theloniusfleabag

Dear KK, I do not know how safe either, but I do also know that oil companies do spend money on cleanup. Just look at the news on any major spill. Sometimes it is PR money, no doubt, but to make the claim that 'a decade or two and it will be safe' is an ambiguous claim to say the least. Creosote was dumped directly into river systems at one time, only to find out 'a couple of decades later' that it was an extremely harmful product. I don't think I need to mention anything other than the word 'asbestos' on other 'safe at the time' products.

Dear Cameron, I believe the common expression is 'practice what you preach', but it is true, media does 'teach' one to act a certain way. I have not seen any Shell commercials, but I would expect that any advertisements do not have to contain anything but the barest minimum of 'interpretation of truth'. If, for example, Fruit Loops say they have 'added vitamin C, and kids need vitamin C', would you agree that therefore Fruit Loops must be good for children? Advertising is to sell product, not to tell the truth.

Dear Mr. Read, While I will admit that scientific evidence regarding climate change is sketchy at best, one should not believe scientists from any camp. None of this has been encountered before, so there is no 'looking at previous examples' for anyone. I would expect, though, that man-made pollution is a factor that cannot be comprehended at this time. If one looks at the present volume of man-made emissions, that factor would not have existed anywhere else in geologic time. Only in the future can we say 'exactly how harmful or not harmful' they were. If, however, geologic and atmospheric conditions enabled mammals and then man to develop, should we alter it? Would it not be best of all to pursue (Forgive me if this sounds Star Trekkian) a goal of non-interference? Is not 'Zero emissions' that actual target we should seek? It is most annoying when the only concern some people have is how emission levels affect profit margins over every other concern. I think that the line in the sand is drawn on this one, for that reason. Mammon would dictate that no amount environmental damage done by man can be compared to losing a dollar.

Dear Cameron, The 'wobble' actually has a scientific name, I read it this morning in the dictionary at work but cannot recollect it at this time. It is a very slow process, but I believe it is about 35,000 yrs for the earth to traverse the approximately 23 degrees 'off axis' that it is. Oddly enough, there is evidence that the magnetic poles reverse periodically as well.

Dear Mr. Read, Your birthday wouldn't happen to be Sep. 18, would it? Just curious.

Dear KK, Leaders of nations are only 'legitmate targets' if one is at war. While Arafat may be asking for a 'case of lead poisoning' it would not be legitimate to do so. The entire world, if it wishes to end the current strife in the middle east, needs to confront 1:Islam 2: the USA and 3:Y'Israel. I do not mean confront with a gun in one's hand, either, but if that is what it takes after debate, so be it. If you'll remember, Saddam Hussein offered to debate Pres. Bush publicly, more than once, and was refused. I used to read Saddam's statements on the INA website (before it was destroyed by the US) and he was actually a polite person. He gave a very amicable interview to Dan Rather and did not try to kill and eat him, contrary to western fears. If Bush had debated Hussein first, before attacking, it muight have given Bush a bit of legitimacy. I think Bush feared losing that debate. He could have 1:Made Saddam look like a fool and a tyrant. 2:Ended up looking like a fool and a tyrant himself. Bush chose to attack with all conventional weapons at his disposal rather than debate. Which made #2 look like the most plausible scenario.

Dear Hugo, You are absolutely right, the UN must be reformed and the veto system abolished.

Dear Nuclear, while I agree that the terrorists shall reap what the have sown, and should, there are many things that do legitimize 'terrorism' In WWII, the British used what was coined by Germany as 'Terror Bombing". Killing up to 80,000 civilians in a raid was not unheard of. The purpose? To terrorize. While the purposes were understood, the decision was made to target civilians who had and while there was a war going on, it was justified in the minds of the British that the end justified the means, even when killing innocent civilians. I do not blame the British for this, for it was the policy brought about by the will of one man, Arthur 'Bomber' Harris.

Dear Nuclear, I believe this is a core issue, not being limited to the 'fundamentalists'. It is the opinion of most of the world that the US does not 'exist peacefully'. They do, and it can and has been proven, that they fund and support brutal dictatorships when it is in their economic and strategic interests to do so, and only act against dictatorships when the do not, or cease to, serve US interests. Most of the world does not condone nor support terrorism as a legitimate means of conflict, bor do they support the US and it's actions. There are 2 pariahs at large in the world. Supporting the US is 'the lesser of two evils', not 'right versus wrong'.

