Re: The New Yorker: Fact
On Monday 10 April 2006 21:57, Michael Hipp wrote: > The longterm viability of democracy as a form of government appears > doubtful. We're in this mess because "we" voted ourselves into it. The > skills / perceptiveness of voters appears to entropy every year like a > degenerative disease. At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler - a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh - had this to say about "The Fall of the Athenian Republic" some 2,000 years prior: "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship." ___ [email protected] Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
Re: The New Yorker: Fact
On 04/10/2006 06:57 PM, Michael Hipp wrote: Net Llama! wrote: On 04/10/2006 06:13 PM, Michael Hipp wrote: Only in the short term. In the long term we would be much better off. We might even learn to not repeat many of the excesses of the last 60 years. Hah! You say that as if this is the first time we've made these mistakes. We need to elect more intelligent people to office if we want to end the stupidity. Re-electing idiots to a 2nd term only proves to me that the majority of those voting have zero clues and/or aren't paying any attention. I believe it's the first time in the 230 year history of the US that we've made these particular mistakes. At least on this scale. On a bigger view of history "there is nothing new under the sun." I dunno, I'd say there are a lot of parallels with Vietnam. Both were wars that we had no reason to get involved in, and had no clue how to get out of. Both started off with reasonably high levels of public support, and went down hill as time went on. Not meaning to pick apart your words, but I don't think the intelligence of our leaders is the root problem. GW is said to have a quite high IQ and it has evidently been only to our harm. In his particular case, the root cause is either one of just being evil to the core, or else he just has no firm grasp on reality. Or both. Similarly for most of the people inhabiting DC and the 50 state governments. IQ is really no measure of one's true intelligence. Bush being the perfect example. The longterm viability of democracy as a form of government appears doubtful. We're in this mess because "we" voted ourselves into it. The skills / perceptiveness of voters appears to entropy every year like a degenerative disease. Sorry, but I didn't vote for any of the idiots currently creating this mess. My prediction: We're looking at a complete collapse. Odd that having foreknowledge of it in no way enables us to alter the outcome. Once they're in office, its too late. -- ~ L. Friedman[EMAIL PROTECTED] LlamaLand http://netllama.linux-sxs.org 19:00:01 up 41 days, 15:32, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.11, 0.17 ___ [email protected] Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
Re: The New Yorker: Fact
Net Llama! wrote: On 04/10/2006 06:13 PM, Michael Hipp wrote: Net Llama! wrote: On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Michael Hipp wrote: I'll stick my neck out. Here's how to solve the whole mess: - Withdraw our military from any place that has more sand than trees and any place where they're not wanted. Maybe just withdraw them from everywhere. - Eliminate all imports of foreign oil. - Eliminate all foreign aid or UN subsidies. - End the War on Terror, the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty (did I miss any?) - Use the $trillions savings from the above to fund a crash program of energy independence (whatever it takes: solar, fuel cell, hydrogen, biomass, ANWR, etc.). Once the crazies in the middle east no longer had foreign oil money to fund their misadventures, they would quickly dwindle back to obscurity where they belong. If it weren't for oil and oil money we'd have little (real) reason to care and they'd have no resources with which to cause mischief. Add to the above: - Close our borders to all but the most trusted visitors. - Expel anyone within our borders who has no legal right to be here. - Add a 15% import tax to any goods or services crossing into the country. I was mostly with you up until that last one. You do realize that the US has a trade deficit right? The last thing we want is to piss off all the nations to whom we owe money, by raising tarrifs on their stuff. It's *because* we are in a trade deficit that we should raise import taxes. By making them angry, at the very worst it would only advance the schedule. What exactly do you think will happen when it eventually becomes obvious to them all that the US cannot repay those debts? Or can we just go on borrowing forever as our obese Federal government finds more ways every year to spend more than we make. We either don't repay the loans or we open up the printing presses and pay them with severely devalued dollars. Either option amounts to a default on the loans. It's only a question of when. If anyone reading this takes exception to any of these suggestions, realize Bush is about as likely to do any of the above as the Democrats are. But if they did, it could it hardly be worse than what we have now? I dunno, a severe depression, as a result of a tradewar with the EU, China & Asia (on the whole) would make things pretty damn bad around here. We'd look back on those "good ole days of the 'wars'" as an improvement. Only in the short term. In the long term we would be much better off. We might even learn to not repeat many of the excesses of the last 60 years. Hah! You say that as if this is the first time we've made these mistakes. We need to elect more intelligent people to office if we want to end the stupidity. Re-electing idiots to a 2nd term only proves to me that the majority of those voting have zero clues and/or aren't paying any attention. I believe it's the first time in the 230 year history of the US that we've made these particular mistakes. At least