Cobol - [OT] Iraq

Author

[OT] Iraq

William M. Klein

2007-09-20, 6:55 pm

(Hopefully, those who don't want political discussions in this group are using a
filter to avoid notes with this subject.)

As someone with strong personal views (I think previously expressed in this
group) about Viet Nam, Iraq, and war in general, it is hard for me to write this
not in a "non-confrontational" manner. However, let me try.

I did NOT watch all of the recent Bush or Petraeus "stuff", however, it is my
understanding that both of them talked about sufficient time and resources to
meet our (US) goals in Iraq. What I *missed* was a clear statement of what our
current goals ARE in Iraq. (I think that many if not most people "pro" and
"con" agree that they have changed over the years).

These are probably more my "inferences" than what has been clearly stated, but I
*think* that the following MAY be what they are:

1) "Victory" rather than "Defeat" (this may be a non-goal, but simply a
statement that we want all of the following)

2) To have (leave) Iraq as a country that does not promote "state sponsored
terrorism"

3) To have (leave) Iraq as a country without "ethnic cleansing" or "suppression
of minorities"

4) To have (leave) Iraq as a country (possibly divided, possibly with a federal
government, possibly something else) that can maintain its own peace and
security.

5) To have (leave) Iraq as country that is NOT a "safe haven" for terrorists.

* * * *

Ignoring all the "unstated" (and negative or positive) goals that may or may not
also be there (i.e. US oil needs, "model" for democracy in the middle east,
whatever). Can anyone tell me if these are our "stated" goals - or if not -
what they are (and where they are/were stated in all the recent discussions?

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com

Judson McClendon

2007-09-20, 6:55 pm

"SkippyPB" <swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
> You ask what happened in Vietnam? Yes, there was some massive
> bloodshed among the Vietnamese in the south and the north. Had we
> never interfered in their affairs, that would never have happened. And
> what was the stated goal of our involvement in Vietnam? It was to
> prevent southeast Asia from turning communist. The domino theory, as
> it was known then, stated that if Vietnam fell, Laos, Cambodia and,
> more importantly, Thailand would fall as well and Chinese Communists
> would have a foothold on all of Southeast Asia. As we know now, it
> didn't happen. Nothing even close to that happened.

Looks to me that our policy of containing the Communists *did* work,
just not in the short term we would have hoped. :-) Have you stopped
to consider what the world situation would be now, if we *had not* done
it? Not saying we should have gone into Vietnam. But nobody is smart
enough to know for certain what would have happened had we not done
so. There is a vast difference between knowing something didn't work as
planned, and knowing it would have been better if we hadn't done 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."

Charles Hottel

2007-09-20, 9:55 pm

"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:5le00nF7s978U1@mid.individual.net...
>

<snip>
> Cynics might argue that "turning the desert sand to glass" would have
> destroyed the oil extraction facilities, but I'd like to think it was
> simple humanity that triumphed.
>

Don't neutron bombs kill the people and leave the infrastructure intact?

<snip>

Charles Hottel

2007-09-20, 9:55 pm

"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:K5SdnQwcB6ThS2zbnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@co
mcast.com...
<snip>
> I've said this before in here, but one of my biggest frustrations with
> this current administration (for whom I voted twice, and would do again
> given the "other" choice on the ballot) is that it isn't *using* its
> resources to educate the American people. What Robert said about an
> unchallenged opinion "winning" is exactly what's going on in our country
> right now.
>

I have never voted "for" anyone for president, I have always voted "against"
the one I disliked the most.

Charles Hottel

2007-09-20, 9:55 pm

"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:uWzIi.75215$1o1.11249@fe12.news.easynews.com...
> (Hopefully, those who don't want political discussions in this group are
> using a filter to avoid notes with this subject.)
>
> As someone with strong personal views (I think previously expressed in
> this group) about Viet Nam, Iraq, and war in general, it is hard for me to
> write this not in a "non-confrontational" manner. However, let me try.
>
> I did NOT watch all of the recent Bush or Petraeus "stuff", however, it
> is my understanding that both of them talked about sufficient time and
> resources to meet our (US) goals in Iraq. What I *missed* was a clear
> statement of what our current goals ARE in Iraq. (I think that many if
> not most people "pro" and "con" agree that they have changed over the
> years).
>
> These are probably more my "inferences" than what has been clearly stated,
> but I *think* that the following MAY be what they are:
>
> 1) "Victory" rather than "Defeat" (this may be a non-goal, but simply a
> statement that we want all of the following)
>
> 2) To have (leave) Iraq as a country that does not promote "state
> sponsored terrorism"
>
> 3) To have (leave) Iraq as a country without "ethnic cleansing" or
> "suppression of minorities"
>
> 4) To have (leave) Iraq as a country (possibly divided, possibly with a
> federal government, possibly something else) that can maintain its own
> peace and security.
>
> 5) To have (leave) Iraq as country that is NOT a "safe haven" for
> terrorists.
>
> * * * *
>
> Ignoring all the "unstated" (and negative or positive) goals that may or
> may not also be there (i.e. US oil needs, "model" for democracy in the
> middle east, whatever). Can anyone tell me if these are our "stated"
> goals - or if not - what they are (and where they are/were stated in all
> the recent discussions?
>
> --
> Bill Klein
> wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
>

I thought that before we went into Iraq our leaders said they were not going
to engage in "nation building".

tlmfru

2007-09-20, 9:55 pm

[color=darkred]
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:K5SdnQwcB6ThS2zbnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@co
mcast.com...
> <snip>

Be honest: do you trust any government, anywhere, at any time, to "educate"
its people rather than propagandize them? How can a government (an
organization of people) with a stance to defend/promote possibly be
objective? Can you see a government of any stripe having the honesty and
courage to lay out the problem with all the pro's and con's and then state
why it's taking such and such a course? I have no faith in any of them.
There are certain outstanding individuals who are trustworthy in this sense
(Canadians will include Tommy Douglas in this group) but there has never
been a government that has been.

Bear in mind, too, that since the beginning of the Iraq invasion, every
original stated reason has been abandoned. ESPECIALLY "weapons of mass
destruction".

