Home > Archive > Cobol > January 2006 > Re: Making money from Java
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: Making money from Java
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| James J. Gavan wrote:
> Thanks Stepehn. You are a brick. Nobody really gives anything away for
> free. As for Oliver's suggestion, I ain't going looking at blogs. The
> one and only I took a cursory look at was Daniel's, (X-Li) where the
> Democrats are villains and George is Saint Dubya :-)
heh - you oughta see the next one I'm working on...
Why "Price Gouging" is *Good* for the Economy
I was planning on writing it when Katrina first came through -
subsequent other pundits (whose job it is to write stuff) and
Congressional hearings have given me lots of sources now. :)
I haven't had much time *at all* to write stuff for it, though - my last
one was written when Cindy Sheehan was still new news. With 3 kids now,
school, work, etc., it's been challenging to find the time to write a
coherent post. My posts usually take a good hour or two to pull
together, and I usually need that time all in one chunk.
I'm honored that my blog holds a unique place in your experience... ;)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| James J. Gavan 2005-11-15, 9:55 pm |
| LX-i wrote:
> James J. Gavan wrote:
>
>
>
> heh - you oughta see the next one I'm working on...
>
> Why "Price Gouging" is *Good* for the Economy
>
> I was planning on writing it when Katrina first came through -
> subsequent other pundits (whose job it is to write stuff) and
> Congressional hearings have given me lots of sources now. :)
>
> I haven't had much time *at all* to write stuff for it, though - my last
> one was written when Cindy Sheehan was still new news. With 3 kids now,
> school, work, etc., it's been challenging to find the time to write a
> coherent post. My posts usually take a good hour or two to pull
> together, and I usually need that time all in one chunk.
>
> I'm honored that my blog holds a unique place in your experience... ;)
>
Only read in the paper last night, there's now the ability to hang
advertisements on to youse bloggers' messages. They've already coined a
new word to convey blog spammer, but can't recollect it.
Cindy Sheehan - very, very vaguely sort of recall the name - spell out
the connection/background - might wake my memory cells up.
Saw my favourite Prez two nights ago on PBS, Charlie Rose interview.
Jimmy Carter; aging more of course, but still as bright as a button.
He's been very, very diplomatic up until now. But now he is quite blunt
- he doesn't care for Dubya and his White House coterie - specifically,
Rumsfeld and pals wanted to take a crack at Iraq regardless.
He, (Jimmy C.), personally agreed with George Senior not following
through from Kuwait into Iraq. I disagree. My feelings are that if Dad
had done that, his son wouldn't be in the incredible Middle East mess
that we now have. Worth reflecting we can thank his former Canuck speech
writer, (David Frum), for the 'Axis of Evil' phrase. That's why our
Iranian friends are now so keen to cozy up to the US.
Ironic that a Jewish speech writer should provide the ammo to assist an
anti-Zionist to get elected Iranian president.
Jimmy
| |
|
| In article <60598$437a9c7b$45491c57$10191@KNOLOGY.NET>,
LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
[snip]
>With 3 kids now,
>school, work, etc., it's been challenging to find the time to write a
>coherent post.
Must... resist... cheap... shot... no... pull... too... strong... oh,
really? I hadn't noticed all that much change in your coherency (or lack
thereof)!
(sorry... next... time... will... try... to... stick... to... talking...
like... William... Shatner...)
DD
| |
| Michael Mattias 2005-11-16, 6:55 pm |
| "Stephen Gennard" <stephen.gennard@somewhere.over.the.rainbow.com> wrote in
message news:dldtmj$gdp$1@hyperion.microfocus.com...
> Sun may not make money out of the Java SDK but it does make money out of
> connected products such as:
>
>... [product list]...
Not exactly a new concept.
Over the many years of its existence Gillette has sponsored thousands of
'free razor' promotions.
But you've never seen a 'free razor *blades*' promotion , have you?
MCM
| |
| Judson McClendon 2005-11-16, 6:55 pm |
| "Michael Mattias" <michael.mattias@gte.net> wrote:
>
> Over the many years of its existence Gillette has sponsored thousands of
> 'free razor' promotions.
>
> But you've never seen a 'free razor *blades*' promotion , have you?
Inkjet printer companies are using similar marketing techniques these days.
Inkjet printers are dirt cheap, they even give them away with new PCs. But
ink cartridges cost an arm and a leg.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| James J. Gavan 2005-11-16, 6:55 pm |
| Judson McClendon wrote:
> "Michael Mattias" <michael.mattias@gte.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Inkjet printer companies are using similar marketing techniques these days.
> Inkjet printers are dirt cheap, they even give them away with new PCs. But
> ink cartridges cost an arm and a leg.
No they don't cost an arm and a leg - they cost a bloody fortune.
Have one of those HP all-in-one laser printer, fax, scan, photo-copy
etc. Nice piece of equipment. Still "liquid" cartridges though.
The Win 98 machine failed me so had to upgrade to a Win XP. Went to load
the CD driver for the HP - "No can do", they chirruped. "We've made too
many enhancements. Either download or get a fresh CD from us to
upgrade". I don't think a cost came into it. "Oh hell. I don't want to
jigger around". Part of the XP deal was a Lexmark laser, el cheapo for
$100. I'll go with that.
Soon found out I was starting to buy lots of cartridges. Wife's friend
in a messy divorce, moves out and in temporary apartment gets a low cost
XP. But she's not yet connected for e-mailing, Webbing. So I gallantly
offer to receive her e-mail. She's got a low-paying job with Hallmark,
"card-stuffer". Temps who go around retailers and replenish the Hallmark
stands with fresh cards.
Boy ! Are the Hallmark Area Manager and female supervisor switched on to
the niceties of computing. After every conceivable thought, they are out
e-mailing their some 30 card-stuffers with needed info and a lot of
irrelevant crap. So I print, with Preferences, back-to-back, in black
only and Low quality (Quick Print). Where I receive a threesome from
Hallmark I've gotten cute and copy the relevant text for all three into
Notepad and then print.
Regardless of what I do consumption on the cartridge is like feeding
strawberries to a bloody donkey ! We have small kiosks in the shopping
malls, franchises, which I bet started in the States. "Ink Jet Island"
or some such title. They do a roaring trade just doing refills, max of
two per cartridge; however let the original "ink" run too low and you
are SOL for a re-fill - doesn't work. (One tip though - if it's a 'good'
cartridge not currently working, gently put the bottom in booze like
vodka to soften up the "ink" - just touching booze, not immersed in it.
Then gently wipe off residue and give it a try, having firstly tried to
manually tap an imprint onto a spare piece of paper).
It's the local kiosk that wised me up. They consistently get complaints
from consumers about the cheapy printers - how quickly the "ink" is
exhausted. I didn't realize - Xerox - back in my accounting days 61'-'63
before becoming a systems analyst, for an office of some 200 people
(Accounts Receivable) we had ONE Xerox machine where you lined up and
could photo ONE copy. So much progression in computing, I thought the
Xerox approach was old hat. No so - there is a breed of printers that
use those Xerox-style powder cartridges. They cost a bit more, but the
'kiosk' said wait for a promotional flyer, when they are marked down.
Only snag, the initial cartridge for black powder comes at $200 a crack,
but last for .......... Well certainly longer than the damn things I'm
using. Haven't yet gone back and asked how they handle coloured powder
cartridges.
As for the "ink" cartridges, isn't it HP who do big sales in them ? Saw
an article couple of months back. Woman suing HP (?) for $zillions -
claiming they falsely advertise, (Print Progression Dialog), the
cartridge is low on "ink" when in fact it is still about 25% full.
When's that next sale in this part of the Great White North .....?
Jimmy, Calgary AB
| |
|
| James J. Gavan wrote:
> Only read in the paper last night, there's now the ability to hang
> advertisements on to youse bloggers' messages. They've already coined a
> new word to convey blog spammer, but can't recollect it.
Heh - I'll put ads on my website when I lose my mind... As far as I
know, my personal blog will always be ad-free. They bug me - not *once*
have I seen one that made me think "oh - I was going to go _there_, but
now I think I'll go _here_!"
> Cindy Sheehan - very, very vaguely sort of recall the name - spell out
> the connection/background - might wake my memory cells up.
She was the mom whose son died in Iraq, and 1 1/2 years later, decided
to camp out just outside President Bush's Crawford, TX ranch, until he
would "meet with her". Seems as though she'd already met him, and was
quite amicable. Now, though, she's extremely anti-war. That's all well
and good, but I resented her painting her son as a victim. (It's all in
the currently "top" post at http://www.djs-consulting.com/personal -
don't want to veer too much more into political stuff in here.)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
|
| docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <60598$437a9c7b$45491c57$10191@KNOLOGY.NET>,
> LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
>
> Must... resist... cheap... shot... no... pull... too... strong... oh,
> really? I hadn't noticed all that much change in your coherency (or lack
> thereof)!