Dear Hugo, Please check out this and related links regarding the UN and China. http://www.tibet.ca/wtnarchive/2000/11/22_5. Further, the US itself rewarded China for crushing democracy at Tienamen square. (they lifted some sanctions imposed and cancelled visa extensions for chinese students in the US) The Chinese gov't thinks that 'western concepts of human rights have no place in china' and thus refuse to recognize any form of human rights standards or allow any inspections. That in itself is great news for the US, among others, as the profits realized from goods produced there are huge. That is no excuse for the UN not imposing sanctions and resolutions against them, but until the UN is reformed, who can take on China and enforce the resolutions? The US certainly won't, for it is the factory slaves that enable Tiger Woods to be paid millions in endorsement monies by Nike.

Dear Mr. Read, I agree with you that the UN needs a serious overhaul before it can be effective. However, except for the last sentence, actually just part of the sentence, is the only thing relavent to the post. Are there any suggestions that you might have, besides this half sentence, that would be constructive?

Dear KK, With George Herbert Walker Bush, 'Dubya's dad', I would not doubt it for a second. I fully expect that he will be remembered amongst the 'intelligence community' as the greatest of all time. (Well deserved, I might add)

Dear Nuclear, While I admit that biblical text is somewhat 'the only source of history from certain periods', I cannot accept the fact that 'god promised' land as a legal argument. Yet it is the basis of Israeli occupation of those lands. Indeed, they still refer to Gaza and the West Bank as 'Judea and Samaria' on their news sites. You are right, though, that some innocent Palestinians are being painted with the same brush as the terrorists. Yours escapes me at this time. I think what was meant was: A similar attack may occur in retribution for the killing of Arafat rather than 'the same towers will be struck again', since they no longer exist. I guess my problem is that no one is admitting the real issues behind everyone's actions. Terrorism is defined as: "One party attacks a second party with the intention of coercing that second party to incite a third party to make concessions or capitulate" Ergo, an attack on the USA is an act of aggression, not terrorism, since no demands were made. I think we all know that Islamic radicals wish to see Israel cease to exist. (Mr. Read, your root cause) If the 'terrorists' wish to coerce the US to cease supporting Israel, they need to explicitly state that. That should have been, in keeping with the definition or terrorism,a prerequisite for the attacks, or they would have had no formal goal. I believe this to be the case. They are are for of 'extreme gurilla warfare' against the US, and not Israel, unless such a qualification is issued. Many indicators are there to point at 'terrorism with the end goal of eliminating Israel', but I doubt it has been made clear to the American people that this was the goal. Instead, the US gov't fostered the notion that the 'terrorists' hate 'freedom and democracy'(for democracy, it may be true, the Islamic militants believe in religious law and rule) with the goal of winning public support for their own agenda.

Dear Mr. Read, I am guilty of digression on this thread. While Pres. Bush was willing to 'declare war of terrorism', it is in fact impossible. Mr Clinton was, at the time, without benefit of hindsight, (except his 'behind sight'), correct in not 'declaring war' on an identifiable nation. Given the acceptable definition of 'terrorism', one cannot declare war on it anymore than one can declare war on 'pre-emptive self-defence'. It is an idea, not a place or a nation, or even a person.

Dear KK, That's a lot o' hangin's. Shooting is way quicker, but more costly. One could 'add value' by using the 'spies' as target practice for green recruits. I'm sure it's been done before... lol

Dear KK, I'd be reeeealy surprised. G.H.W.Bush ran 'clandestine operations in Central America on behalf of US multi-national' interests for years, then was the head of the CIA, then was VP, then Pres. I doubt his son would have had 'no idea' how things are done.

Dear KK, LOL. I suppose that is the ultimate in security, but not freedom. Too bad those two notions seem to be incompatible. While expletives in debate seem,to me, to be a wasted word, I think you used them rather succinctly.