Robert

2007-09-20, 9:55 pm

On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 07:46:10 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 13:17:10 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
><dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>I believe am closer to this belief than most (at least with the people
>I discuss this kind of thing). But it is a truism that when my child
>gets hurt, it is a tragedy, when the kid across town dies, it is
>almost as bad, but when a population across the world starve to death,
>we don't shed a tear.

Did you know that 25,000 people starve to death every day?

LX-i

2007-09-20, 9:55 pm

Charles Hottel wrote:
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:K5SdnQwcB6ThS2zbnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@co
mcast.com...
> <snip>
>
> I have never voted "for" anyone for president, I have always voted "against"
> the one I disliked the most.

My first presidential vote was in 1992 - I started out 0-2. (I think it
might have been different had Gramm gotten the (R) nomination in 1996,
but... you know, woulda coulda shoulda...) Then, in 2000, Bush sounded
really good (and heaven forbid the other guy got in). In 2004, he still
hadn't really done what he said he was going to do, but the other guy
was way worse. If he ran again, my vote would be against the (D).
Thank goodness for the 22nd Amendment - maybe there'll be someone I can
vote "for" again. (I'm leaning right now, but it's too early to declare...)

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \/ _ o ~ Live from Albuquerque, NM! ~
~ _ /\ | ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ Tech Blog ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog ~
~ Personal E-mail ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address ~
~ Personal Blog ~ http://daniel.summershome.org ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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++++

"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine

LX-i

2007-09-21, 3:55 am

SkippyPB wrote:
>
> But the job is done. The stated goal was to bring down Saddam and
> bring democracy to Iraq. Both have happened.

But can that democracy remain if they do not have trained military and
police force? Training those groups is a large part of our mission over
there now. I personally know 3 people who are deployed to Iraq - one of
them is there for a year, going from place to place training the
military units on his job.

> It is as clear as the
> nose on most peoples' faces that a military solution in Iraq is not
> now possible.

Of course - when all they hear are the Democrats saying that, after a
while they begin to believe it. It's called the Big Lie - repeat
something enough, and people start to believe it. With this
administration not enunciating the problems clearly (as evidenced by
Bill's question later in the thread), why would most people think otherwise?

> Not today, not tomorrow, not 50 years from now which is
> how long we'll be there if current policies prevail. There must be a
> political solution and that can't be driven by the US. Only Iraq's
> leaders can drive that car.

Tell that to the Democrats (and some liberal Republicans) - *they're*
the ones demanding timetables of the Iraqi government. The military is
there to help the process, and give them guidance. But, the legislation
is theirs, the voting is theirs, and the enforcement is theirs.

> You ask what happened in Vietnam? Yes, there was some massive
> bloodshed among the Vietnamese in the south and the north. Had we
> never interfered in their affairs, that would never have happened.

You don't think there would have been bloodshed when the North took over
the South? There's bloodshed in China and Cuba *today* when we're not
there.

> And
> what was the stated goal of our involvement in Vietnam? It was to
> prevent southeast Asia from turning communist. The domino theory, as
> it was known then, stated that if Vietnam fell, Laos, Cambodia and,
> more importantly, Thailand would fall as well and Chinese Communists
> would have a foothold on all of Southeast Asia. As we know now, it
> didn't happen. Nothing even close to that happened.

Had they been unchallenged, and not forced to spend all the resources
they did in taking over Vietnam, that very well could have happened.
Even though Vietnam is considered an American military defeat, we held
our ground long enough to slow them down.

> You say, "if we fail this time" like we are actually winning
> something. Sorry, we've already lost.

How can you say that? What have we lost? Saddam is out of power, there
is a democratically elected legislature, they're making huge strides,
and we're training them. The rape rooms are closed; the insurgents are
nearly gone; the rule of law has replaced dictatorial fiat.

What exactly have we lost again?

> Socialists in the Democratic Party? Where do you get this stuff and
> how do you know they've always "hated" whose success and other stuff?
> Just what are you talking about?

Where in our Constitution does it say that health care is a *right*?
Where does it authorize the Federal government to run something like the
Department of Education? Where is it written that it is the
responsibility of the Federal government to bail out businesses who
don't handle their books correctly, just because they provide a service
that may have values to some Americans? Where are we authorized to pay
farmers *not* to grow things?

All this social engineering legislation, welfare, government health
care, is *all* socialistic. The Federal government should be about
defense, infrastructure, limited guidance to states, and a
representative of our nation to the rest of the world. Past that, it's
overstepped its Constitutional charter and into socialism.

And if someone sees our success, and want to enact every piece of
legislation they can to ensure it never happens again, what am I
supposed to infer about their motives? They don't think it's *fair*
that some people can afford health insurance and others can't. They
don't think it's *fair* that some people drive giant vehicles while
others drive smaller ones. And, they don't think it's *fair* that
America has been, since the early 90's, the lone superpower in this
world. They want us to give up our strength so it'll be more fair to
other countries. Sounds like hating our success to me...

> Well I'm glad the military has relaxed some of its restrictions on
> what you can and cannot say and to whom.

Well, they're not all gone. Basically, as long as I'm clear that what
I'm saying is my opinion, and not necessarily that of the Air Force, I'm
within regs.

> But to even talk about
> dropping a nuke on anything is just a

thing and indicative of
> the post cold war mind set. That's really not where society needs to
> go.

Talk to Iran! We're aging ours out, they're building new ones!

> Please. RPG's where not what GWB was going after. They were probably
> left over from the ones we sold to Saddam back in the 80's anyway.

True...

> The Al Qaeda that is currently in Iraq was formed there after the US
> invaded and none of the hijackers trained in Iraq. Read the 9/11
> commissions report.

The 9/11 commission's report is not gospel - they got some things wrong.
They had an agenda.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \/ _ o ~ Live from Albuquerque, NM! ~
~ _ /\ | ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ Tech Blog ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog ~
~ Personal E-mail ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address ~
~ Personal Blog ~ http://daniel.summershome.org ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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++++

"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine

LX-i

2007-09-21, 3:55 am

William M. Klein wrote:
> (Hopefully, those who don't want political discussions in this group are using a
> filter to avoid notes with this subject.)