Yeah - and that's just the stuff I actually posted. You ought to see
the stuff I *didn't* post... :)
> (sorry... next... time... will... try... to... stick... to... talking...
> like... William... Shatner...)
Durn it, doc, I'm a programmer, not a doctor!
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
|
| Judson McClendon wrote:
> "Michael Mattias" <michael.mattias@gte.net> wrote:
>
>
> Inkjet printer companies are using similar marketing techniques these days.
> Inkjet printers are dirt cheap, they even give them away with new PCs. But
> ink cartridges cost an arm and a leg.
Along those lines, we shopped cartridges, *then* got a printer. The HP
cartridges were almost $10 cheaper than Epson and Lexmark. And it's
printed great - my wife has even started making custom stationery with
it. :)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| James J. Gavan 2005-11-17, 3:55 am |
| LX-i wrote:
> James J. Gavan wrote:
>
>
> She was the mom whose son died in Iraq, and 1 1/2 years later, decided
> to camp out just outside President Bush's Crawford, TX ranch, until he
> would "meet with her". Seems as though she'd already met him, and was
> quite amicable. Now, though, she's extremely anti-war. That's all well
> and good, but I resented her painting her son as a victim. (It's all in
> the currently "top" post at http://www.djs-consulting.com/personal -
> don't want to veer too much more into political stuff in here.)
>
Gotcha Daniel. The name was vaguely familiar - now I remember. Thanks.
Jimmy
| |
| defaultuser 2005-11-17, 3:55 am |
| "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:osHef.215$i7.134@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> "Michael Mattias" <michael.mattias@gte.net> wrote:
So technically it's not a promotion and Gillette is not happy, but still,
there they are :
http://www.freerazor.com/
[color=darkred]
> Inkjet printer companies are using similar marketing techniques these
> days. Inkjet printers are dirt cheap, they even give them away with new
> PCs. But ink cartridges cost an arm and a leg.
Funny thing is that most people don't realize that it actually ends up
cheaper to take your photos on cd to a photo processing lab to make decent
copies. The irony of people thinking they're saving money makes me feel
warm and fuzzy inside.
> Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
> Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
> "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
> whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
|
| In article <f0012$437bf710$45491c57$12006@KNOLOGY.NET>,
LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>Yeah - and that's just the stuff I actually posted. You ought to see
>the stuff I *didn't* post... :)
Best left in the diapers/nappies, eh?
>
>
>Durn it, doc, I'm a programmer, not a doctor!
I always heard those lines as 'I'm a doctor, not a physician!'
DD
| |
|
| In article <a599d$437bf7aa$45491c57$12006@KNOLOGY.NET>,
LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
[snip]
>Along those lines, we shopped cartridges, *then* got a printer.
I use http://www.printpal.com/ ... but I don't do so much printing that
I've discovered any inferior qualities to the product.
DD
| |
| Judson McClendon 2005-11-17, 6:55 pm |
| "defaultuser" <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Funny thing is that most people don't realize that it actually ends up
> cheaper to take your photos on cd to a photo processing lab to make decent
> copies. The irony of people thinking they're saving money makes me feel
> warm and fuzzy inside.
Even cheaper is to upload the photos to a photo service. Here in the US, the
Wal-Mart price for 4"x6" prints is $.12 online and $.15 on CD.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| HeyBub 2005-11-17, 9:55 pm |
| Michael Mattias wrote:
> "Stephen Gennard" <stephen.gennard@somewhere.over.the.rainbow.com>
> wrote in message news:dldtmj$gdp$1@hyperion.microfocus.com...
>
> Not exactly a new concept.
>
> Over the many years of its existence Gillette has sponsored thousands
> of 'free razor' promotions.
>
> But you've never seen a 'free razor *blades*' promotion , have you?
"Give away the razor, sell the blades" marketing model has been replaced
with "Give away the phone, sell the minutes" mantra.
Gillette DID give away blades, though. When the company went to all
stainless blades, they had a warehouse in New Jersey full (millions upon
millions) of now-obsolete "Blue Blades." They hired a salvage company to
load hundreds of tons of razor blades on ocean-going barges for dumping at
sea.
In due course, the barge company reported "mission accomplished" and
collected their fee.
The barge company was mafia-controlled.
For several years Gillette wondered how drug stores and grocers up and down
the northeast could sell BlueBlades so cheaply.
| |
|
| defaultuser wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
> news:osHef.215$i7.134@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>
>
> Funny thing is that most people don't realize that it actually ends up
> cheaper to take your photos on cd to a photo processing lab to make decent
> copies. The irony of people thinking they're saving money makes me feel
> warm and fuzzy inside.
See, if you went to work for one of those companies, you could feel all
warm and fuzzy inside *and* profit from it at the same time!
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
|
| docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <f0012$437bf710$45491c57$12006@KNOLOGY.NET>,
> LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
> I always heard those lines as 'I'm a doctor, not a physician!'
He might have said that once or twice - I don't know, it's been so long
since I've seen them. I'd be surprised if some of the Original Series
isn't on DVD. Maybe when finally subscribe to Netflix, I can rent them
and watch again. :)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| Judson McClendon 2005-11-23, 6:55 pm |
| "Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Just read your blog about Cindy Sheehan (that's two of us now). I agree
> with you whole-heartedly. We have people in the UK behaving much as CS
> is in the US and their message appears to be "bring the boys home now".
> Is it just me or do others feel that by withdrawing now then we will
> disrespect the sacrifices made by servicemen already?
I would prefer to deal with the terrorists with our military on their soil
than with our civilians on our soil. The U.S. came through two world wars
with our homeland virtually unscathed because the wars were (fortuitously
for us) fought mostly on the other guy's turf. Look at what happened to
Europe, Russia, China and Japan. It doesn't take a genius to see which way
is preferable. In fact, you have to be pretty stupid not to see it.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| James J. Gavan 2005-11-23, 6:55 pm |
| Alistair wrote:
> Just read your blog about Cindy Sheehan (that's two of us now). I agree
> with you whole-heartedly. We have people in the UK behaving much as CS
> is in the US and their message appears to be "bring the boys home now".
> Is it just me or do others feel that by withdrawing now then we will
> disrespect the sacrifices made by servicemen already?
>
Well I wont be reading his blog again, or any other blog for that matter.
You comment is so enticing, that's why I *try* and stay away from
c.l.c., it becomes so time consuming. Yes I recently jumped back in,
particularly feeling for Judson on the 'Runtimes'. I read this thinking,
he's not been here for sometime, what pearls of wisdom is Alistair going
to drop into my lughole about Java - bugger all :-)
So very, very briefly on your question. INCREDIBLE IMPLICATIONS for the
US AND the Western World, no matter how this one turns out. You will
recall the Vietnam pullout - much loss of face for the US. But this time
around, the Islamists, particularly, will see that the WEST has lost
both credibility and will.
Wanna bet - it will NOT occur in the last two years of Dubya's tenure.
Perhaps not the next four years after, but some slight possibility it
*might* occur in the next four. While Judson likes the idea of playing
war games away from home, very sensible - it is no longer that simple.
Remembering nobody is officially at war - but having stirred the Islamic
hornets' nest we are in for a very long rough ride.
Guys, better get Dick Cheyney up here real quick to look at our oil
reserves. Funding is there, but there needs to be some positive shoving
on creating new pipelines. There's one route already goes south-east
from Calgary, across Canada, landing up in Bill Klein's backyard. No pun
intended, there's a pipedream - Alberta all the way to Texas.
What held us back was the sheer cost of extracting the oil from the
sand. Now at $50 plus per barrel it's viable - with a 400 years supply
for you folks.
(Alistair just told me a month ago, by an ex-Brit - want a new career -
the Tarsands oil companies are advertising in N. England for welders 50K
pounds sterling = $120,000 CDN. Not bad pickings for holding a lighted
torch. Dammit, even a dishwasher up there makes $60K - but probably
shells out $30K for rent to get at the extremely limited accommodation
). Distance-wise good 8-10 hours north of Calgary by car.
Remember, you don't just nip around to the nearest hardware store for a
bit of piping. Planning, land acquisition for the route, and
construction. At best a pipedream today is only going to turn into a
reality some ten years from now. That date might just dovetail into the
pullout date from Iraq - just when the US needs a new source for oil.