on this scale. On a bigger view of history "there is nothing new under the sun." Not meaning to pick apart your words, but I don't think the intelligence of our leaders is the root problem. GW is said to have a quite high IQ and it has evidently been only to our harm. In his particular case, the root cause is either one of just being evil to the core, or else he just has no firm grasp on reality. Or both. Similarly for most of the people inhabiting DC and the 50 state governments. The longterm viability of democracy as a form of government appears doubtful. We're in this mess because "we" voted ourselves into it. The skills / perceptiveness of voters appears to entropy every year like a degenerative disease. My prediction: We're looking at a complete collapse. Odd that having foreknowledge of it in no way enables us to alter the outcome. Michael ___ [email protected] Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
Re: The New Yorker: Fact
On 04/10/2006 06:13 PM, Michael Hipp wrote: Net Llama! wrote: On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Michael Hipp wrote: I'll stick my neck out. Here's how to solve the whole mess: - Withdraw our military from any place that has more sand than trees and any place where they're not wanted. Maybe just withdraw them from everywhere. - Eliminate all imports of foreign oil. - Eliminate all foreign aid or UN subsidies. - End the War on Terror, the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty (did I miss any?) - Use the $trillions savings from the above to fund a crash program of energy independence (whatever it takes: solar, fuel cell, hydrogen, biomass, ANWR, etc.). Once the crazies in the middle east no longer had foreign oil money to fund their misadventures, they would quickly dwindle back to obscurity where they belong. If it weren't for oil and oil money we'd have little (real) reason to care and they'd have no resources with which to cause mischief. Add to the above: - Close our borders to all but the most trusted visitors. - Expel anyone within our borders who has no legal right to be here. - Add a 15% import tax to any goods or services crossing into the country. I was mostly with you up until that last one. You do realize that the US has a trade deficit right? The last thing we want is to piss off all the nations to whom we owe money, by raising tarrifs on their stuff. It's *because* we are in a trade deficit that we should raise import taxes. By making them angry, at the very worst it would only advance the schedule. What exactly do you think will happen when it eventually becomes obvious to them all that the US cannot repay those debts? Or can we just go on borrowing forever as our obese Federal government finds more ways every year to spend more than we make. We either don't repay the loans or we open up the printing presses and pay them with severely devalued dollars. Either option amounts to a default on the loans. It's only a question of when. If anyone reading this takes exception to any of these suggestions, realize Bush is about as likely to do any of the above as the Democrats are. But if they did, it could it hardly be worse than what we have now? I dunno, a severe depression, as a result of a tradewar with the EU, China & Asia (on the whole) would make things pretty damn bad around here. We'd look back on those "good ole days of the 'wars'" as an improvement. Only in the short term. In the long term we would be much better off. We might even learn to not repeat many of the excesses of the last 60 years. Hah! You say that as if this is the first time we've made these mistakes. We need to elect more intelligent people to office if we want to end the stupidity. Re-electing idiots to a 2nd term only proves to me that the majority of those voting have zero clues and/or aren't paying any attention. -- ~ L. Friedman[EMAIL PROTECTED] LlamaLand http://netllama.linux-sxs.org 18:25:01 up 41 days, 14:57, 1 user, load average: 0.49, 0.28, 0.23 ___ [email protected] Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
Re: The New Yorker: Fact
Net Llama! wrote: On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Michael Hipp wrote: I'll stick my neck out. Here's how to solve the whole mess: - Withdraw our military from any place that has more sand than trees and any place where they're not wanted. Maybe just withdraw them from everywhere. - Eliminate all imports of foreign oil. - Eliminate all foreign aid or UN subsidies. - End the War on Terror, the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty (did I miss any?) - Use the $trillions savings from the above to fund a crash program of energy independence (whatever it takes: solar, fuel cell, hydrogen, biomass, ANWR, etc.). Once the crazies in the middle east no longer had foreign oil money to fund their misadventures, they would quickly dwindle back to obscurity where they belong. If it weren't for oil and oil money we'd have little (real) reason to care and they'd have no resources with which to cause mischief. Add to the above: - Close our borders to all but the most trusted visitors. - Expel anyone within our borders who has no legal right to be here. - Add a 15% import tax to any goods or services crossing into the country. I was mostly with you up until that last one. You do realize that the US has a trade deficit right? The last thing we want is to piss off all the nations to whom we owe money, by raising tarrifs on their stuff. It's *because* we are in a trade deficit that we should raise import taxes. By making them angry, at the very worst it would only advance the schedule. What exactly do you think will happen when it eventually becomes obvious to them all that the US cannot repay those debts? Or can we just go on borrowing forever as our obese Federal government finds more ways every year to spend more than we make. We either don't repay the loans or we open up the printing presses and pay them with severely devalued dollars. Either option amounts to a default on the loans. It's only a question of when. If anyone reading this takes exception to any of these suggestions, realize Bush is about as likely to do any of the above as the Democrats are. But if they did, it could it hardly be worse than what we have now? I dunno, a severe depression, as a result of a tradewar with the EU, China & Asia (on the whole) would make things pretty damn bad around here. We'd look back on those "good ole days of the 'wars'" as an improvement. Only in the short term. In the long term we would be much better off. We might even learn to not repeat many of the excesses of the last 60 years. Michael ___ [email protected] Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