At least this thread has the [OT] on it! :)

> I did NOT watch all of the recent Bush or Petraeus "stuff", however, it is my
> understanding that both of them talked about sufficient time and resources to
> meet our (US) goals in Iraq. What I *missed* was a clear statement of what our
> current goals ARE in Iraq. (I think that many if not most people "pro" and
> "con" agree that they have changed over the years).

True.

> These are probably more my "inferences" than what has been clearly stated, but I
> *think* that the following MAY be what they are:
>
> 1) "Victory" rather than "Defeat" (this may be a non-goal, but simply a
> statement that we want all of the following)
>
> 2) To have (leave) Iraq as a country that does not promote "state sponsored
> terrorism"
>
> 3) To have (leave) Iraq as a country without "ethnic cleansing" or "suppression
> of minorities"
>
> 4) To have (leave) Iraq as a country (possibly divided, possibly with a federal
> government, possibly something else) that can maintain its own peace and
> security.
>
> 5) To have (leave) Iraq as country that is NOT a "safe haven" for terrorists.

I believe you're right. This link below has a summary of Petraeus's
report, as well as some other reports that have come out lately. I
didn't click the links exhaustively, but it looked like there are some
good source documents linked from the story.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/...toryId=14288514

(Of course, the headline of the story says that the "goals" are being
met, but that's the only time that word appears in the whole story!)

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \/ _ o ~ Live from Albuquerque, NM! ~
~ _ /\ | ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ Tech Blog ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog ~
~ Personal E-mail ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address ~
~ Personal Blog ~ http://daniel.summershome.org ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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++++

"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine

Judson McClendon

2007-09-21, 7:55 am

"Charles Hottel" <chottel@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> I have never voted "for" anyone for president, I have always voted "against" the one I disliked the most.

So, you put your "X" in the "against" column, right? ;-)
--
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."

2007-09-21, 7:55 am

In article <uJ-dnaJYC-eXqm7bnZ2dnUVZ_uevnZ2d@comcast.com>,
LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>SkippyPB wrote:
>
>But can that democracy remain if they do not have trained military and
>police force?

This is, I believe, called 'moving the target'. If the goal was to 'bring
democracy to Iraq' and 'democracy was brought to Iraq' then the job was
done. If the job was 'bring democracy to Iraq and insure that it remains
for (period of time)' then it was not stated as such; re-stating goals
after they've been accomplished is not, in my experience, usually
something done by folks known as 'honorable'.

[snip]

>Of course - when all they hear are the Democrats saying that, after a
>while they begin to believe it.

Oh no... are those Pesky Jews back to controlling The Media again? I
thought that in these days of modern time, with stuff like the Internet
and a free market in ideas, that people could hear whatever they looked
for.

[snip]

>
>Tell that to the Democrats (and some liberal Republicans) - *they're*
>the ones demanding timetables of the Iraqi government.

Ummmmm... didn't you just, a few paragraphs, ask if democracy can remain
over time? That seems to be demanding a timetable; does that make you a
Democrat or a liberal Republican?

>The military is
>there to help the process, and give them guidance. But, the legislation
>is theirs, the voting is theirs, and the enforcement is theirs.

These seem to have been given to them, as noted above... and some say that
it is the military's job 'to kill people and break things', not to 'help'
and 'give guidance', as you say they are doing.

[snip]

>
>Where in our Constitution does it say that health care is a *right*?
>Where does it authorize the Federal government to run something like the
>Department of Education? Where is it written that it is the
>responsibility of the Federal government to bail out businesses who
>don't handle their books correctly, just because they provide a service
>that may have values to some Americans? Where are we authorized to pay
>farmers *not* to grow things?
>
>All this social engineering legislation, welfare, government health
>care, is *all* socialistic.

Might it be asked where you found your definition of 'socialism'? 'Having
been influenced by Federal policy' is not, last I looked, in any
definition with which I am familiar; the ones I was taught used phrases
like 'collective ownership of the means of production' and 'government
administration of the distribution of goods'.

DD

SkippyPB

2007-09-21, 6:55 pm

On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 16:33:46 -0500, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:

>"SkippyPB" <swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
>Looks to me that our policy of containing the Communists *did* work,
>just not in the short term we would have hoped. :-) Have you stopped
>to consider what the world situation would be now, if we *had not* done
>it? Not saying we should have gone into Vietnam. But nobody is smart
>enough to know for certain what would have happened had we not done
>so. There is a vast difference between knowing something didn't work as
>planned, and knowing it would have been better if we hadn't done it. :-)

Had we not gone in, there'd be a lot Americans and other nationalities
alive today that died there including Vietnamese. It was our
government (via the CIA) that caused a split in the country creating a
South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh, the leader of the North, was never going
to align himself with either the Russians or Chinese. The Vietnamese
had a long and contensious relationship with China and Ho Chi
distrusted Russia.

The bottom line is if Harry Truman would have helped Ho Chi Minh rid
the country of the French occupying force, relations between the two
countries would have remained good and there would have been no fear
of any communist takeover in Southeast China.

Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-

"I knew I was an unwanted baby when I saw that my bath toys were a toaster
and a radio."
-- Joan Rivers
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remove nospam to email me.

Steve

SkippyPB

2007-09-21, 6:55 pm

On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:12:31 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

>SkippyPB wrote:
>
>But can that democracy remain if they do not have trained military and
>police force? Training those groups is a large part of our mission over
>there now. I personally know 3 people who are deployed to Iraq - one of
>them is there for a year, going from place to place training the
>military units on his job.
>
>
>Of course - when all they hear are the Democrats saying that, after a
>while they begin to believe it. It's called the Big Lie - repeat
>something enough, and people start to believe it. With this
>administration not enunciating the problems clearly (as evidenced by
>Bill's question later in the thread), why would most people think otherwise?
>

So you believe that John Warner, Chuck Nagel, Madeline Stowe and some
other Republican senators and congress people have bought into the
"Big Lie"? I don't think you are paying close enough attention.

>
>Tell that to the Democrats (and some liberal Republicans) - *they're*
>the ones demanding timetables of the Iraqi government. The military is
>there to help the process, and give them guidance. But, the legislation
>is theirs, the voting is theirs, and the enforcement is theirs.
>

No your boss GWB set the timetables or milestones or goals or whatever
you want to call them. He signed off on the defense spending bill
that included them and has commented on them in many speeches.
He even went to Iraq and confronted Maliqui about the slow progress
and the lack of meeting the milestones.