There was an incredibly interesting six-part series in the Calgary
Herald on the Athabasca Tarsands - full of statistics I can't remember,
$BILLIONS involved, treated like Monopoly money. Firstly they've
clarified now, second largest reserve behind Saudi Arabia, and the size
of Florida. Huge economic pay-offs, not just to Alberta but Eastern
Canada as well as the US. Down in the States Caterpillar maufactures the
HUGE Tonka toys they now use for scraping off just the top 25%; they
still have to devise the technology to get at the remainder. Note the
word 'scraping' - so we are scarring the area - so as well as pluses
there is the downside like environmental concerns.
Jimmy
| |
|
| Alistair wrote:
> Just read your blog about Cindy Sheehan (that's two of us now). I agree
> with you whole-heartedly. We have people in the UK behaving much as CS
> is in the US and their message appears to be "bring the boys home now".
> Is it just me or do others feel that by withdrawing now then we will
> disrespect the sacrifices made by servicemen already?
>
I guess that's directed at me. :) Finishing the job is the only way to
go. Which is worse - thinking your son died for a war you disagree
with, or that he died for nothing (which would be the net effect if we
left and the Iraqi democracy failed - I'm not sure that the former would
cause the latter, but it would be a lot better if we just stayed the
course until it's done).
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| Howard Brazee 2005-11-29, 6:55 pm |
| On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 22:31:40 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>I guess that's directed at me. :) Finishing the job is the only way to
>go. Which is worse - thinking your son died for a war you disagree
>with, or that he died for nothing (which would be the net effect if we
>left and the Iraqi democracy failed - I'm not sure that the former would
>cause the latter, but it would be a lot better if we just stayed the
>course until it's done).
Most people who disagree with the war believe that the war will not
accomplish those goals. In this case, there is no "worse", as both
options are the same.
| |
| Judson McClendon 2005-11-29, 6:55 pm |
| "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> Most people who disagree with the war believe that the war will not
> accomplish those goals. In this case, there is no "worse", as both
> options are the same.
Neville Chamberlain was such a chap. Apparently there are a lot of people
who simply cannot understand that, as horrible as war is, it is sometimes
necessary to avoid something much worse. Thank God not everybody feels that
way, or the Sadams & Hitlers & Stalins of this world would have a perpetual
heyday. One of the reasons the world is as bad as it is, is that we don't
confront and deal with such people soon enough. Remember Rwanda, Kosovo and
scores of other atrocities? Too often the world stands by and watches while
innocent citizens are slaughtered. Now, when someone is finally trying to
deal with terrorists on a global scale, we hear this constant whining about
this or that problem. It makes me sick. Of course there are problems! We
live in an imperfect world; there are *always* problems. Since the dawn of
history, Mankind has made no significant effort, has accomplished no
significant thing, without mistakes and errors and frequent loss of life.
Even large civil engineering projects often cost lives, for Heaven's sake!
No matter what approach the US and our allies took toward dealing with
terrorists, there would be mistakes, problems and loss of life, because
major efforts made by human beings are always that way. Yet some people
stand critically aloof, acting and speaking as if *they* could fix the
terrorist problem with no mistakes, no failures, no loss of life. What
unbelievable, shortsighted, blind-to-self arrogance and lack of
understanding and honesty!
Any time people do bad things, other people suffer. And when those bad
people are brought to account, other people suffer then, too. When you
apprehend a criminal, he or she probably has loved ones out there who
suffer, and law enforcement people often suffer and die in the process. But
we must realize that it is not enforcement that is at fault, it is simply
another unavoidable consequence of the bad actions of the perpetrator.
Failure to prosecute criminals, either in law enforcement, or on a global
scale, is far worse in the long run than taking them out, whatever the cost.
The sooner you do it, the better. And no one since the beginning of time has
ever done it without error or without pain. Unfortunately, many people do
not understand these facts. But they are facts nonetheless, whatever people
choose to believe.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Peter Lacey 2005-11-29, 6:55 pm |
| Judson McClendon wrote:
> Neville Chamberlain was such a chap. Apparently there are a lot of people
> who simply cannot understand that, as horrible as war is, it is sometimes
> necessary to avoid something much worse.
My father was there at the time. When Chamberlain came back from Munich
with his "Peace in our time" document, father said that all they felt
about it was cynicism. Anybody that thought about it knew they'd have
to take Hitler on sooner or later.
(Assuming that "Sun Valley" is the one in the US, then the following is
directed to you, Judson. If not, then my apologies).
And I'd remind you that it was promised in the States at the time that
they wouldn't get involved in war again; that a vast amount of public
opinion was prepared to let Europe go under and to deal with Hitler in a
business relationship; and it wasn't until Pearl Harbour that the US
went to war. There was precious little will in the US at the time to
get after Stalin or Hitler: only after the US's direct interests were
involved did the country wake up.
>Now, when someone is finally trying to
> deal with terrorists on a global scale, we hear this constant whining about
> this or that problem.
On a global scale? Iraq and Afghanistan? Neither of which had a hope
in hell of resisting a conventional armed attack .. global? Don't make
me barf.
Why not attack Saudi Arabia, where al-Qaida (sp) originates and is
supported? Why not North Korea, which does represent a definite threat
to world peace? Or even China, which over the long term will very
likely replace the US as THE global power?
> No matter what approach the US and our allies took toward dealing with
> terrorists, there would be mistakes, problems and loss of life, because
> major efforts made by human beings are always that way. Yet some people
> stand critically aloof, acting and speaking as if *they* could fix the
> terrorist problem with no mistakes, no failures, no loss of life. What
> unbelievable, shortsighted, blind-to-self arrogance and lack of
> understanding and honesty!
>
"If you want to make an omelette, you have to break eggs". All fine,
but suppose you had no business making an omelette in the first place?
Your president lied and quoted myths to justify his invasion of Iraq;
now he's making your country more and more fascist in order to keep
criticism under control. I certainly wouldn't want to live in a country
ruled by a Saddam, for sure, but I'd have to have run out of
alternatives before I'd want to live in a George Bush country.
pl
| |
| Judson McClendon 2005-11-29, 6:55 pm |
| "Peter Lacey" <lacey@mts.net> wrote:
> Judson McClendon wrote:
>
>
> My father was there at the time. When Chamberlain came back from Munich
> with his "Peace in our time" document, father said that all they felt
> about it was cynicism. Anybody that thought about it knew they'd have
> to take Hitler on sooner or later.
>
> (Assuming that "Sun Valley" is the one in the US, then the following is
> directed to you, Judson. If not, then my apologies).
>
> And I'd remind you that it was promised in the States at the time that
> they wouldn't get involved in war again; that a vast amount of public
> opinion was prepared to let Europe go under and to deal with Hitler in a
> business relationship; and it wasn't until Pearl Harbour that the US
> went to war. There was precious little will in the US at the time to
> get after Stalin or Hitler: only after the US's direct interests were
> involved did the country wake up.
You are quite correct. I was not trying to imply that the US has always been
on the right side of these issues. However, France and England could, and
should, have delt with Hitler much earlier, and much easier. After all he
was in their back yard. Their delays in dealing with Hitler cost millions of
lives.
>
> On a global scale? Iraq and Afghanistan? Neither of which had a hope
> in hell of resisting a conventional armed attack .. global? Don't make
> me barf.
Give me a break! You've got to start somewhere.
> Why not attack Saudi Arabia, where al-Qaida (sp) originates and is
> supported? Why not North Korea, which does represent a definite threat
> to world peace? Or even China, which over the long term will very
> likely replace the US as THE global power?
Good questions. As I said, these things never proceed perfectly. All we can
expect of any leader is that they do their best, and we must realize they
will never will be perfect. In my personal opinion, Bush is doing his best
to do exactly what he said he would.
>
> "If you want to make an omelette, you have to break eggs". All fine,
> but suppose you had no business making an omelette in the first place?
Not sure exactly what you mean by "had no business." But we have 3,000 dead
citizens that gives us the right make sure it does not happen again, to the
best of our ability.
> Your president lied and quoted myths to justify his invasion of Iraq;
Bush was going on the same intelligence that England and a number of other
countries had, and they agreed with him at the time. Now you nit pickers
want to make him out a liar because the intelligence was flawed. Hear this:
Intelligence like that is *always* flawed. The US was in posession of
intelligence before Pearl Harbor that showed Japan was going to attack. The
problem is, there were literally thousands of other intelligence items, and
the entire picture wasn't that clear, to Roosevelt at the time. Like I
said - the world is imperfect. Get used to it.
> now he's making your country more and more fascist in order to keep
> criticism under control. I certainly wouldn't want to live in a country
> ruled by a Saddam, for sure, but I'd have to have run out of
> alternatives before I'd want to live in a George Bush country.