Re: The New Yorker: Fact
Net Llama! wrote: On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Michael Hipp wrote: I'll stick my neck out. Here's how to solve the whole mess: - Withdraw our military from any place that has more sand than trees and any place where they're not wanted. Maybe just withdraw them from everywhere. - Eliminate all imports of foreign oil. - Eliminate all foreign aid or UN subsidies. - End the War on Terror, the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty (did I miss any?) - Use the $trillions savings from the above to fund a crash program of energy independence (whatever it takes: solar, fuel cell, hydrogen, biomass, ANWR, etc.). Once the crazies in the middle east no longer had foreign oil money to fund their misadventures, they would quickly dwindle back to obscurity where they belong. If it weren't for oil and oil money we'd have little (real) reason to care and they'd have no resources with which to cause mischief. Add to the above: - Close our borders to all but the most trusted visitors. - Expel anyone within our borders who has no legal right to be here. - Add a 15% import tax to any goods or services crossing into the country. I was mostly with you up until that last one. You do realize that the US has a trade deficit right? The last thing we want is to piss off all the nations to whom we owe money, by raising tarrifs on their stuff. If anyone reading this takes exception to any of these suggestions, realize Bush is about as likely to do any of the above as the Democrats are. But if they did, it could it hardly be worse than what we have now? I dunno, a severe depression, as a result of a tradewar with the EU, China & Asia (on the whole) would make things pretty damn bad around here. We'd look back on those "good ole days of the 'wars'" as an improvement. This exchange is wonderful! Lonnie and I are in complete agreement on a political point as stated. Porcine aviators to follow soon. -- Alma ___ [email protected] Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
Re: The New Yorker: Fact
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Michael Hipp wrote: > I'll stick my neck out. Here's how to solve the whole mess: > > - Withdraw our military from any place that has more sand than trees and > any place where they're not wanted. Maybe just withdraw them from > everywhere. > - Eliminate all imports of foreign oil. > - Eliminate all foreign aid or UN subsidies. > - End the War on Terror, the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty (did I > miss any?) > - Use the $trillions savings from the above to fund a crash program of > energy independence (whatever it takes: solar, fuel cell, hydrogen, > biomass, ANWR, etc.). > > Once the crazies in the middle east no longer had foreign oil money to > fund their misadventures, they would quickly dwindle back to obscurity > where they belong. If it weren't for oil and oil money we'd have little > (real) reason to care and they'd have no resources with which to cause > mischief. > > Add to the above: > - Close our borders to all but the most trusted visitors. > - Expel anyone within our borders who has no legal right to be here. > - Add a 15% import tax to any goods or services crossing into the country. I was mostly with you up until that last one. You do realize that the US has a trade deficit right? The last thing we want is to piss off all the nations to whom we owe money, by raising tarrifs on their stuff. > If anyone reading this takes exception to any of these suggestions, > realize Bush is about as likely to do any of the above as the Democrats > are. But if they did, it could it hardly be worse than what we have now? I dunno, a severe depression, as a result of a tradewar with the EU, China & Asia (on the whole) would make things pretty damn bad around here. We'd look back on those "good ole days of the 'wars'" as an improvement. -- ~~ Lonni J Friedman[EMAIL PROTECTED] LlamaLand http://netllama.linux-sxs.org ___ [email protected] Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
Re: The New Yorker: Fact
Alma J Wetzker wrote: Let's go back to what we agree on: Afghanistan is a Mess, Iraq is a Mess, There are no good options (or plans) for fixing either Mess. Iran is a Mess in Training. The UN will not work because the Iranian oil is too valuable to China, Russia, France (pick one). They have missiles that can hit as far as southern Europe and are only waiting for warheads to insert. Should we let then have them? (This is against many diplomatic initiatives, and it worked quite well with North Korea.) War is a terrible option. The rest are only marginally better. I don't believe that diplomacy will work without the threat of force. Unfortunately, King George does not understand how to threaten. The whole situation sucks, King George is unlikely to make it better. I'll stick my neck out. Here's how to solve the whole mess: - Withdraw our military from any place that has more sand than trees and any place where they're not wanted. Maybe just withdraw them from everywhere. - Eliminate all imports of foreign oil. - Eliminate all foreign