>
>You don't think there would have been bloodshed when the North took over
>the South? There's bloodshed in China and Cuba *today* when we're not
>there.
>

And North Korea and Sudan and.... We are not the world police. As
I've stated before, we (the US governement) caused the split in
Vietnam. Before we meddled in their affairs, there one Vietnam headed
by a duly elected president (Ho Chi Minh).

>
>Had they been unchallenged, and not forced to spend all the resources
>they did in taking over Vietnam, that very well could have happened.
>Even though Vietnam is considered an American military defeat, we held
>our ground long enough to slow them down.
>

That is just not true. You obviously do not know the history of
Vietnam and what kind of country and culture they had. I suggest you
educate yourself on that aspect of Vietnam before you go making such
blanked statements like the above.

>
>How can you say that? What have we lost? Saddam is out of power, there
>is a democratically elected legislature, they're making huge strides,
>and we're training them. The rape rooms are closed; the insurgents are
>nearly gone; the rule of law has replaced dictatorial fiat.
>

About 5,000 American lives and countless innocent Iraqi lives. Before
long this war will account for more Iraqi deaths than occurred during
Saddam's regime if it hasn't already. I got weary of the body count.

And about the government we put in place, were there a lot of Iraqi's
calling for such reforms during their 3,000+ year history as Persia
and other names before our invasion? If so, I missed that.

>What exactly have we lost again?
>
>
>Where in our Constitution does it say that health care is a *right*?
>Where does it authorize the Federal government to run something like the
>Department of Education? Where is it written that it is the
>responsibility of the Federal government to bail out businesses who
>don't handle their books correctly, just because they provide a service
>that may have values to some Americans? Where are we authorized to pay
>farmers *not* to grow things?
>

A person in the military that doesn't understand the basic principles
of our republic is kind of

. Those things are in the constitution
if you took the time to look for them. More importantly they fall
under the preamble which says,

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect
union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the
common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings
of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish
this Constitution for the United States of America."

You see that part about "general welfare"? Besides isn't it a moral
imperative that we see to the health and education of our citizens?
You boss, GWB - the born again Christian, is all about moral
imperatives, you know.

>All this social engineering legislation, welfare, government health
>care, is *all* socialistic. The Federal government should be about
>defense, infrastructure, limited guidance to states, and a
>representative of our nation to the rest of the world. Past that, it's
>overstepped its Constitutional charter and into socialism.
>

Well you were obviously born too late. You should have consulted with
Jefferson, Hankock, Franklin et. al so that they could have written a
constitution more to your liking.

>And if someone sees our success, and want to enact every piece of
>legislation they can to ensure it never happens again, what am I
>supposed to infer about their motives? They don't think it's *fair*
>that some people can afford health insurance and others can't. They
>don't think it's *fair* that some people drive giant vehicles while
>others drive smaller ones. And, they don't think it's *fair* that
>America has been, since the early 90's, the lone superpower in this
>world. They want us to give up our strength so it'll be more fair to
>other countries. Sounds like hating our success to me...
>
>
>Well, they're not all gone. Basically, as long as I'm clear that what
>I'm saying is my opinion, and not necessarily that of the Air Force, I'm
>within regs.
>
>
>Talk to Iran! We're aging ours out, they're building new ones!
>

You have some positive proof that Iran has a nuke they can deliver on
someone? You should go to the news agencies because no one else has
that proof. I'm more worried about Pakistan and India having nuclear
capabilities than I am about Iran at this point in time.

>
>True...
>
>
>The 9/11 commission's report is not gospel - they got some things wrong.
> They had an agenda.

Yes their agenda was to get to the truth and cut through the
Bush/Cheney propaganda and lies. They did a marvelous job.

Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-

"I knew I was an unwanted baby when I saw that my bath toys were a toaster
and a radio."
-- Joan Rivers
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remove nospam to email me.

Steve

Judson McClendon

2007-09-21, 6:55 pm

"SkippyPB" <swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> Had we not gone in, there'd be a lot Americans and other nationalities
> alive today that died there including Vietnamese. It was our
> government (via the CIA) that caused a split in the country creating a
> South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh, the leader of the North, was never going
> to align himself with either the Russians or Chinese. The Vietnamese
> had a long and contensious relationship with China and Ho Chi
> distrusted Russia.

You aren't considering possible negative effects if we had not gone into
Vietnam. Like I said, neither you, nor I, nor anyone else is smart enough
to know exactly what would have happened if we had int intervened in
Vietnam. You might reasonably say *you think* it would have been
better, but you *do not know* that it would have been better. Nobody
knows, can't know.

The French screwed, and screwed up, Vietnam long before we were
involved there. What makes you put the blame entirely on the U.S.? The
countries the U.S. supervised after WWII (e.g. Japan and Europe,
remember the Marshall Plan?) didn't get wasted like Vietnam under the
French, who tried to hold onto their colonies at all costs (to the colonies).

> The bottom line is if Harry Truman would have helped Ho Chi Minh rid
> the country of the French occupying force, relations between the two
> countries would have remained good and there would have been no fear
> of any communist takeover in Southeast China.

You think it would have been more rational for us to militarily intervene in
Vietnam against the French than against the Communists? I don't think so. :-)
--
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."

Howard Brazee

2007-09-21, 6:55 pm

On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:07:16 -0400, "Charles Hottel"
<chottel@earthlink.net> wrote:

>I have never voted "for" anyone for president, I have always voted "against"
>the one I disliked the most.

Then make sure to vote in primaries, where your vote will count most.
The w

after a primary, I change my registration to independent, as
in my state, I can pick a party at the primary election, but I cannot
switch parties at the primary election.

Howard Brazee

2007-09-21, 6:55 pm

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:18:05 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:

>Might it be asked where you found your definition of 'socialism'? 'Having
>been influenced by Federal policy' is not, last I looked, in any
>definition with which I am familiar; the ones I was taught used phrases
>like 'collective ownership of the means of production' and 'government
>administration of the distribution of goods'.

