and where all decisions are made by all members, not a small subset of members (like the UNSC). So, despite your insulting accusation that the US wants a dictatorship, perhaps you should consider that something may be much better than nothing. When do you have a dictatorship? When you have *one* party forcing its will upon everyone else. That's why the PRC qualifies as a dictatorship, that's why Iraq qualifies as a dictatorship. In your preferred situation, we will have *one* party (the US) forcing its will upon everyone else -- therefore, that situation qualifies as a dictatorship. Jeroen Make love, not war van Baardwijk _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Replacing the UN Re: Who is the sheriff?
J. van Baardwijk wrote: Although I really prefer to go for the third option: an improved UN where each country has one vote, where no country has veto power so that no country can force its will upon others, and where all decisions are made by all members, not a small subset of members (like the UNSC). Does one vote per country seem fair to you, when some countries, such as Brunei, with a total population about 70% of that of the *city* of Boston, would get the same representation and decisionmaking power as nations with populations hundreds of times larger? OTOH, I'm not sure a purely population-based voting power would be fair either. Perhaps some measure based on a combination of population, democratic representation, monetary dues paid, economic power and perhaps even land size and/or resources might be more fair, but maybe not. I think someone (many people) would be unhappy, no matter how things are broken down. -bryon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Who is the sheriff?
---Original Message--- From: Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am currently pretty frustrated by the UK's First Past the Post system - at no time because of demographics (I've still voted, but...) has my vote counted Your vote still counts even when your guy loses. Indeed, there is no meme more inimical to the concept of republican/democratic government than the meme that your vote doesn't count when you lose. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
UK politics (was Re: Re: Who is the sheriff?)
On 14 Mar 2003 at 17:47, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ---Original Message--- From: Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am currently pretty frustrated by the UK's First Past the Post system - at no time because of demographics (I've still voted, but...) has my vote counted Your vote still counts even when your guy loses. Indeed, there is no meme more inimical to the concept of republican/democratic government than the meme that your vote doesn't count when you lose. That IS my perception and it is downright COMMON in people my age and younger in the UK. It is, however, not unfixable. Understand, a lot more turnover happens at local levels even if it IS still FIrst Past the Post. (actually, only part of the local council is re-elected each time round. And local elections are more frequent). And our European Parliament elections are PR, which does have regions but they're huge. So, we allready have two different political models arround. Actually, given the Liberal Democrats dedication to PR as a system they're picking up a lot of votes and threaten to change our system from two parties to three on that basis. While I'm not that happy with some aspects of the LibDem platform, of all the major parties I am MORE happy with them than any of the other major parties, and their powerbase while fairly only slightly rising in percentage terms has geographically consolidated - they are likely to make big gains again at the next election. I wouldn't put cash on the Labour party not having some kind of internal split either. *big sigh* Given the sitation with the House of Lords which remains essentially unresolved, the situation over here politically can best be described as extremely volatile. I know some people don't see it that way, but I do. Something's going to give, and if Labour is smart, First Past the Post will be it. It would make them lose in terms of majority but be a win in the long term, because the major gainers would be the lib- dems, who they can work with a lot more easily than the Conservatives. And it would defuse a LOT of the current tension. That's just my take. I don't LIKE politics. I don't like being involved in politics. But they have a way of biting me when I'm not looking. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