Great, stay where you are. We have plenty of nay-sayers and nit pickers here
already. :-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Judson McClendon 2005-11-29, 6:55 pm |
| "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>
> Yes, but Chamberlain bought a year of time in which England brought
> into production enough Spitfires and Hurricanes and trained enough
> pilots to win the BofB when it came (while France had crippling strikes
> in its plane and tank factories).
And had England and/or France confronted Hitler when he first started
breaking the Armistice agreements from WWI, it would have nipped the whole
thing in the bud and saved millions of lives. Better late than never, but
better sooner than later.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| James J. Gavan 2005-11-29, 6:55 pm |
| Peter Lacey wrote:
> Judson McClendon wrote:
>
> "If you want to make an omelette, you have to break eggs". All fine,
> but suppose you had no business making an omelette in the first place?
> Your president lied and quoted myths to justify his invasion of Iraq;
> now he's making your country more and more fascist in order to keep
> criticism under control. I certainly wouldn't want to live in a country
> ruled by a Saddam, for sure, but I'd have to have run out of
> alternatives before I'd want to live in a George Bush country.
>
Not quite sure what this has to do with 'Making money from Java'. But
there's me buddy above, a Canuck located in Winterpeg, Manitoba I think.
And he's the one who quipped to me in a private e-mail, "You're too
close to 'em to be making those comments :-)". Well Peter, better start
looking, see if there's a plot going for sale on a reservation further
up North.
And with due deference to our friends south of the 49th, I pointedly
make an attempt to spell it 'Pearl Harbor'.
I know both Judson and Daniel have their hearts in the right place
- I'll type a quote, from what I thought was a very unlikely source.
Stay tuned.
Jimmy
| |
| James J. Gavan 2005-11-29, 6:55 pm |
| Richard wrote:
>
>
> Yes, but Chamberlain bought a year of time in which England brought
> into production enough Spitfires and Hurricanes and trained enough
> pilots to win the BofB when it came (while France had crippling strikes
> in its plane and tank factories).
>
Well the net effect was 'that he bought that year', but I don't think
deliberately. He was an honest man, probably already suffering initial
stages of cancer, but he was no match for the thugs he met at
Berchesgarten. Difficult to gage his cabinet but Winston didn't just
walk into the premiership. Seems initial choice was Lord Halifax the
Foreign Minister who would have done a 'quisling' like Petain in France
or Quisling himself in Norway.
Watch me make this thread really go off at a tangent. I dislike
intensely the word GAGE above. Amongst other things the Mozilla American
English spellchecker is always changing my words, creating absolute
confusion in my mind. I really must download the English English
spellchecker. I checked the OED small edition and 'GAGE' and 'GUAGE'
have entirely different meanings - and 'gage' is not what I'm on about.
So you linguistic afficianados - Chuck and Bill both being prime
candidates - go for it !
Jimmy
| |
| James J. Gavan 2005-11-29, 6:55 pm |
| In-Reply-To: <4z3jf.26$Pc3.14@bignews5.bellsouth.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <Wt4jf.651481$1i.75223@pd7tw2no>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 22:19:34 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.71.223.147
X-Complaints-To: abuse@shaw.ca
X-Trace: pd7tw2no 1133302774 24.71.223.147 (Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:19:34 MST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:19:34 MST
Organization: Shaw Residential Internet
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.cobol:152855
Judson McClendon wrote:
> "Peter Lacey" <lacey@mts.net> wrote:
>
[color=darkred]
> You are quite correct. I was not trying to imply that the US has always been
> on the right side of these issues. However, France and England could, and
> should, have delt with Hitler much earlier, and much easier. After all he
> was in their back yard. Their delays in dealing with Hitler cost millions of
> lives.
You are quite correct too. But you must remember that in the Britain of
the Thirties there was only one lonely voice in the wilderness who truly
comprehended, and his 'lectures' in the House of Commons went unheeded,
or were scoffed at - Winston Churchill.
>
>
> Give me a break! You've got to start somewhere.
Who was it took over from my favourtie guy Jimmy C - Ronald Reagan. If
you really wanted to start somewhere, howz about Persia/Iran. I think
life might perhaps have been a little simpler now.
Jimmy
| |
| Judson McClendon 2005-11-29, 6:55 pm |
| "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Judson McClendon wrote:
>
>
> You are quite correct too. But you must remember that in the Britain of
> the Thirties there was only one lonely voice in the wilderness who truly
> comprehended, and his 'lectures' in the House of Commons went unheeded, or
> were scoffed at - Winston Churchill.
>
>
> Who was it took over from my favourtie guy Jimmy C - Ronald Reagan. If you
> really wanted to start somewhere, howz about Persia/Iran. I think life
> might perhaps have been a little simpler now.
You may be right. I try to remember that we common folk just aren't privy to
all the intelligence, by a long shot. Those decisions are probably a lot
more difficult to make from where the President of the US sits. I can only
imagine the thousands of pieces of information on a truly vast panorama of
issues that must be presented to Bush and other leaders for assimilation.
It's pretty obvious to me that, unless something unexpected happens, we're
going to have to take on Iran, and maybe North Korea, eventually. Hopefully
the new democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq will flourish, and the citizens
of other Middle Eastern countries will fix their own governments as well.
Much better than having to take governments down militarily. I fear that
China and Russia will not put enough pressure on North Korea to get them to
abandon their nuclear program, because they like NK being a thorn in the
sides of the US, Taiwan and Japan. The Iranian government is fanatical and
oppressive buy any standard, but KIM Jong Il is well and truly nuts. God
help us if any of these maniacs start throwing nukes.
Don't know if you knew, or maybe forgot, but your buddy Jimmy C made it
Official US Government Policy that the US *would* resort to nukes, if
necessary to protect our access to the oil fields in the Middle East. At the
time, there was great concern that the USSR would make a grab for them, and
Carter was trying to head that off.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Chuck Stevens 2005-11-29, 6:55 pm |
|
"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Yk4jf.649505$oW2.279421@pd7tw1no...
> Watch me make this thread really go off at a tangent. I dislike intensely
> the word GAGE above. Amongst other things the Mozilla American English
> spellchecker is always changing my words, creating absolute confusion in
> my mind. I really must download the English English spellchecker. I
> checked the OED small edition and 'GAGE' and 'GUAGE' have entirely
> different meanings - and 'gage' is not what I'm on about. So you
> linguistic afficianados - Chuck and Bill both being prime candidates - go
> for it !
Well, hey. Far be it from me to turn down a linguistics question.
Webster's Ninth Collegiate lists "gage" in this context simply as "var of
gauge". I agree, and prefer "gauge" as I do most primary spellings over
alternatives and variants. I never use "gage" in any of the other senses
that that dictionary lists.
Now, as to "guage", I'll have to rely on your citation of the OED (small or
great) for that one. The same Webster's Ninth has nothing between
"guacharo" and "guaiac". ;-)
-Chuck Stevens
| |
| Judson McClendon 2005-11-29, 6:55 pm |
| "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> Who was it took over from my favourtie guy Jimmy C
I just remembered once driving by the Peanut Farmer's house in the
neighboring state of Georgia. My Mom an Dad really liked Carter, and I took
them by. This was either while, or shortly after, he was in office, and
there were obvious security emplacements around. Difficult place to secure,
because the house was not far back from the road.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| James J. Gavan 2005-11-29, 6:55 pm |
| LX-i wrote:
> Alistair wrote:
>
>
> I guess that's directed at me. :) Finishing the job is the only way to
> go. Which is worse - thinking your son died for a war you disagree
> with, or that he died for nothing (which would be the net effect if we
> left and the Iraqi democracy failed - I'm not sure that the former would
> cause the latter, but it would be a lot better if we just stayed the
> course until it's done).
>
Daniel and Judson,
There was a time when Britain could boastfully claim, "The sun never
sets on the British Empire"; pick up a globe of the world and so much of
it was painted in pink. What is related below occurred during the last
death throes of colonialism and although still living in the UK at the
time, I've totally forgotten the sequence of events. Whether the author
is correct in his comparisons, I just don't know.
Food for thought :-
...............................
"It has become fashionable to remark that Iraq is turning into another
Vietnam. No so. It is fundamentally different from that jungle-clothed
country with its communist-led and united resistance. But is it looking
remarkably like colonial Aden and what happened there. Consider the
similarities.