The word "socialism" tends to be reserved for those parts of
government policies which the speaker doesn't like.

Example:
The U.S. has socialized medicine today, with businesses subsidizing
insurance, and the insured paying for the sick. It also has
hospitals charging more to those insurance companies to pay for the
uninsured. But since "socialism" is a dirty word, those who use
this insurance tend not to use it to describe insurance.

It's how the word "comrade" got to be an insult.

Howard Brazee

2007-09-21, 6:55 pm

On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:13:32 -0500, Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:

>
>Did you know that 25,000 people starve to death every day?

Yes. Do you disagree with this truism?

If one of my grandchildren died, I would devastated. But I live my
life normally knowing about the greater world tragedy.

Do you think I am different this way from anybody else here?

2007-09-21, 6:55 pm

In article <h038f3l0qo3mkqhj6egcsdkin2uacajp6c@4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:18:05 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>
>
>The word "socialism" tends to be reserved for those parts of
>government policies which the speaker doesn't like.

That's so... so *fascist*, Mr Brazee!

DD

Rick Smith

2007-09-21, 6:55 pm

X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
Lines: 60
Bytes: 3972
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.cobol:168267

"SkippyPB" <swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:u9n7f3ljkhfpn1t5hmkgglinqvg5u6i69n@
4ax.com...
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:12:31 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
[snip]
>
> A person in the military that doesn't understand the basic principles
> of our republic is kind of

Doug Miller

2007-09-21, 6:55 pm

In article <UyTIi.55610$Y7.6645@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:

>You think it would have been more rational for us to militarily intervene in
>Vietnam against the French than against the Communists? I don't think so. :-)

The chances of success would have been much, much higher...

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphag

at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Howard Brazee

2007-09-21, 6:55 pm

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:33:17 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:

>
>That's so... so *fascist*, Mr Brazee!

Is my Socialism of the National variety?

Judson McClendon

2007-09-21, 6:55 pm

"Doug Miller" <spambait@milmac.com> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
>
> The chances of success would have been much, much higher...

Can't argue with that. :-)
--
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."

Charles Hottel

2007-09-21, 6:55 pm

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:ll28f390luis6bka28ma53fd13d0o8sd8a@
4ax.com...
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:07:16 -0400, "Charles Hottel"
> <chottel@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> Then make sure to vote in primaries, where your vote will count most.
> The w

after a primary, I change my registration to independent, as
> in my state, I can pick a party at the primary election, but I cannot
> switch parties at the primary election.

I do vote in primaries because around here that determines (most of the
time) who will get the office. I feel that if I do not vote then I should
not complain.

Charles Hottel

2007-09-21, 6:55 pm

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:bp28f3l0jjg9n4ti3gp3qmrq2i43vqtbc9@
4ax.com...
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:13:32 -0500, Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>
>
> Yes. Do you disagree with this truism?
>
> If one of my grandchildren died, I would devastated. But I live my
> life normally knowing about the greater world tragedy.
>
> Do you think I am different this way from anybody else here?

You cannot solve the whole problem yourself. Do you make a contrbution of
any size to the problem? Assuming the answer is yes, if most everyone made
the same relative contribution would it be enough to solve the whole
problem? Then perhaps you are doing your part. Would it help any of those
who died any more if you lived your life in a miserably

state? I doubt
it and you would probably have less resources available to contribute to the
solution.

Charles Hottel

2007-09-21, 6:55 pm

"Charles Hottel" <chottel@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:13f8kbs5mbdir6f@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
> news:bp28f3l0jjg9n4ti3gp3qmrq2i43vqtbc9@
4ax.com...
>
> You cannot solve the whole problem yourself. Do you make a contrbution of
> any size to the problem? Assuming the answer is yes, if most everyone
> made the same relative contribution would it be enough to solve the whole
> problem? Then perhaps you are doing your part. Would it help any of those
> who died any more if you lived your life in a miserably

state? I doubt
> it and you would probably have less resources available to contribute to
> the solution.
>

Sorry, of couse I meant contribution to the solution.

Robert

2007-09-21, 9:55 pm

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:31:57 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:13:32 -0500, Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>
>
>Yes. Do you disagree with this truism?
>
>If one of my grandchildren died, I would devastated. But I live my
>life normally knowing about the greater world tragedy.
>
>Do you think I am different this way from anybody else here?

No. Nearly everybody here thinks the scope of brotherhood is limited to self and family.

LX-i

2007-09-22, 3:55 am

tlmfru wrote:
>
>
> Be honest: do you trust any government, anywhere, at any time, to "educate"
> its people rather than propagandize them? How can a government (an
> organization of people) with a stance to defend/promote possibly be
> objective?

By virtue of a stance that they're promoting, it isn't objective. I
could change the term if you'd like. This administration's propaganda
machine is the worst I've ever seen! :)

> Can you see a government of any stripe having the honesty and
> courage to lay out the problem with all the pro's and con's and then state
> why it's taking such and such a course?

They could. Particularly since we're not talking about government as a
whole, we're talking about an administration. That's one guy at the
top, usually one "main advisor," and the remainder of the cabinet is
supposed to support them.

Take Social Security reform. That's one thing that President Bush ran
on in 2004. When he won (as did his party in Congress), they completely
dropped it! They let any privatization program be painted as making
rich people richer at the expense of those less well-off. Changing
qualification ages is urinating in the wind - it's not going to help the
system OR the people that the system is supposed to be helping.

If I set up an investment scheme like Social Security, I'd be arrested
by the end of the month. Yet any attempt to shore it up (or begin
eliminating it as a program whose purpose has long since been served) is
met with relentless demagoguing. It lowers the level of discourse until
no progress can be made.

At least if the administration fired up the propaganda machine, both
sides would be heard. But now, Democrats say "You're going to starve
Grandma and Grandpa!" and the Republicans reply "Oh - sorry. Never mind."

> Bear in mind, too, that since the beginning of the Iraq invasion, every
> original stated reason has been abandoned. ESPECIALLY "weapons of mass
> destruction".

