theloniusfleabag

Dear maplesyrup, I hate to be a pessimist, but I think Bush is going to win. No one (well hardly anyone) in the US cares one whit about the situation in Iraq turning into 'dogsh#t'. The question is, "Did Bush make the average shmoe in the US feel safer?". The old adage 'the devil you know is better than the devil you don't' is why re-election is the most probable outcome of any election.

Dear takeanumber, They don't have to be. (However, some prove to be exceptional) They are mostly cannon-fodder anyway. The draft is to produce large numbers of troops. In the old days, (old old) conscripts were often bonked on the head, and woke up in the army. If Bush wins the election, only Congress opposing the draft will make a difference. So, Mr. Bush just has to say "If we don't conscript and invade Iran, the USA will get nuked (Like the threat of WMDs from Iraq).

Dear August1991, I disagree. Especially on the useage of the word 'perfectly'. The show 'survivor' (though I have proudly never seen it' supposedly 'perfectly' pits humans against each other, and rewards deceit and treachery, for it is the end that is glorious, and not the means. ( ala religion) Markets, too, reward transient ends and immediate goals over anything 'moral'.It seems to me, your view of morality is 'if the means serve the end'. A very shallow view, but shared by many.

The word 'illegal' was wrestled from Kofi Annan, to be sure, but the UN is the only world body that could make this statement. Should there be a world body to declare such actions 'illegal', or should there be no laws?

Dear idealisttotheend, Indeed. Besides, 'terrorism' is not an entity, and therefore cannot be defeated by arms.

There are drugs and then there are drugs. Alcohol is a drug, and an evil one. (Though I do enjoy my beer)Worse than pot, I'll say, yet legal. It is also the real 'gateway' drug, the first one the vast majority use to 'alter perception'. Speaking of abiding by laws, anyone hear of Rosa Parks? Should she have 'shut up and obeyed the law'?

Dear all, I only read the draft this morning, after I printed it off and took it to work. Interesting. I could be a renewed 'standing order' to have draft papers always drawn up, so they don't have to scramble when they need it. However, this particular draft was dated Jan 7, 2003. (For interest's sake, I am reading "Disarming Iraq", by Hans Blix, and I am at Jan 9, 2003, amid the inspections, where Blix's diary entries wonder whether the invasion of Iraq is inevitable, with or without 'proof'.) A detailed question for all....(and a lot of 'ifs') The actions today of the US towards inspections of the nuclear capability of Iran exactly mirror those before the invasion of Iraq. (Inflexible demands, often at odds with the international community, and demands for (possibly) an unreasonable time frame, with 'material breach' a high possibility). Couple this with the naming of Iran as #2 in the 3 part 'Axis of Evil'. They are presently right next door, with a large force already deployed, and staging areas secured. It would not make sense to 'call the troops home' (present situation in Iraq excepted') just to send them later to the address next door. The call to 'war' for Iraq was "America is under threat from WMDs (which, at this point, didn't rely on truth) and for Iran, the threat could be "America will get nuked" (again, truth is a side issue). Iran has a large conventional force, more fitting for the US arsenal than 'terrorists'. The question a lot have asked me is, "Where would they find the troops?" Well, the 'Draft' draft, set and ready for congress, could be saved until after the Nov. elections. The question is, "Is the US about to start WWIII, to 'Americanize' the world, before (in their mind) it becomes 'Islamicized'?

Dear Big Blue Machine, Read "Shake Hands With The Devil" by Gen. Romeo Dallaire. It deals with the genocide in Rwanda, and the Sudan issue is a continous part of the story. The US may be trying to intercede, as long as it can get some of the oil revenues of that country, but from a humanitarian point they would have no interest. Dallaire asked why the US would not commit troops to stop the genocide in Rwanda, and he was told by someone representing the US that the estimated value of the life of 1 single US soldier was equivalent to about 80,000 Rwandan civilians.

Dear takeanumber, As Black Dog states, we shouldn't forget that the Russians raped and pillaged while defeating the 'facists'. Rape on an unprecedented scale, although the 'Rape of Nanking' was pretty bad. It was said amongst the German populace, (regarding the Russians) "Now a girl is only safe if she is seven years old or seven months pregnant".

Dear takeanumber, Gay? 12? Mentally unstable? (Just Kidding, none of my business really) I suppose you'll tell us you invented the question mark, too. It's never too late to attack US foriegn policy.