aid or UN subsidies. - End the War on Terror, the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty (did I miss any?) - Use the $trillions savings from the above to fund a crash program of energy independence (whatever it takes: solar, fuel cell, hydrogen, biomass, ANWR, etc.). Once the crazies in the middle east no longer had foreign oil money to fund their misadventures, they would quickly dwindle back to obscurity where they belong. If it weren't for oil and oil money we'd have little (real) reason to care and they'd have no resources with which to cause mischief. Add to the above: - Close our borders to all but the most trusted visitors. - Expel anyone within our borders who has no legal right to be here. - Add a 15% import tax to any goods or services crossing into the country. The resulting economic boom from all the lower taxes and higher employment would be a sight to behold. And we'd be more secure than in a long time. If anyone reading this takes exception to any of these suggestions, realize Bush is about as likely to do any of the above as the Democrats are. But if they did, it could it hardly be worse than what we have now? Michael ___ [email protected] Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
Re: The New Yorker: Fact
Net Llama! wrote: On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Ben Duncan wrote: It doesn't. Who said anything about giving them a holy war? What I am talking about is assignation, and sneaky type attacks. The MOSAD is famous for these kind of things. True. They're also good at those kind of things. I'd imagine that they would have done it already if it were possible. Sneaky, covert assassinations aren't Bush's style. He likes to brag about being the winner, and he can't do that if he can't take credit. On top of that, Iran's problem isn't just a single madman. The theocracy is a mess all around. A terrorist understands only one kind of thing, terror. So giving them terror back, prolly would make them a little heistant to start and or continue things. And that approach is working really well in Iraq? Net Llama! wrote: On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Ben Duncan wrote: I say a .50 CAL sniper bullet thru the brain of those and their "INMA's" that teach and train these terroist's, from 5 clicks away, would soon have them ALL reflecting on, perhaps, new attitudes? How is giving them the holy war that they really want going to fix things? Let's go back to what we agree on: Afghanistan is a Mess, Iraq is a Mess, There are no good options (or plans) for fixing either Mess. Iran is a Mess in Training. The UN will not work because the Iranian oil is too valuable to China, Russia, France (pick one). They have missiles that can hit as far as southern Europe and are only waiting for warheads to insert. Should we let then have them? (This is against many diplomatic initiatives, and it worked quite well with North Korea.) War is a terrible option. The rest are only marginally better. I don't believe that diplomacy will work without the threat of force. Unfortunately, King George does not understand how to threaten. The whole situation sucks, King George is unlikely to make it better. "May you live in interesting times" is a curse. -- Alma ___ [email protected] Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
Re: The New Yorker: Fact
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Ben Duncan wrote: > It doesn't. Who said anything about giving them a holy war? > What I am talking about is assignation, and sneaky type attacks. > > The MOSAD is famous for these kind of things. True. They're also good at those kind of things. I'd imagine that they would have done it already if it were possible. Sneaky, covert assassinations aren't Bush's style. He likes to brag about being the winner, and he can't do that if he can't take credit. On top of that, Iran's problem isn't just a single madman. The theocracy is a mess all around. > > A terrorist understands only one kind of thing, terror. So > giving them terror back, prolly would make them a little > heistant to start and or continue things. And that approach is working really well in Iraq? > > Net Llama! wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Ben Duncan wrote: > > > >>I say a .50 CAL sniper bullet thru the brain of those and their > >>"INMA's" that teach and train these terroist's, from 5 clicks > >>away, would soon have them ALL reflecting on, perhaps, new attitudes? > > > > > > > > > How is giving them the holy war that they really want going to fix things? > > > > > > > -- ~~ Lonni J Friedman[EMAIL PROTECTED] LlamaLand http://netllama.linux-sxs.org ___ [email protected] Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
Re: The New Yorker: Fact
It doesn't. Who said anything about giving them a holy war? What I am talking about is assignation, and sneaky type attacks. The MOSAD is famous for these kind of things. A terrorist understands only one kind of thing, terror. So giving them terror back, prolly would make them a little heistant to start and or continue things. Net Llama! wrote: On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Ben Duncan wrote: I say a .50 CAL sniper bullet thru the brain of those and their "INMA's" that teach and train these terroist's, from 5 clicks away, would soon have them ALL reflecting on, perhaps, new attitudes? How is giving them the holy war that they really want going to fix things? -- Ben Duncan - Business Network Solutions, Inc. 336 Elton Road Jackson MS, 39212 "Never attribute to malice, that which can be adequately explained by stupidity" - Hanlon's Razor ___ [email protected] Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
Re: The New Yorker: Fact