[Dear KK, I am afraid you would be right, spies are traditionally shot on the spot. However, it would be tough to prove one was a spy while one was defending one's country against armed invasion. Apart from the AK47's and robes, that was the same complaint the British Redcoats had about the 'American revolutionaries'. Most of the people I know were not happy with Saddam, and perhaps a clean, unattributed assassination was in order. That would have been a lot more palatable than the 'Wyatt Earp' style justice that is going on. (Just so you know, Wyatt Earp was subsequently run out of town as a murderer after the OK corral, since it was an ambush with the intent of murder, not a 'bust gone wrong')

Dear Nuclear, I must say that decisions passed by congress and senate in the US only apply to the US, just like a Muslim in his own house in a foreign country. The laws aren't the same outside the front door. Dear KK, I must agree about the Blair thing. He had a million people protesting his 'unswerving loyalty' to the US. I guess he didn't want to be seen as some sort of 'free thinking anarchist' and is sacrificing any hope for re-election by disobeying the will of the populace. (Who seemed to know more facts than him). PS. Thanks for your candor. Now, with both Rumsfeld and Bush admitting there was no link between Saddam and 9/11, no evidence of WMD's, and no specific 'imminent (45 minute) threat proven, can one country invade another, kill thousands, and say 'oops'?

Dear Hugo, There are presently over 30 resolutions pending or broken by Israel, 20 by Turkey and 15 by Morrocco. The US has vetoed (the only member on the specific resolutions to do so) 36 times UN resolutions against Israel. As you can see, the #'s themselves aren't that important. The use of force was not officially authorized by the UN at the time, for the inspectors were still there. They could not find WMD's, (I don't know if it can ever be proven one way or the other now) but the US decided to invade WITHOUT specific sanction from the UN. Hence the international community's reluctance to 'legitimize' the invasion. (Here comes the illegal part): If, indeed, the US acted without the sanction of the UN, they must declare war. If they did not officially declare war, then it is a violation of the soveriegnty of an independent nation. As with the prisoners in Gauntanamo Bay, the actions of the US are deemed to be 'internationally illegal'. (Those prisoners are being held without legal counsel, on technicalities. The US did not declare war there also, so the prisoners are not covered under the Geneva convention. It was ruled in the US that they are technically not on US soil either, so they have no 'US constitutional rights' .) In a nutshell, they have been kidnapped, for there was no declaration of war and no charges pending. One of the recognized measurements of a country for Human Rights standards are 'freedom from incommunicado detention', 'freedom from detention without charges', 'the right to legal counsel' and expediency of judicial process. ( I cannot recall exactly how these are worded, but you get the idea) Back to Iraq: The absence of a formal declaration of war is what muddied the whole process of the 'reponsibility of rebuilding' and would have been made a lot clearer if the US had 'played by the rules (of engagement)' instead of making up the rules. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Dear Mr. Read, Yup, lots of doubt. Firstly, Jews disdain Christians, and Americans. Secondly, did you mean Lie-berals? I must protest that you called me a jew-hater. I do not hate. Besides, I love those little beanies. Is that their main export? Why did they remove the propellors?

Dear Nuclear, I agree with you that Canada, and especially Chretien, was slow in supporting the US after 9/11. In WWII, Canada was right behind the UK in fighting Naziism. A little behind other commonwealth countries, such as Australia and New Zealand, because it was debated for 3 day before a vote( with only one dissenter) here. The US finally did join the allies, in 1941, after trying to stay out of it as long as they could. The country was divided until Pearl Harbour. I agree we must watch each other's backs. I get worried, though, when one of our 'partners' goes ahead with rash actions against our advice and actions that are against the law.

Dear KK, I stand corrected. As I remember it, The US wished to use Turkey as a staging area and was denied by internal pressures. As I recall, now that you have set me straight, the US said to Turkey DO NOT enter northern Iraq, and I remember wondering what the US would do if they did. It would have been a catch 22 for the US, either repel the Turks and inadvertently support Kurdish independence, or allow Turkey to grab the oilfields and partly legitimize Saddam's heavy-handed quelling of the Kurdish independence movement. I was in error in this case. Thanks.

Dear Mr. Read, "Free Willy" Billy was aquitted, so therefore he must not have been guilty. Just like Orenthal.

Arafat should be charged with Crimes against humanity in The Hague. Killing him will only create a martyr, like the old adage 'close a door and another will open'. The door closing would be the death of Arafat, the opening would be the deification of him. If he dies resisting arrest, so be it. But, the Israeli's should not be doing the arresting. It should be the UN, and that would eliminate the risk of 'legitimizing repercussions'. Mind you, as Whistler stated, it might be difficult to prove Arafat has ANY control.