- British occupying Aden against wishes of 90% of Arab people whose
hellhole it properly was (ditto Iraq)
- The resistance were divided into two movements FLOSY and FLN, who
loathed each other but could unite against us (ditto Iraq)
- Whole areas of city of Aden and hinterland off-limits and visitable
only in armoured columns (ditto)
- Insurrectionists made plain once we were gone they would takeover and
have a civil war (ditto and happened in case of Aden)
- Collaborators with us occupiers existed only in boltholes protected by
us (ditto)
- Collaborators realizing they were dead if/when we left, began
vaporising either changing sides or getting out (ditto)
- We claimed we would hand it all over when they had a
democratically-elected government (ditto)
- British-trained native police completely infiltrated and wholly
unreliable (ditto)
- The steady loss of our servicemen to no apparent purpose , except to
save politicians' faces, sapped morale and empowered rising criticism at
home (ditto)
- Finally British Establishment, never the sharpest knives in the
cutlery drawer, asked the same question everyone else had been asking
for the past two years: "What exactly are we dong there?" (Not yet, but
soon)....
.....When we finally left Aden in '67 our rearguard practically had to
fight its way off the dock as the wolves emerged from their alleys....
We simply have to face three questions over Iraq and stop ducking :-
1 - Is the situation getting steadily better, or steadily worse ? Only
Iraqi/Anglo/Yankee politicians say the former. Every detached observer
says the reverse.
2 - Iraq is a Muslim country. Occupation by Christians, even to keep the
peace, is offensive. Would a multi-ethnic peacekeeping force. drawn from
Islam, under the sign of the crescent and with considerable economic
help, (cheap at the price), not do better ?
3 - Do we really need Iraqi crude oil ? Our only future is to be free of
hydrocarbons fuels.... ( then he makes a play for nuclear power - which
gives me a touch of the shudders).... The 100th British soldier will
come home in a coffin soon. Time to start thinking of alternatives and a
real timed exit strategy.
.............
I think you have already hit your 2,000th mark in the States ?
Above, are those the meanderings of a 'bleeding heart' left-wing leaning
Liberal or perhaps from the pen of a strident Socialist screaming "Love
not War !". Not so. Page Down.
Published in the very right-wing tabloid 'International Express' by a
conservative columnist - in fact a right-wing conservative. He spews
blood each time he puts the following letters to paper : Tony Blair. And
the author is not unknown, he wrote the novel 'Day of the Jackal' -
Frederick Forsyth.
Jimmy
| |
| Judson McClendon 2005-11-29, 6:55 pm |
| "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>
> That is unlikely to be true. WWII did not start in 1939 or 1941 but
> much earlier for example in Spain in 1936 and China in the early 30s.
> Intervening more forcefully against Germany would merely have escalated
> the war earlier before England was ready (France was never ready). As
> it happens America blockading Japan's oil shipments in 1940 simply
> brought forward the date when Japan and USA clashed to December
> 1941 and did not 'nip in the bud' Japanese expansion plans.
When Hitler first began to expand Germany's military, shortly after grabbing
power in 1933, it would have been fairly easy for England or France to have
stopped him, even with military intervention, if necessary. Better military
intervention in 1933-34 than full scale war in 1939-45. Japan was a
different - the US was simply not in position to impose its will entirely on
Japan in 1940, or the early 30's. Japan was too far away and the US did not
have the military resources in the Pacific to back it up. But England and
France sure could have done so to Germany in 1933-34, because Germany was
not in position to defend itself, until after Hitler's military buildup had
progressed.
Surely you aren't trying to suggest it was better to wait until after
Germany invaded Poland? Even then, England and France didn't really do much
except get ready, until Germany invaded France.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Chuck Stevens 2005-11-29, 6:55 pm |
|
"James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:EF5jf.652377$1i.549767@pd7tw2no...
> 3 - Do we really need Iraqi crude oil ?
Well, it's not just Iraqi crude oil. I remember a few little fires in
Kuwait, and thus, I'd be inclined to think it's Kuwaiti, Iranian, Arabian
and Syrian crude oil that need to be counted in the Iraq equation.
> Our only future is to be free of hydrocarbons fuels....
Ultimately I think that's true, and I think that future is virtually if not
completely unattainable in any effective timeframe.
Whether that means, or forms a component of, the End of the World As We Know
It remains to be seen; I know many who seem to think so, and are girding
themselves for the Great Destruction. But that gets us off into
theology-land, and I'd rather not spend a whole lot of energy there in this
forum. My personal view is that if it is, it is, and nothing we do
individually or collectively will do anything effective to prevent it.
-Chuck Stevens
| |
| Judson McClendon 2005-11-29, 6:55 pm |
| "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Daniel and Judson,
>
> There was a time when Britain could boastfully claim, "The sun never sets
> on the British Empire"; pick up a globe of the world and so much of it was
> painted in pink. What is related below occurred during the last death
> throes of colonialism and although still living in the UK at the time,
> I've totally forgotten the sequence of events. Whether the author is
> correct in his comparisons, I just don't know.
He is way off target, Jimmy. Most of the Iraqis are happy the US is there,
and most of the terrorists are from other countries. Remember, they are
bombing Iraqi hospitals and other innocent civilians too, and the Iraqis
don't like that any better than we would. Among my network of friends are a
number of serviceman serving in Iraq, and they tell an *entirely* different
story than the leftist news media. Did you know that in numerous surveys
over the years, something like 98% if the people in the US news media vote
Democrat (liberal)? Talk about biased! And foreign (non US) news media are
even worse, particularly in Europe. Europeans, unless they get Fox News,
never, ever get to hear the positive things going on in Iraq, like the
extensive progress we have made in rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure. And
because Fox News is virtually alone out there, Europeans think they are
brainwashed. And Fox News isn't even conservative, they're really pretty
neutral. Here in the US, Fox News trounces every other cable news service,
combined.
> Food for thought :-
>
> "It has become fashionable to remark that Iraq is turning into another
> Vietnam. No so. It is fundamentally different from that jungle-clothed
> country with its communist-led and united resistance. But is it looking
> remarkably like colonial Aden and what happened there. Consider the
> similarities.
>
> - British occupying Aden against wishes of 90% of Arab people whose
> hellhole it properly was (ditto Iraq)
This is a plain lie, as I said above. The majority of Iraqi citizens want us
there, until the job is done.
> - The resistance were divided into two movements FLOSY and FLN, who
> loathed each other but could unite against us (ditto Iraq)
It isn't mostly Iraqis who are attacking us there. The terrorists,
particularly the inciters, mostly come from other countries.
> - Whole areas of city of Aden and hinterland off-limits and visitable only
> in armoured columns (ditto)
Whole areas of Iraq aren't having these problems, too. You never hear about
them in the media.
> 1 - Is the situation getting steadily better, or steadily worse ? Only
> Iraqi/Anglo/Yankee politicians say the former. Every detached observer
> says the reverse.
This is another outright lie. I know lots of sources, there on the ground,
who insist we are making very good progress in lots of areas. Yes, we
continue to have attacks, but these kind of attacks were far, far worse
against occupation forces in Europe after WWII, and lasted for years. People
like to forget that little detail. And the terrorist attacks aren't
everything that's going on over there. Didn't these same people say there
wouldn't be an election in Afghanistan, then that there wouldn't be one in
Iraq. At some point it becomes obvious these people wouldn't see 'better' if
it came up and bit them.
> 2 - Iraq is a Muslim country. Occupation by Christians, even to keep the
> peace, is offensive. Would a multi-ethnic peacekeeping force. drawn from
> Islam, under the sign of the crescent and with considerable economic help,
> (cheap at the price), not do better ?
Iraq isn't Iran. There was never in recent times the religious fanatacism in
Iraq that we've seen in e.g. Iran. Most of the fanaticism we see in Iraq is
imported from Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. BTW - much of the population of Iran,
and for some reason, especially the younger people, really like the US. It
is the ruling Mulas, not the general population, who so hate the US. I
gurantee you won't hear that in the European media!
> 3 - Do we really need Iraqi crude oil ? Our only future is to be free of
> hydrocarbons fuels.... ( then he makes a play for nuclear power - which
> gives me a touch of the shudders).... The 100th British soldier will come
> home in a coffin soon. Time to start thinking of alternatives and a real
> timed exit strategy.
Duh! It's not about the oil, it's about making sure the US or anybody else
doesn't see another 9/11.
> Above, are those the meanderings of a 'bleeding heart' left-wing leaning
> Liberal or perhaps from the pen of a strident Socialist screaming "Love
> not War !". Not so. Page Down.
>
> Published in the very right-wing tabloid 'International Express' by a
> conservative columnist - in fact a right-wing conservative. He spews blood
> each time he puts the following letters to paper : Tony Blair. And the
> author is not unknown, he wrote the novel 'Day of the Jackal' - Frederick
> Forsyth.
Then he's been listening too much to the left wing liberal media, or he's a
pacifist. In this area, he is poorly informed. :-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Peter Lacey 2005-11-29, 6:55 pm |
| "James J. Gavan" wrote:
>
> Watch me make this thread really go off at a tangent. I dislike
> intensely the word GAGE above. Amongst other things the Mozilla American
> English spellchecker is always changing my words, creating absolute
> confusion in my mind. I really must download the English English
> spellchecker. I checked the OED small edition and 'GAGE' and 'GUAGE'
> have entirely different meanings - and 'gage' is not what I'm on about.