Net Llama! wrote: On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Michael Hipp wrote: However, there's nothing blind about expecting it not to work. Has it ever worked? (On a foe such as this)? In theory diplomacy worked for the Iran hostage crisis back in 1981. There's also the conspiracy theorists who say that the Republicans were in bed with the Iranians all along, and held off the hostage release until Carter was out of office. But I digress. I don't think we've had any other conflicts with Iran to use for historical analysis. I've never considered the hostage crisis to be a successful example of anything. (And even if the Republicans were that smart I doubt it actually altered the final outcome of the '80 elections.) I wasn't speaking only of Iran, but of any foe determined to commit evil. I don't see much difference in the psychotic rulers of present-day Iran and the other evildoers that seem to have been in abundance during the last 100 years. Diplomacy never worked with any of them. At least not as anything more than a way to stall for time (theirs or ours). The example of Neville Chamberlain (sp?) is surely sufficient to forever cast doubt on the probability of success with diplomacy in situations such as this. I'm going to go out a limb here and assume that Bush isn't going to do the right thing, as he hasn't done the right thing yet. His track record isn't any better than the UN's. At least the rest of the world still doesn't hate the UN ;) The rest of the world has a pretty lousy track record of judging character. (But that's always been true of every people at every time as regard their rulers.) So, let's check our options and hopes: 1) War 2) Diplomacy 3) Bush 4) The UN Now we have four things which can be counted on to fail. This just gets better-'n-better. :-) Michael ___ [email protected] Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
Re: The New Yorker: Fact
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Michael Hipp wrote: > Net Llama! wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Michael Hipp wrote: > >> Net Llama! wrote: > >>> Not make it worse with another war, would be an excellent start. It would > >>> be one thing if Afghanistan was a shining example of a stable democracy, > >>> and Iraq was following the same path. Seeing as how Afghanistan is really > >>> not much different than it was 5 years ago, just no longer under the > >>> control of the Taliban (which sounds nice on paper, but in reality is > >>> meaningless), and Iraq is an unstable trainwreck, going off to war #3 > >>> doesn't sound like a sensible decision. Right now, we're a very long away > >>> from exhausting all the diplomatic solutions for Iran. Considering how > >>> emabrassingly poor the intelligence on Iraq (and 9/11 for that matter) > >>> was, I can't see how any one can confidently justify skipping the > >>> diplomatic approach in Iran. > >> I agree wholeheartedly. > > > > Wow, the planets must have aligned or something. That never happens here > > ;) > > > >> But the deal is... I can't imagine there is anyone on the planet that > >> expects the diplomatic approach to actually work. > >> > >> So now we have two options on the table. Neither of which will work. > > > > I think its way too soon to tell if the diplomatic approach will work with > > Iran. There are still quite a few options open (some in the UN, some > > not). Just blindly assuming that they won't work is a convenient excuse > > to go to war, and certainly is easier for Bush. > > That may indeed be Bush's intentions. I hope not, but it would certainly > be consistent with the pattern. > > However, there's nothing blind about expecting it not to work. Has it > ever worked? (On a foe such as this)? In theory diplomacy worked for the Iran hostage crisis back in 1981. There's also the conspiracy theorists who say that the Republicans were in bed with the Iranians all along, and held off the hostage release until Carter was out of office. But I digress. I don't think we've had any other conflicts with Iran to use for historical analysis. > > My knowledge of history is unimpressive. But I know of no example to the > positive. In any case it could only be expected to yield results if > backed up with lethal force. > > The UN is alternately an impotent, corrupt bureaucracy or a despotic > power monger ruled by petty tyrants and evil oppressors. I'd sooner hope > for Bush to do the right thing. It's that bad. I'm going to go out a limb here and assume that Bush isn't going to do the right thing, as he hasn't done the right thing yet. His track record isn't any better than the UN's. At least the rest of the world still doesn't hate the UN ;) -- ~~ Lonni J Friedman[EMAIL PROTECTED] LlamaLand http://netllama.linux-sxs.org ___ [email protected] Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
Re: The New Yorker: Fact
Net Llama! wrote: On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Michael Hipp wrote: Net Llama! wrote: Not make it worse with another war, would be an excellent start. It would be one thing if Afghanistan was a shining example of a stable democracy, and Iraq was following the same path. Seeing as how Afghanistan is really not much different than it was 5 years ago, just no longer under the control of the Taliban (which sounds nice on paper, but in reality is meaningless), and Iraq is an unstable trainwreck, going off to war #3 doesn't sound like a sensible decision. Right now, we're a very long away from exhausting all the diplomatic solutions for Iran. Considering how emabrassingly poor the intelligence on Iraq (and 9/11 for that matter) was, I can't see how any one can confidently justify skipping the diplomatic approach in Iran. I agree wholeheartedly. Wow, the planets must have aligned or something. That never happens here ;) But the deal is... I can't imagine there is anyone on the planet that expects the diplomatic approach to actually work. So now we have two options on the table. Neither of which will work. I think its way too soon to tell if the diplomatic approach will work with Iran. There are still quite a few options open (some in the UN, some not). Just blindly assuming that they won't work is a convenient excuse to go to war, and certainly is easier for Bush. That may indeed be Bush's intentions. I hope not, but it would certainly be consistent with the pattern. However, there's nothing blind about expecting it not to work. Has it ever worked? (On a foe such as this)? My knowledge of history is unimpressive. But I know of no example to the positive. In any case it could only be expected to yield results if backed up with lethal force. The UN is alternately an impotent, corrupt bureaucracy or a despotic power monger ruled by petty tyrants and evil oppressors. I'd sooner hope for Bush to do the right thing. It's that bad. Michael ___ [email protected] Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