We found WMDs over there, and Saddam had used them on the Kurds ten
years prior. Meanwhile, did you hear the recent report on the July
explosion in Syria? Seems they were working with the Iranians to fit a
chemical warhead on a Scud missile. I hear sarin is a really sucky way
to die...

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satell...icle%2FShowFull

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \/ _ o ~ Live from Albuquerque, NM! ~
~ _ /\ | ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ Tech Blog ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog ~
~ Personal E-mail ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address ~
~ Personal Blog ~ http://daniel.summershome.org ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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++++

"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine

LX-i

2007-09-22, 3:55 am

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <uJ-dnaJYC-eXqm7bnZ2dnUVZ_uevnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> This is, I believe, called 'moving the target'. If the goal was to 'bring
> democracy to Iraq' and 'democracy was brought to Iraq' then the job was
> done. If the job was 'bring democracy to Iraq and insure that it remains
> for (period of time)' then it was not stated as such; re-stating goals
> after they've been accomplished is not, in my experience, usually
> something done by folks known as 'honorable'.

And exactly what good is democracy that fails ten seconds after we walk
out the door? That's irresponsible - best voiced by then Secretary of
State Colin Powell. He called it the Pottery Barn principle - "you
break it, you buy it." Democracy isn't something we can drop from an
airlift - it has to be demonstrated, trained, and nurtured.

>
> Oh no... are those Pesky Jews back to controlling The Media again? I
> thought that in these days of modern time, with stuff like the Internet
> and a free market in ideas, that people could hear whatever they looked
> for.

Heh - if the Jews were running it, I think we'd be just fine. It's the
terrorist-sympathizers that I have the problem with. :)

>
> Ummmmm... didn't you just, a few paragraphs, ask if democracy can remain
> over time? That seems to be demanding a timetable; does that make you a
> Democrat or a liberal Republican?

You're "seeming" this wrongly. Establishing a democracy that will last
is a far cry from saying "You will do (x) and (y) and (z) by a certain
date, or we will issue very, very stern warnings to you." I saw a chart
that the Iraqi parliament has accomplished 8 of 17 "benchmarks"
suggested to them, while the Democrat Congress chiding them for missing
benchmarks has accomplished 1 of the 7 things on which its candidates
ran leading up to November 2006. Who's missing the target here?

>
> These seem to have been given to them, as noted above... and some say that
> it is the military's job 'to kill people and break things', not to 'help'
> and 'give guidance', as you say they are doing.

Training and reproducing is a natural part of maintaining a standing
military - involving those of other nations in this training is
commonplace. In my current job, I've met officers from several
different countries who came to our Safety Center for training. We're
not building their nations, but we share lessons learned and best practices.

The State Department folks are the ones giving the guidance.

>
> Might it be asked where you found your definition of 'socialism'? 'Having
> been influenced by Federal policy' is not, last I looked, in any
> definition with which I am familiar; the ones I was taught used phrases
> like 'collective ownership of the means of production' and 'government
> administration of the distribution of goods'.

Government has no money of its own. To have money, it has to take that
money from its citizens; this taking of money, taxation, being done at
the point of a gun. (You don't pay, you go to jail.) Anything the
government does with the money it seizes from its citizens, the citizen
cannot choose to do something differently. This falls under the second
definition you gave above - government administration of the
distribution of goods.

Choices are being made for Americans every day, with the money taken
from us, and being used for who knows what. Do I want to use my money
to bail out an airline? Nope. I fly occasionally, and when I do,
*then* they get some of my money to try to help their bottom line. Why
are my tax dollars funding schools? Among my three kids, they have a
total of one semester in a public school. So, I've basically payed for
everyone else's kids to go to school, and I *still* had to write a check
to a school (when we sent them to private school) or buy textbooks
myself (when we home-school). Sure, it's my choice, and it's one that
I've made - but why should I still be taxed to fund public schools? I
don't care about public schools!

The same thing applies to all the issues I mentioned above, and then
some. When the government takes *my* money to give it to someone else
(not the aforementioned "common" things), *that's* socialism. I'm a
pretty charitable guy - but I can assure you that if I had all my
charity dollars to allocate as I see fit, none would be going to Planned
Parenthood, and probably none would go to the United Way either. Yet,
last time I checked, both of these organizations received some sort of
subsidy from the Federal government.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \/ _ o ~ Live from Albuquerque, NM! ~
~ _ /\ | ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ Tech Blog ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog ~
~ Personal E-mail ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address ~
~ Personal Blog ~ http://daniel.summershome.org ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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++++

"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine

LX-i

2007-09-22, 3:55 am

In-Reply-To: <u9n7f3ljkhfpn1t5hmkgglinqvg5u6i69n@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: < Bqidncq0ysiyNGnbnZ2dnUVZ_s6mnZ2d@comcast
.com>
Lines: 168
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.35.171.153
X-Trace: sv3- xVZJyj0vfKA09LCiyqtiEamxFBN3FQy4QgKBhYcO
nFI3wK+OwlDCR2+UNqLaKPJ/ DgBDHrpGhqN6m6K!md4vmwTQv0y1EYJXI5pKw0Bk
cDaPzm49pkJbZgCVM/WrvIcOOsP8BB74X5W5uQA7v/a8LwQeX7Ut!AVsFldLpAlvmWc/xg8blfl552m8DEw==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.35
Bytes: 10387
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.cobol:168360

SkippyPB wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:12:31 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
> So you believe that John Warner, Chuck Nagel, Madeline Stowe and some
> other Republican senators and congress people have bought into the
> "Big Lie"? I don't think you are paying close enough attention.

Chuck Hagel is no Republican, no matter how he identifies himself. As I
said, liberal Republicans are jumping on on this bandwagon.

>
> No your boss GWB set the timetables or milestones or goals or whatever
> you want to call them. He signed off on the defense spending bill
> that included them and has commented on them in many speeches.
> He even went to Iraq and confronted Maliqui about the slow progress
> and the lack of meeting the milestones.

As is his job - dealing with foreign nations is the responsibility of
the executive branch. Sure, we set benchmarks for them, but we can't
enforce that - they were guidelines, things that needed to be done in a
suggested time frame.

>
> And North Korea and Sudan and.... We are not the world police. As
> I've stated before, we (the US governement) caused the split in
> Vietnam. Before we meddled in their affairs, there one Vietnam headed
> by a duly elected president (Ho Chi Minh).