> So you linguistic afficianados - Chuck and Bill both being prime
> candidates - go for it !
>
> Jimmy
I have a 1958 US dictionary: it says that "gage" means a pledge to fight
or a challenge; or a pledge, period; also an alternative spelling for
gauge. Seems to me it's also a peach or a pear or something.
Can't you stop your spell checker changing things? I don't allow my
servants that much liberty!
PL
| |
| Peter Lacey 2005-11-29, 9:55 pm |
| Judson McClendon wrote:
>! And foreign (non US) news media are
> even worse, particularly in Europe. Europeans, unless they get Fox News,
> never, ever get to hear the positive things going on in Iraq, like the
> extensive progress we have made in rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure. And
> because Fox News is virtually alone out there, Europeans think they are
> brainwashed. And Fox News isn't even conservative, they're really pretty
> neutral. Here in the US, Fox News trounces every other cable news service,
> combined.
And unless US citizens watch or otherwise get their news from other
countries' news services, particularly the BBC, they won't get truthful
reporting. That long-necked blonde woman - Barbara someone? - who
appears on Fox - perfectly happy making things up and stating them as
news. Ask her the names of the 10,000 Canadians who (according to her)
served in Vietnam. If Fox is neutral - how is it that people
interviewed who don't agree with that bombastic idiot (can't remember
his name) who is the most famous Fox interviewer get told to shut up or
actually have their mike switched off? Judson, you yourself need to get
out and hear it from other sources.
>
>
> This is another outright lie. I know lots of sources, there on the ground,
> who insist we are making very good progress in lots of areas.
Well, they would, wouldn't they? Are you saying that "every detached
observer" is lying, or that the statement "Every detached observer says
the reverse" is a lie? 'Cause it ain't.
>
>
> Iraq isn't Iran. There was never in recent times the religious fanatacism in
> Iraq that we've seen in e.g. Iran. Most of the fanaticism we see in Iraq is
> imported from Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. BTW - much of the population of Iran,
> and for some reason, especially the younger people, really like the US. It
> is the ruling Mulas, not the general population, who so hate the US. I
> gurantee you won't hear that in the European media!
You haven't answered the question!
>
> Duh! It's not about the oil, it's about making sure the US or anybody else
> doesn't see another 9/11.
Duh! >>NO<< country can protect itself against another 9/11 unless it
keeps all its citizens under lock and key. >>NO<< security is proof
against sufficiently determined terrorists.
>
> Then he's been listening too much to the left wing liberal media, or he's a
> pacifist. In this area, he is poorly informed. :-)
Well, if you truly believe that, then there is no point in discussing
anything with you. The right-wing media have completely taken over your
thought processes.
PL
| |
| Judson McClendon 2005-11-29, 9:55 pm |
| "Peter Lacey" <lacey@mts.net> wrote:
>
> Duh! >>NO<< country can protect itself against another 9/11 unless it
> keeps all its citizens under lock and key. >>NO<< security is proof
> against sufficiently determined terrorists.
So, just give up, eh? We can't *absolutely guarantee* we will not have
another terrorist attack, so any attempt to defend ourselves is futile.
Defeatism at its best.
You may not have noticed, but problems do get solved sometimes, even very
difficult ones. And sometimes they get solved by war. But never, ever, ever
are they solved by the kind of attitude you express above. Never. :-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Donald Tees 2005-11-29, 9:55 pm |
| Judson McClendon wrote:
> "Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>
> When Hitler first began to expand Germany's military, shortly after grabbing
> power in 1933, it would have been fairly easy for England or France to have
> stopped him, even with military intervention, if necessary. Better military
> intervention in 1933-34 than full scale war in 1939-45. Japan was a
> different - the US was simply not in position to impose its will entirely on
> Japan in 1940, or the early 30's. Japan was too far away and the US did not
> have the military resources in the Pacific to back it up. But England and
> France sure could have done so to Germany in 1933-34, because Germany was
> not in position to defend itself, until after Hitler's military buildup had
> progressed.
>
> Surely you aren't trying to suggest it was better to wait until after
> Germany invaded Poland? Even then, England and France didn't really do much
> except get ready, until Germany invaded France.
What astonishes me, Judson, is that you seem to be espousing a complete
rejection of rule by law, and establishing instead a rule by armed
might. Somehow, that does not seem like you, nor United States public
opinion to me.
There is no doubt in my mind that the world needs a court of law, and a
set of laws that we can not only live under, but can actually result in
peace. Somehow, I do not think vigilantism, no matter how motivated, is
the answer.
By rejecting all calls for a world set of laws and a world set of courts
with troops to back them up, and insisting instead that an american
president be the sole adjudicator of all police action for the rest of
the world, the USA is begging to be told "no" by all, and to my mind,
rightly so.
Your patriotism act is downright scary. You are allowing your president
to do anything in the world to anybody in the world who is not a US
citizen, and to do things to citizens that would have been unheard of 10
years ago. You are espousing the complete break-down of law, and a
return to the rule of emperor.
There is a difference between saving the world from evil and conquering
for your own good.
Donald
| |
| James J. Gavan 2005-11-30, 3:55 am |
| Judson McClendon wrote:
> "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
<snip>
Wont even attempt a comment on previous - you are a believer.
[color=darkred]
>
>
> Then he's been listening too much to the left wing liberal media, or he's a
> pacifist. In this area, he is poorly informed. :-)
You couldn't be more wrong about him. Already vitriolic about Socialism,
(a novelist who hit it big time and plays the country gentleman on his
own estate), he has as much contempt for John Major, Maggie's successor,
as he does Tony Blair. Now Maggie, there's his gal - go give it to them
girl ! He ain't no pacifist.
Whether you accept or reject his individual statements, as a
Conservative, this is one I would have thought would support the
fellow-right ideas of Republicans. He thinks you are dead wrong.
Jimmy
| |
| James J. Gavan 2005-11-30, 3:55 am |
| Richard wrote:
>
>
> Did I mention that my grandfather was presented a lion skin cape by Ras
> Tafari when the latter visited Aden in 1922.
>
You boastin' or complainin'? Grand-daddy wuz a colonial overseer :-)
| |
| James J. Gavan 2005-11-30, 3:55 am |
| Peter Lacey wrote:
>
> And unless US citizens watch or otherwise get their news from other
> countries' news services, particularly the BBC, they won't get truthful
> reporting. That long-necked blonde woman - Barbara someone? - who
> appears on Fox - perfectly happy making things up and stating them as
> news. Ask her the names of the 10,000 Canadians who (according to her)
> served in Vietnam. If Fox is neutral - how is it that people
> interviewed who don't agree with that bombastic idiot (can't remember
> his name) who is the most famous Fox interviewer get told to shut up or
> actually have their mike switched off? Judson, you yourself need to get
> out and hear it from other sources.
Oh Peter. Don't watch it often, but obviously you were tuned into the
same one as me on the 'Passionae Eye'. I'm with Peter on this one
Judson, said blonde XXXXX made such a statement about VN (not sure about
the numbers though). Interviewer was up on his history, said "No, I
don't think so...". She promised to get back to him - never did.
Similarly the XXXXXXX Peter is talking about, and an American-Irish
XXXXXXX at that, refused to be interviewed for the program, although
from clips from Fox his style is to tell 'guests' "SHUT UP !". Wouldn't
be interviewed on camera but took accusing shots on Fox at the
'Passionate Eye' that wanted to interview him.
You are severely duped about Fox. Peter mentioned BBC World News - you
really should tune in - even if you don't want to believe them. Roughly
a couple of w s back, up came the American myth, "God, country and the
flag. Everybody can become a Rockefeller'. A survey was done by some
European-based economic think-tank. I know you aren't going to believe
it, and the statement has no political content. 'You stand more chance
in the rest of the world, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps from
the guttter and making something of yourself, than you could ever hope
to do in the U.S. of A.". Well I suppose Sudan and Darfur might not rank
as high as USA in the league table.
>
>
> Well, if you truly believe that, then there is no point in discussing
> anything with you. The right-wing media have completely taken over your
> thought processes.
Amen to very last comment.
Get this real straight Judson. We Canucks don't hate you; in fact many
look kindly towards the States. But we do despair of your political
thinking as a nation. And we really aren't thrilled about NAFTA - which
is a set of initials for 'Play it the American way, or don't play at all'.
Jimmy
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2005-11-30, 3:55 am |
|
"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1133310602.040480.50600@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Both had been demilitarising since 1918 and had no forces or equipment
> usable for such an endeavour even if the public would have supported it
> which was unlikely.