Re: The New Yorker: Fact
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Michael Hipp wrote: > Net Llama! wrote: > > > > Not make it worse with another war, would be an excellent start. It would > > be one thing if Afghanistan was a shining example of a stable democracy, > > and Iraq was following the same path. Seeing as how Afghanistan is really > > not much different than it was 5 years ago, just no longer under the > > control of the Taliban (which sounds nice on paper, but in reality is > > meaningless), and Iraq is an unstable trainwreck, going off to war #3 > > doesn't sound like a sensible decision. Right now, we're a very long away > > from exhausting all the diplomatic solutions for Iran. Considering how > > emabrassingly poor the intelligence on Iraq (and 9/11 for that matter) > > was, I can't see how any one can confidently justify skipping the > > diplomatic approach in Iran. > > I agree wholeheartedly. Wow, the planets must have aligned or something. That never happens here ;) > > But the deal is... I can't imagine there is anyone on the planet that > expects the diplomatic approach to actually work. > > So now we have two options on the table. Neither of which will work. I think its way too soon to tell if the diplomatic approach will work with Iran. There are still quite a few options open (some in the UN, some not). Just blindly assuming that they won't work is a convenient excuse to go to war, and certainly is easier for Bush. -- ~~ Lonni J Friedman[EMAIL PROTECTED] LlamaLand http://netllama.linux-sxs.org ___ [email protected] Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
Re: The New Yorker: Fact
Net Llama! wrote: On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Alma J Wetzker wrote: Net Llama! wrote: On 04/09/2006 06:32 PM, Alma J Wetzker wrote: Net Llama! wrote: ugh, please pass the antacid. http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact In for a penny...? King George should completely understand why Kissinger said he was viscerally opposed to invading a Middle East country. The problem is, What do we do? 9/11 showed quite clearly that leaving things alone is not a good option. It looks more and more like there are no good In retrospect, 9/11 showed that both Clinton and Bush ignored all the warning signs that trouble was on the horizon. They didn't leave things alone as much as pretended that they failed to acknowledge that 'things' were there. options. What is the least bad thing to do? Iran has nothing to do with 9/11. Neither does Iraq for that matter. My favorite (if there is such a thing) part of the above article is where they pointed out that the Bush administration is currently using the same tactics and approaches to building a case for attacking Iran as they used to attack Iraq. I can only hope & pray that they don't use the same approach for figuring out how to exit Iran. Bush wants his legacy to be Iran, which is incredibly disturbing. The last thing the Bush administration needs is yet another war, seeing as how they haven't finished the first two that they're embroiled in. For everyone's sake, I'm hoping Bush's legacy is never Iran. I just pity whomever follows Bush into the White House. They're going to have one hell of a huge mess on their hands. I agree with all your points. I started out with the start of the Franklin quote, "In for a penny, in for a pound", in reference to already being in Iraq. The 9/11 part of the comment was about the Middle East in general (and their attitudes toward the USA). We already have a hell of a huge mess. What do you do? Not make it worse with another war, would be an excellent start. It would be one thing if Afghanistan was a shining example of a stable democracy, and Iraq was following the same path. Seeing as how Afghanistan is really not much different than it was 5 years ago, just no longer under the control of the Taliban (which sounds nice on paper, but in reality is meaningless), and Iraq is an unstable trainwreck, going off to war #3 doesn't sound like a sensible decision. Right now, we're a very long away from exhausting all the diplomatic solutions for Iran. Considering how emabrassingly poor the intelligence on Iraq (and 9/11 for that matter) was, I can't see how any one can confidently justify skipping the diplomatic approach in Iran. I agree wholeheartedly. But the deal is... I can't imagine there is anyone on the planet that expects the diplomatic approach to actually work. So now we have two options on the table. Neither of which will work. Michael ___ [email protected] Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
Re: The New Yorker: Fact