So why do the Democrats want to send troops to the Sudan? To curry
favor with blacks? One of these days, the people of African descent in
this country are going to realize that they've simply traded massa's.
The Democrats exploit them, enact good-sounding policies that actually
do "keep them down", and they still get 95%+ of the black vote. Blows
my mind...

>
> That is just not true. You obviously do not know the history of
> Vietnam and what kind of country and culture they had. I suggest you
> educate yourself on that aspect of Vietnam before you go making such
> blanked statements like the above.

What is untrue? Does not overcoming obstacles slow one down?

I'm sure you could list a long litany of things that you would consider
mistakes. But just because we (as a nation) have made mistakes is no
reason to quit trying! We started a job - even if we shouldn't have, we
still need to finish what we've started.

>
> About 5,000 American lives and countless innocent Iraqi lives. Before
> long this war will account for more Iraqi deaths than occurred during
> Saddam's regime if it hasn't already. I got weary of the body count.

Now who needs to get educated? We're nowhere close to Saddam's body count.

> And about the government we put in place, were there a lot of Iraqi's
> calling for such reforms during their 3,000+ year history as Persia
> and other names before our invasion? If so, I missed that.

The only people complaining about our being there were the Ba'ath party.
Every one else was glad to see us, and are now participating in this new
government. Why didn't they set up a monarchy, if it served them so
well for 3,000+ years?

>
> A person in the military that doesn't understand the basic principles
> of our republic is kind of

. Those things are in the constitution
> if you took the time to look for them. More importantly they fall
> under the preamble which says,
>
> "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect
> union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the
> common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings
> of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish
> this Constitution for the United States of America."

The preamble has no weight - it's like the Declaration of Independence.
Nice insight into the founders' brains, but not law.

> You see that part about "general welfare"? Besides isn't it a moral
> imperative that we see to the health and education of our citizens?

No, it is not - not at the Federal government level. Even *if* they
could do it right (which they can't), that's still *way* too much
overhead in sending the money to Washington, where politicians can
prattle on about who needs it more, then it get sent to the states, then
to the local governments, then to the local agencies that need the funding.

>
> Well you were obviously born too late. You should have consulted with
> Jefferson, Hankock, Franklin et. al so that they could have written a
> constitution more to your liking.

I like the one they wrote just fine, thank you. :)

>
> You have some positive proof that Iran has a nuke they can deliver on
> someone? You should go to the news agencies because no one else has
> that proof. I'm more worried about Pakistan and India having nuclear
> capabilities than I am about Iran at this point in time.

Pakistan and India are both allies. Iran is not, and has shown no
inkling of wanting to become one. On the contrary, they're supplying
the insurgency in Iraq, and telling us to "pound sand" when we warn them
about nukes.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \/ _ o ~ Live from Albuquerque, NM! ~
~ _ /\ | ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ Tech Blog ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog ~
~ Personal E-mail ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address ~
~ Personal Blog ~ http://daniel.summershome.org ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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++++

"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine

LX-i

2007-09-22, 3:55 am

Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:33:17 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>
>
> Is my Socialism of the National variety?

Don't you do that - don't go killing this thread before my posts get
out! ;O

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \/ _ o ~ Live from Albuquerque, NM! ~
~ _ /\ | ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ Tech Blog ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog ~
~ Personal E-mail ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address ~
~ Personal Blog ~ http://daniel.summershome.org ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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++++

"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine

2007-09-22, 6:55 pm

In article <jut8f3pbk6bnss52ca4bt2cc8i46l7dfi5@4ax.com>,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:31:57 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

[snip]

>
>No. Nearly everybody here thinks the scope of brotherhood is limited to
>self and family.

As was written/sung a few decades back:

http://www.guntheranderson.com/v/data/national.htm

DD

SkippyPB

2007-09-22, 6:55 pm

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:18:26 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:07:16 -0400, "Charles Hottel"
><chottel@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>Then make sure to vote in primaries, where your vote will count most.
>The w

after a primary, I change my registration to independent, as
>in my state, I can pick a party at the primary election, but I cannot
>switch parties at the primary election.

Same here. I think I'm going to register as a Republican for the
primaries and vote for Ron Paul whose the only one of the bunch that
makes sense.

Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-

"I knew I was an unwanted baby when I saw that my bath toys were a toaster
and a radio."
-- Joan Rivers
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remove nospam to email me.

Steve

SkippyPB

2007-09-22, 6:55 pm

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:53:28 -0500, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:

>"SkippyPB" <swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
>You aren't considering possible negative effects if we had not gone into
>Vietnam. Like I said, neither you, nor I, nor anyone else is smart enough
>to know exactly what would have happened if we had int intervened in
>Vietnam. You might reasonably say *you think* it would have been
>better, but you *do not know* that it would have been better. Nobody
>knows, can't know.
>
>The French screwed, and screwed up, Vietnam long before we were
>involved there. What makes you put the blame entirely on the U.S.? The
>countries the U.S. supervised after WWII (e.g. Japan and Europe,
>remember the Marshall Plan?) didn't get wasted like Vietnam under the
>French, who tried to hold onto their colonies at all costs (to the colonies).
>
>
>You think it would have been more rational for us to militarily intervene in
>Vietnam against the French than against the Communists? I don't think so. :-)

You are ignoring history Judson. First, Ho Chi Minh and his group
were spies for the US during WW2 against the Japanese. Even though
Japan used Cam Ranh Bay as a shipping port and occupied much of the
country, they risked their lives to give the US ship and troop
movements. This in no small part, helped the US reclaim their Pacific
Rim superiority over Japan.

At the end of WW2, France was tasked with making sure all the Japanese
forces were gone from Vietnam. But instead of doing what they were
tasked to do, they began taking over tea and rubber plantations and
sending the products back to France. During the time Ho Chi Minh was
elected by all of Vietnam to run the country. He had instituted a
socialist type of government to help the poor in the south be able to
survive. Most of the industry and tea and rubber were in the central
and northern parts of Vietnam.