>
>
> It was not just 'better' it was essential. France never did manage to
> 'get ready' which is why they were overrun. France had an 'empty
> generation' from WWI which meant that in the early 30s they had a
> shortage of people of an age that would form an army or work the
> factories. Even in 39 or 40 they couldn't get enough men for either.
>
A very dear friend of mine was the daughter of a Sottish lord who shall
remain nameless. Through her, I met the nobleman himself. The old boy,
having fought in France in World War I, shared my general low opinion of
things French (don't ask... and don't start me. It is fair enough I state my
bias up front...), and remarked to me once: "You know the trouble with the
bloody French? They'll fight to the last Englishman..."
I'm getting mellower in my old age and actually bought some French champagne
the other day. It isn't good to carry grudges :-).
Pete.
| |
|
| In article <PC3jf.27$Pc3.11@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>And had England and/or France confronted Hitler when he first started
>breaking the Armistice agreements from WWI, it would have nipped the whole
>thing in the bud and saved millions of lives. Better late than never, but
>better sooner than later.
Mr McClendon, Mr Plinston presents what appears to be a fact (in the
radical sense of 'factum', a done thing) and your response employs a past
subjunctive ('were they to have').
Had my Sainted Paternal Grandmother - may she sleep with the angels -
wheels she would have been a trolley-car; in the cardgames of historical
analysis shoulda/woulda/coulda are frequently trumped by 'did'.
DD
| |
| Judson McClendon 2005-11-30, 7:55 am |
| "Donald Tees" <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Judson McClendon wrote:
>
> What astonishes me, Judson, is that you seem to be espousing a complete
> rejection of rule by law, and establishing instead a rule by armed
> might. Somehow, that does not seem like you, nor United States public
> opinion to me.
I am not suggesting that, Donald. The WWI Armistice that Germany signed
permitted England and France (and the US) to restrict Germany from building
their military. And Germany was breaking that agreement building up their
military. So the Allies *would* have been acting under legal, international
agreement tohave stopped Hitler in 1933-34.
> There is no doubt in my mind that the world needs a court of law, and a
> set of laws that we can not only live under, but can actually result in
> peace. Somehow, I do not think vigilantism, no matter how motivated, is
> the answer.
Well, I have serious problems with international law, but for other reasons
that I won't discuss here. But beyond that, for any legal system to be
accepted it must work and do what it is supposed todo. International courts
have been moderatly successful for petty things like banking or fishing
rights. But when it comes to dealing with dangerous tyrants and terrorists,
the international bodies are worse than useless. No government could, or
should, stand by and permit its citizens to be killed by the thousands
without doing whatever is necessary to prevent it. A government's *first*
responsibility is to protect the lives, property and freedom of its
citizens.
> By rejecting all calls for a world set of laws and a world set of courts
> with troops to back them up, and insisting instead that an american
> president be the sole adjudicator of all police action for the rest of
> the world, the USA is begging to be told "no" by all, and to my mind,
> rightly so.
Donald, now you surprise me. For a person as intelligent as yourself, how
can it not be obvious to you that, for purposes of stemming terrorism and
dealing with mass murders, the United Nations has been entirely ineffective.
We're talking life and death here; what happened on 9/11 was no joke. Please
do not expect a nation who is in dire danger *right now* to wait for years,
or forever, for countries like France to decide we need protecting. Believe
me, that *is not* going to happen. It *should not* happen. When someone
starts killing US citizens by the thousands on US soil, there *will* be
something done about it. The UN sat for months with countries who should
have been our allies doing everything in their power to block any progress
toward dealing with this deadly and imminent threat. That situation should
have been unacceptable for any nation. It is unacceptable for the US people.
For someone like yourself to not understand that just blows my mind. If the
same thing happened to Canada, England, or even France, the US would be the
first to support their efforts to get something done. First in the UN, but
certainly by other means if necessary. And we would be there laying our
lives and resources on the line to help, not sitting on the wayside taking
potshots at them for doing something about it. This issue would *never* have
been solved by the UN as it is right now. As Bush clearly pointed out in his
address to Congress after 9/11, solving the terrorism problem may take
generations. And with the UN sitting on its hands, if no one else acted, it
would never be solved.
> Your patriotism act is downright scary. You are allowing your president
> to do anything in the world to anybody in the world who is not a US
> citizen, and to do things to citizens that would have been unheard of 10
> years ago. You are espousing the complete break-down of law, and a
> return to the rule of emperor.
Such comments are fine from someone sitting in their living room having a
quiet discussion, with no imminent threat. But in times of war, and this is
a war, countries all through history have done such things. In war, civil
liberties are always abridged to some degree. It is an unfortunate but
necessary thing in wartime. But you can believe that there are forces in the
US that will make sure these things are watched very carefully, and that the
laws will be changed again when the need is no longer imminent. The American
people are not about to start tolerating an oppressive government, you can
be sure of that, too. Again, I am surprised at you. and the rest of the
world, for being so alarmist on this.
> There is a difference between saving the world from evil and conquering
> for your own good.
We're conquering for our and others' defense in a war against terrorism.
Period.
You continue to surprise me, Donald. Do you really think the American people
have an interest in imperialist conquest? We could have *owned* the world
after WWII. No nation in history was in such a position. After being
attacked by Japan, the US proceeded to obliterate Japan's military and
infrastructure. Along with our allies, we did the same thing to Germany.
With much of the rest of the world in ruins, we had an intact economy and
infrastructure, an army of 15 million, the largest navy and air force the
world had ever seen, and alone possessed atomic weapons. But what the US did
was disarm and come home as quickly as we could. And what the US *did do*
was forgive our allies' wartime debts, and spend billions of dollars of *our
money* under the Marshall Plan to rebuild our allies and those very enemies,
who now enjoy some of the freest and wealthiest cultures in the world. We're
doing exactly the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan this very minute,
though you rarely hear about that in the leftist media. The people in US
territories and possessions have voted repeatedly to continue under the US.
Anyone who says the US is out for imperialist conquest either has an
incredible lack of understanding of the American people, or is outright
lying. The American people want international friends and partners, not
subjects. You can take that to the bank. :-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
|
| In article <3v532hF13or8nU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
[snip]
>I'm getting mellower in my old age and actually bought some French champagne
>the other day.
I believe, Mr Dashwood, that in the same manner that 'Scotch' is reserved
for beverages actually produced in Scotland so is 'champagne' reserved for
products of the Champagne province in France... international trademark
laws and all that. Other places can produce right tasty fizzy wines...
but they cannot, if I am correct, label them as 'champagne'.
>It isn't good to carry grudges :-).
Back in the 1980s a Jewish physician I knew purchased a BMW automobile...
two, actually, one for him and one for the Missus (also Jewish), four-door
500 series (I remember 523i but my memory is, admittedly, porous). The
Missus and her immediate family (parents and a sibling) emigrated to the
USA from Germany (via Cuba... but that's another story) in 1939; most
members of her extended family (about twenty-six people) did not get out
and disappeared to... to wherever Jews in Germany during those years went.
Several of his friends took him to task for purchasing a German product
after all that; his response was 'That was a few years ago... and it is
*such* a good car.'
One winter they hit a patch of glare ice and lost control of the car at
60mph (100Kmph); it bounced around the road for a goodly distance, hitting
guard-rails, telephone-poles, a postbox or two... and finally came to a
stop. Both passengers - the doctor and the Missus - were completely
unscathed and despite the slamming-into-things that had just gone on both
the driver's and passenger's doors opened as though nothing had happened.
As they watch a tow-truck hooking up the highly-damaged remains to take to
the repair shop the physician said to his wife, rather matter-of-factly,
'Well... I'd say that a fair amount has been paid back, wouldn't you?'
DD
| |
| Donald Tees 2005-12-01, 6:55 pm |
| Judson McClendon wrote:
> "Donald Tees" <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> Donald, now you surprise me. For a person as intelligent as yourself, how
> can it not be obvious to you that, for purposes of stemming terrorism and
> dealing with mass murders, the United Nations has been entirely ineffective.
> We're talking life and death here; what happened on 9/11 was no joke. Please
> do not expect a nation who is in dire danger *right now* to wait for years,
> or forever, for countries like France to decide we need protecting. Believe
> me, that *is not* going to happen. It *should not* happen. When someone
> starts killing US citizens by the thousands on US soil, there *will* be
> something done about it. The UN sat for months with countries who should
> have been our allies doing everything in their power to block any progress
> toward dealing with this deadly and imminent threat. That situation should
> have been unacceptable for any nation. It is unacceptable for the US people.