Dear takeanumber, No, I am not anti-slav. The Russians fought (especially in WWII) with incredible fanatacism and bravery. However, they were getting crushed until winter set in. Hitler had delayed 'Barbarossa' by 8 weeks, but still thought he'd have Moscow by winter, so he neglected to provide any sort of winter clothing or equipment to his troops. Then, Hitler personally diverted over a third of his strength to grab the oil-rich Caucasus(Where Chechnya is, by the way) instead of easily taking Moscow. Stalin had just 'purged' 35,000 Army officers to ensure the loyalty of the rest, and was at the time in no position to withstand the Germans. Until winter.

Dear takeanumber, Thank you for coming here and farting. That last post was long-winded, with no substance and no point. No one has been able to stop it yet, but inspections and sanctions can work.

Dear August1991, I believe he is a senior level Middle East specialist. There was a write-up in the Calgary Sun on Sunday about this book, and I believe it answers the question "Why?' better than could be expected.

Dear Black Dog, The US is already gearing up for war in Iran. I am presently reading "Disarming Iraq" by Hans Blix, and it is amazing how the US is following the same M.O. as with the Iraqi invasion. If Bush wins the election, I expect action against Iran in late 2005. As with Iraq, neither proof nor truth will be an issue. They have already started down the path. For them (the US) to stop, they'd have to admit being in the wrong. So, it looks like war with Iran.

Dear The Terrible Sweal, One must think 'outside Rubric's Cube', for 'voluntary ownership' (especially of land) legitimizes the force originally used to obtain ownership.

Dear August1991, Not really, winter did.

Dear August1991, Israel and South Africa jointly tested a nuke off-shore of South Africa 22 September, 1979. They were both 'pariah states' at the time. Israel traded the secrets of building nukes with South Africa in exchange for uranium ore, and access to a testing site. So, while France helped Israel develop the nukes, they wouldn't go so far as helping them launch one. Another good book on Israel's nuclear capabilities is "The Samson Option", by Seymour Hersch.

Dear eureka, Indeed, this is what Mullahs do for the Koran, and Rabbis for the Torah. Both the Koran and the Torah are believed to be 'God's intent' and are interpreted to make them legally binding.

Dear August1991, Ownership is having enough physical force [at your disposal]to deter ( or conquer) others who covet what you are the curator of, or who have what you want. The First Nations peoples (or aboriginals, whatever the pc name is nowadays) laughed when they 'sold' their land to the white man. They said to themselves, "Foolish white man, you cannot own land. You can't pick it up and take it with you!" So they felt they were 'taking advantage' of the white man by accepting a few dollars for millions of acres. Looks like the joke was on them. We showed them what 'ownership' meant. It was the business end of a gun.

Dear takeanumber, Nonsense. I am as fearful of that as Israel doing the same thing. (mind you, both are possible)

Dear takeanumber, That is why I don't plan on moving to Afghanistan. I am not sure who told you the 'boogerman' was coming, but crawl out from under your bed, change your shorts and read "Imperial Hubris".

Dear August1991, I can't imagine, I don't know what White Rhinoceroses taste like, dodo. Either. Sorry, I must have missed your point. It depends on what you consider a benefit to society. The creation of wealth ( to be circulated later)only? Then yes, theft and destruction create wealth for some that otherwise would not have been. As to the gain being more than the loss, I hope the loser had insurance. Or, they were extremely rich. A rich person could buy a house and torch it just for fun, as a hobby, say, and continue to do so as long as their net income was greater than the cost. You cannot really expect to argue that 'the insurance company loses' because they never lose. They are merely 'one time lenders' with lifelong usurious rates.

Dear August1991, Destruction is very good for the economy. Why do they think they use the word 'consumer' rather than 'curator'?

Dear DAC, I believe that was the point. Any bold consideration other than the 'sum' is a 'whimsical variable'.

Dear August1991, You are right, these are all intimately connected to Osama, (not sure about the theatre, they may have just taken their 'cue' from Osama) but not neccesarily for the reasons thought by those who parrot 'Fox News". In Bali, the bombers specifically targetted Australians. Indeed, all of the targets were specifically chosen, and not a 'random lashing out against freedom and democracy'. I can only urge all to read 'Imperial Hubris' for a better understanding of what we face.