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Alma J Wetzker wrote: > Net Llama! wrote: > > On 04/09/2006 06:32 PM, Alma J Wetzker wrote: > > > >> Net Llama! wrote: > >> > >>> ugh, please pass the antacid. > >>> > >>> http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact > >> > >> > >> In for a penny...? > >> > >> King George should completely understand why Kissinger said he was > >> viscerally opposed to invading a Middle East country. The problem is, > >> What do we do? 9/11 showed quite clearly that leaving things alone is > >> not a good option. It looks more and more like there are no good > > > > > > In retrospect, 9/11 showed that both Clinton and Bush ignored all the > > warning signs that trouble was on the horizon. They didn't leave things > > alone as much as pretended that they failed to acknowledge that 'things' > > were there. > > > >> options. What is the least bad thing to do? > > > > > > Iran has nothing to do with 9/11. Neither does Iraq for that matter. > > > > My favorite (if there is such a thing) part of the above article is > > where they pointed out that the Bush administration is currently using > > the same tactics and approaches to building a case for attacking Iran as > > they used to attack Iraq. I can only hope & pray that they don't use > > the same approach for figuring out how to exit Iran. > > > > Bush wants his legacy to be Iran, which is incredibly disturbing. The > > last thing the Bush administration needs is yet another war, seeing as > > how they haven't finished the first two that they're embroiled in. For > > everyone's sake, I'm hoping Bush's legacy is never Iran. I just pity > > whomever follows Bush into the White House. They're going to have one > > hell of a huge mess on their hands. > > I agree with all your points. I started out with the start of the > Franklin quote, "In for a penny, in for a pound", in reference to > already being in Iraq. The 9/11 part of the comment was about the > Middle East in general (and their attitudes toward the USA). > > We already have a hell of a huge mess. What do you do? Not make it worse with another war, would be an excellent start. It would be one thing if Afghanistan was a shining example of a stable democracy, and Iraq was following the same path. Seeing as how Afghanistan is really not much different than it was 5 years ago, just no longer under the control of the Taliban (which sounds nice on paper, but in reality is meaningless), and Iraq is an unstable trainwreck, going off to war #3 doesn't sound like a sensible decision. Right now, we're a very long away from exhausting all the diplomatic solutions for Iran. Considering how emabrassingly poor the intelligence on Iraq (and 9/11 for that matter) was, I can't see how any one can confidently justify skipping the diplomatic approach in Iran. -- ~~ Lonni J Friedman[EMAIL PROTECTED] LlamaLand http://netllama.linux-sxs.org ___ [email protected] Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
Re: The New Yorker: Fact
Net Llama! wrote: On 04/09/2006 06:32 PM, Alma J Wetzker wrote: Net Llama! wrote: ugh, please pass the antacid. http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact In for a penny...? King George should completely understand why Kissinger said he was viscerally opposed to invading a Middle East country. The problem is, What do we do? 9/11 showed quite clearly that leaving things alone is not a good option. It looks more and more like there are no good In retrospect, 9/11 showed that both Clinton and Bush ignored all the warning signs that trouble was on the horizon. They didn't leave things alone as much as pretended that they failed to acknowledge that 'things' were there. options. What is the least bad thing to do? Iran has nothing to do with 9/11. Neither does Iraq for that matter. My favorite (if there is such a thing) part of the above article is where they pointed out that the Bush administration is currently using the same tactics and approaches to building a case for attacking Iran as they used to attack Iraq. I can only hope & pray that they don't use the same approach for figuring out how to exit Iran. Bush wants his legacy to be Iran, which is incredibly disturbing. The last thing the Bush administration needs is yet another war, seeing as how they haven't finished the first two that they're embroiled in. For everyone's sake, I'm hoping Bush's legacy is never Iran. I just pity whomever follows Bush into the White House. They're going to have one hell of a huge mess on their hands. I agree with all your points. I started out with the start of the Franklin quote, "In for a penny, in for a pound", in reference to already being in Iraq. The 9/11 part of the comment was about the Middle East in general (and their attitudes toward the USA). We already have a hell of a huge mess. What do you do? -- Alma ___ [email protected] Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
Re: The New Yorker: Fact
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Ben Duncan wrote: > Sigh The people we ARE really fighting, believe it's a > "HONOUR" to blow themselves up along with a few innocents. > The sad things is we have a bunch of HOLY men teaching them > these things. > > I say a .50 CAL sniper bullet thru the brain of those and their > "INMA's" that teach and train these terroist's, from 5 clicks > away, would soon have them ALL reflecting on, perhaps, new attitudes? How is giving them the holy war that they really want going to fix things? > > Alma J Wetzker wrote: > > Net Llama! wrote: > > > > > King George should completely understand why Kissinger said he was > > viscerally opposed to invading a Middle East country. The problem is, > > What do we do? 9/11 showed quite clearly that leaving things alone is > > not a good option. It looks more and more like there are no good > > options. What is the least bad thing to do? > > > > -- Alma > > ___ > > [email protected] > > Unsub/Pause/Etc : > > http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general > > > > . > > > > -- ~~ Lonni J Friedman[EMAIL PROTECTED] LlamaLand http://netllama.linux-sxs.org ___ [email protected] Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
Re: The New Yorker: Fact