> For someone like yourself to not understand that just blows my mind. If the
> same thing happened to Canada, England, or even France, the US would be the
> first to support their efforts to get something done. First in the UN, but
> certainly by other means if necessary. And we would be there laying our
> lives and resources on the line to help, not sitting on the wayside taking
> potshots at them for doing something about it. This issue would *never* have
> been solved by the UN as it is right now. As Bush clearly pointed out in his
> address to Congress after 9/11, solving the terrorism problem may take
> generations. And with the UN sitting on its hands, if no one else acted, it
> would never be solved.
>
The entire world was 100% behind the United States after the New York
attack. If the United States had asked for, or even demanded, a set of
laws to deal with the issue at that time, they would have got it.
Instead, they demanded that everyone obey their president, and most of
the world said "No thank you".
I have yet to see evidence that the United States is lessening the
threat of terrorism in any way, shape or form. What I see, is the United
States executive office using it as an excuse to take over the worlds
largest oil field, and in such a way as to increase the terrorist base
on a daily basis.
They seem to have absolutely no compunction at all about breaking all
their own laws, limiting freedom in ways that no terrorist has ever been
able to do, and manufacturing "evidence" to justify actions against
groups that had absolutely nothing to do with the terrorism.
I really doubt that press control over things like showing the dead on
TV has much to do with terrorism. It has to with your governments
control over the people that it governs.
The main reason that the UN has been ineffective at controling terrorism
is that the United States has been adamantly opposed to it for years.
They are not interested in *any* laws that do not give them complete
control over the money. They *need* people like the "Shaw of
Iran"(remember him? put into place as a puppet by the US?) to allow them
to exploit the natives.
>
>
>
> Such comments are fine from someone sitting in their living room having a
> quiet discussion, with no imminent threat. But in times of war, and this is
> a war, countries all through history have done such things. In war, civil
> liberties are always abridged to some degree. It is an unfortunate but
> necessary thing in wartime. But you can believe that there are forces in the
> US that will make sure these things are watched very carefully, and that the
> laws will be changed again when the need is no longer imminent. The American
> people are not about to start tolerating an oppressive government, you can
> be sure of that, too. Again, I am surprised at you. and the rest of the
> world, for being so alarmist on this.
>
>
>
>
> We're conquering for our and others' defense in a war against terrorism.
> Period.
>
> You continue to surprise me, Donald. Do you really think the American people
> have an interest in imperialist conquest? We could have *owned* the world
> after WWII. No nation in history was in such a position. After being
> attacked by Japan, the US proceeded to obliterate Japan's military and
> infrastructure. Along with our allies, we did the same thing to Germany.
> With much of the rest of the world in ruins, we had an intact economy and
> infrastructure, an army of 15 million, the largest navy and air force the
> world had ever seen, and alone possessed atomic weapons. But what the US did
> was disarm and come home as quickly as we could. And what the US *did do*
> was forgive our allies' wartime debts, and spend billions of dollars of *our
> money* under the Marshall Plan to rebuild our allies and those very enemies,
> who now enjoy some of the freest and wealthiest cultures in the world. We're
> doing exactly the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan this very minute,
> though you rarely hear about that in the leftist media. The people in US
> territories and possessions have voted repeatedly to continue under the US.
> Anyone who says the US is out for imperialist conquest either has an
> incredible lack of understanding of the American people, or is outright
> lying. The American people want international friends and partners, not
> subjects. You can take that to the bank. :-)
I agree, that is exactly what the American people want. What I doubt is
that your executive branch want the same. Your executive branch appear
to want the world oil fields, and will do anything to get them,
including lying, law breaking, secret police, and manufacturing evidence
to invade countries that had nothing to do with the attack.
The attack in New York was financed by Saudia Arabian citizens, the
executive branch's closest friends in the area to this day. It is also
the area's most oppressive government, and has been for years. Bush
socializes with these people and does bussiness with them on a regular
basis. At the same time, he is killing off civilians and bombing towns
as being "terrorist controled", but the definition of terrorist is
defined as "being anti-USA invasion".
That is not a "war on terrorism". It is a recipe *for* terrorism. As
long as it keeps going on, the USA will be in a war, and as long as you
are in the war, then your executive branch can do whatever they want as
being justified by war. They get rich, and your people die.
You are being suckered.
Donald
| |
| Howard Brazee 2005-12-01, 6:55 pm |
| On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 13:50:20 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>I believe, Mr Dashwood, that in the same manner that 'Scotch' is reserved
>for beverages actually produced in Scotland so is 'champagne' reserved for
>products of the Champagne province in France... international trademark
>laws and all that. Other places can produce right tasty fizzy wines...
>but they cannot, if I am correct, label them as 'champagne'.
How about we expand on this and only use sandwich for food from the
Earldom?
Or is this a matter of whom pays the lawyers and politicians the most?
| |
| Howard Brazee 2005-12-01, 6:55 pm |
| On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 07:33:15 -0600, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>You continue to surprise me, Donald. Do you really think the American people
>have an interest in imperialist conquest? We could have *owned* the world
>after WWII. No nation in history was in such a position.
Owned in what way? We certainly couldn't have imposed peace on the
world. Could we have conquered and kept all of Asia, Africa, and
South America?
Other nations have owned *their* world - as much as they could reach.
| |
| Judson McClendon 2005-12-01, 6:55 pm |
| "James J. Gavan" <jgavandeletethis@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Peter Lacey wrote:
>
> Oh Peter. Don't watch it often, but obviously you were tuned into the same
> one as me on the 'Passionae Eye'. I'm with Peter on this one Judson, said
> blonde XXXXX made such a statement about VN (not sure about the numbers
> though). Interviewer was up on his history, said "No, I don't think
> so...". She promised to get back to him - never did. Similarly the XXXXXXX
> Peter is talking about, and an American-Irish XXXXXXX at that, refused to
> be interviewed for the program, although from clips from Fox his style is
> to tell 'guests' "SHUT UP !". Wouldn't be interviewed on camera but took
> accusing shots on Fox at the 'Passionate Eye' that wanted to interview
> him.
I didn't mean to imply that I thought Fox News was perfect, I only said they
had a balance of liberal and conservative opinion. What you both to fail to
understand is that you have been exposed to extreme liberal bias in the
media so consistently and for so long, that you don't even have a correct
mental picture of what conservatives are really about. All you ever see
portrayed is distorted caricatures. You receive no balancing conservative
viewpoints, because they were simply not out there until Fox News came
along, imperfect as it is. And by then, your mental images were so
influenced by liberal bias, that every conservative viewpoint you hear seems
biased to you.
I was exposed to this liberal bias all my life. My parents were "yellow dog"
Democrats. It was only when I got older and had a chance to see both sides
with a more balanced eye that I became a conservative. I have seen both
sides, I have been on both sides of this argument. I really doubt either of
you can claim this. :-)
I respectfully insist it is you two who need to see more clearly. You should
read "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg, if you don't believe there is profound
liberal media bias. Bernard Goldberg documents it very clearly, and he *is*
a liberal, who has never voted Republican in his life. Or read "Useful
Idiots" by Mona Charen. You should definitely read at least one of
"Slander", "How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)", "Treason", or "High
Crimes and Misdemeanors" all by Ann Coulter, a truly brilliant and clear
thinking conservative. :-)
> You are severely duped about Fox. Peter mentioned BBC World News - you
> really should tune in - even if you don't want to believe them. Roughly a
> couple of ws back, up came the American myth, "God, country and the
> flag. Everybody can become a Rockefeller'. A survey was done by some
> European-based economic think-tank. I know you aren't going to believe it,
> and the statement has no political content. 'You stand more chance in the
> rest of the world, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps from the guttter
> and making something of yourself, than you could ever hope to do in the
> U.S. of A.". Well I suppose Sudan and Darfur might not rank as high as USA
> in the league table.
Pardon me, but the distortions in the paragraph above are really serious.
First off, no one that I ever heard has said anything like "everybody can
become a Rockefeller." I don't know how easy it is to become wealthy in
other places, but whoever made the statement "You stand more chance in the
rest of the world, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps from the guttter
and making something of yourself, than you could ever hope to do in the U.S.
of A" must have come from another planet, because they couldn't possibly
have actually looked at the situation here in the US. Just in the 90's
alone, there were tens of thousands of regular production line laborers here
who became millionaires from stock options. I write computer programs for a
living and live in a near-rural suburb of a moderate city, and I live in a
4600 sq ft house, valued at $300,000 here, but would go for very much more
in a large city. I am by no means out of the ordinary here, and I grew up on
a farm. My dad grew up in a family of 10 kids and only had shoes in the
winter, and on Christmas they got maybe an orange and an apple. But before
he died he owned several hundred acres of farmland and was very successful, | | |