Sigh The people we ARE really fighting, believe it's a "HONOUR" to blow themselves up along with a few innocents. The sad things is we have a bunch of HOLY men teaching them these things. I say a .50 CAL sniper bullet thru the brain of those and their "INMA's" that teach and train these terroist's, from 5 clicks away, would soon have them ALL reflecting on, perhaps, new attitudes? Alma J Wetzker wrote: Net Llama! wrote: King George should completely understand why Kissinger said he was viscerally opposed to invading a Middle East country. The problem is, What do we do? 9/11 showed quite clearly that leaving things alone is not a good option. It looks more and more like there are no good options. What is the least bad thing to do? -- Alma ___ [email protected] Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general . -- Ben Duncan - Business Network Solutions, Inc. 336 Elton Road Jackson MS, 39212 "Never attribute to malice, that which can be adequately explained by stupidity" - Hanlon's Razor ___ [email protected] Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
Re: The New Yorker: Fact
Net Llama! wrote: On 04/09/2006 06:32 PM, Alma J Wetzker wrote: Net Llama! wrote: ugh, please pass the antacid. http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact In for a penny...? King George should completely understand why Kissinger said he was viscerally opposed to invading a Middle East country. The problem is, What do we do? 9/11 showed quite clearly that leaving things alone is not a good option. It looks more and more like there are no good In retrospect, 9/11 showed that both Clinton and Bush ignored all the warning signs that trouble was on the horizon. They didn't leave things alone as much as pretended that they failed to acknowledge that 'things' were there. options. What is the least bad thing to do? Iran has nothing to do with 9/11. Neither does Iraq for that matter. My favorite (if there is such a thing) part of the above article is where they pointed out that the Bush administration is currently using the same tactics and approaches to building a case for attacking Iran as they used to attack Iraq. I can only hope & pray that they don't use the same approach for figuring out how to exit Iran. Bush wants his legacy to be Iran, which is incredibly disturbing. The last thing the Bush administration needs is yet another war, seeing as how they haven't finished the first two that they're embroiled in. For everyone's sake, I'm hoping Bush's legacy is never Iran. I just pity whomever follows Bush into the White House. They're going to have one hell of a huge mess on their hands. You're correct on all points, Lonni. Michael ___ [email protected] Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
Re: The New Yorker: Fact
On 04/09/2006 06:32 PM, Alma J Wetzker wrote: Net Llama! wrote: ugh, please pass the antacid. http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact In for a penny...? King George should completely understand why Kissinger said he was viscerally opposed to invading a Middle East country. The problem is, What do we do? 9/11 showed quite clearly that leaving things alone is not a good option. It looks more and more like there are no good In retrospect, 9/11 showed that both Clinton and Bush ignored all the warning signs that trouble was on the horizon. They didn't leave things alone as much as pretended that they failed to acknowledge that 'things' were there. options. What is the least bad thing to do? Iran has nothing to do with 9/11. Neither does Iraq for that matter. My favorite (if there is such a thing) part of the above article is where they pointed out that the Bush administration is currently using the same tactics and approaches to building a case for attacking Iran as they used to attack Iraq. I can only hope & pray that they don't use the same approach for figuring out how to exit Iran. Bush wants his legacy to be Iran, which is incredibly disturbing. The last thing the Bush administration needs is yet another war, seeing as how they haven't finished the first two that they're embroiled in. For everyone's sake, I'm hoping Bush's legacy is never Iran. I just pity whomever follows Bush into the White House. They're going to have one hell of a huge mess on their hands. -- ~ L. Friedman[EMAIL PROTECTED] LlamaLand http://netllama.linux-sxs.org 18:50:01 up 40 days, 15:22, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.04, 0.07 ___ [email protected] Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
Re: The New Yorker: Fact
Net Llama! wrote: ugh, please pass the antacid. http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact In for a penny...? King George should completely understand why Kissinger said he was viscerally opposed to invading a Middle East country. The problem is, What do we do? 9/11 showed quite clearly that leaving things alone is not a good option. It looks more and more like there are no good options. What is the least bad thing to do? -- Alma ___ [email protected] Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
Re: The New Yorker: Fact
On 4/9/06, Net Llama! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ugh, please pass the antacid. > > http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact Yes indeed, we will need lots of antacid before the Iran situation is resolved. Unfortunately, there is no easy solution. We can sit back and watch Iran develop the weapons to remove Israel from the map, or action can be taken, and the action required will not be a pretty sight. Santions and political pressure don't appear to work very well when a madman is in charge. Even if we do sit back and pretend that the problem will go away, Israel will not. The one thing we can rely on. However (well or badly) the problem is resolved, the Great Satan will be blamed for the outcome. -- Collins Richey If you fill your heart with regrets of yesterday and the worries of tomorrow, you have no today to be thankful for. ___ [email protected] Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