Ho Chi Minh approached President Truman and asked that he intercede
with the French to get them to leave his country. Truman refused
saying he didn't want to agitate a NATO ally. He might was well have
slapped Ho Chi Minh in the face given what the Vietnamese had done for
the US in the past. Of course the Vietnamese got their forces
together and beat the French right out of their country like that had
the British before them, the Chinese before them, the Mongolians
before them and so on and so forth.

There was no reason for the US to split the country. Ho Chi was not a
dictatorial type leader like Kim IL-sung or Pol Pot or others. The US
just didn't like the fact he set up a socialist government. They
ignored historical fact and wrongly thought he'd form an alliance with
China. He was never truly a communist. The only unknown fact is
would France listen to the US had they intervened. Given what France
owed the US, I think it is reasonable to assume they would have.

Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-

"I knew I was an unwanted baby when I saw that my bath toys were a toaster
and a radio."
-- Joan Rivers
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remove nospam to email me.

Steve

SkippyPB

2007-09-22, 6:55 pm

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:38:02 -0400, "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net>
wrote:

>
>"SkippyPB" <swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:u9n7f3ljkhfpn1t5hmkgglinqvg5u6i69n@
4ax.com...
>[snip]
>
>"We the people of the United States" did not become
>citizens of the United States until the Fourteen Amendment
>(1868); eighty years after the Constitution was ratified.
>Therefore, "[to] promote the general welfare" seems to
>apply to the welfare of this "more perfect union" of states
>and not to the people. The welfare of the people seemingly
>left to the states, some of which used the word
>"Commonwealth" in their official names.
>

Very true, but we are a Republic and the Federal level should set the
standards and ensure they are followed by the states or commonwealths
or whatever term they wish to apply to themselves. At the Federal
level they are supposed to enpower the states, either through funds or
legislation or both, to ensure the welfare of the citizens by the
states.

>[While now considered an obsolete usage, "commonwealth"
>has the meaning "public welfare". The Commonwealths are
>Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Kentucky is
>also a commonwealth; but did not exist when the
>Constitution was framed.]
>
>
>Neither Jefferson nor Hancock were delegates to the
>second Constitutional convention, which framed the
>current Constitution.
>
>
You are correct. I was looking only at the original draft of the
constitution.

Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-

"I knew I was an unwanted baby when I saw that my bath toys were a toaster
and a radio."
-- Joan Rivers
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remove nospam to email me.

Steve

Judson McClendon

2007-09-22, 6:55 pm

"SkippyPB" <swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
> ... The only unknown fact is
> would France listen to the US had they intervened. Given what France
> owed the US, I think it is reasonable to assume they would have.

I'm not sure that's a reasonable assumption about France. de Gaulle
kicked the U.S. out of France (in '67, IIRC), from bases we had only
recently built with U.S. dollars. He got little for it, except the land.
People who were there at the time told me they destroyed everything,
destroyed the runways, even filled the sewage lines with concrete,
before leaving. Instead of rebuilding France through the Marshall
Plan, we should have 'liberated' Paris by bombing it to rubble.
--
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."

Doug Miller

2007-09-22, 6:55 pm

X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01
X-NFilter: 1.2.1-b1
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <DncJi.10364$924.2366@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 75.5.205.210
X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net
X-Trace: newssvr23.news.prodigy.net 1190482531 ST000 75.5.205.210 (Sat, 22 Sep 2007 13:35:31 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 13:35:31 EDT
X-UserInfo1: OHXKRXCDYBUYB_H]OJHNO_PAAB]@PAPDLXUNNHLI
WIWTEPIB_NVUAH_[BL[\IRKIANGGJBFNJF_DOLSC
ENSY^U@FRFUEXR@KFXYDBPWBCDQJA@X_DCBHXR[C
@\EOKCJLED_SZ@RMWYXYWE_P@\\GOIW^@SYFFSWH
FIXMADO@^[ADPRPETLBJ]RDGENSKQQZN
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 17:35:51 GMT
Bytes: 2166
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.cobol:168404

In article <2bhaf35mbdujg2vce7u0cfakmnquf8po4q@4ax.com>, SkippyPB <swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:

> At the Federal
>level they are supposed to enpower the states, either through funds or
>legislation or both, to ensure the welfare of the citizens by the
>states.

Please show me where you find that in the Constitution.

Article I lays out the powers of Congress, and the limits of those powers,
quite clearly -- and Amendment X makes it plain that the national government
has *no* powers beyond those granted by the Constitution.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphag

at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Robert

2007-09-22, 9:57 pm

On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:10:10 -0400, SkippyPB <swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:

>You ask what happened in Vietnam? Yes, there was some massive
>bloodshed among the Vietnamese in the south and the north. Had we
>never interfered in their affairs, that would never have happened. And
>what was the stated goal of our involvement in Vietnam? It was to
>prevent southeast Asia from turning communist. The domino theory, as
>it was known then, stated that if Vietnam fell, Laos, Cambodia and,
>more importantly, Thailand would fall as well and Chinese Communists
>would have a foothold on all of Southeast Asia. As we know now, it
>didn't happen. Nothing even close to that happened.

Yes, it did happen. As direct result of our retreat from Vietnam in April 1975, the
Khymer Rouge took over Cambodia in April 1975 and the Pathet Lao took over Laos in
December 1975. Neither would have happened if the US had been a deterrent OR if the North
Vietnamese army had not been fully occupied in South Vietnam. It was the North Vietnamese
who eventually ended the rape of Cambodia in 1979. Had they been available in 1975, the
Killing Fields would never have taken place.

Our failure caused the death of 1.5 million Cambodians.

US Intelligence knew it was coming. Khymer Rouge leaders TOLD us what they planned to do
in their PhD thesesm, which were published while attending French universities in the
'60s. It is little known that they were all intellectuals with PhDs in Political Science,
economics and law. They were well read in French literature. We had been watching both
groups since the '60s. I know because I was in the group doing the watching, USMC Recon.
In 1963, Pol Pot and about 1,000 followers, mostly tribesmen, were hiding in the
mountains of the Ratanakiri province in northern Cambodia. A battalion of Marines (or an
Army division :) could have wiped them out in a month. We knew where they were and what
the had. So did the North Vietnamese, who had long controlled Cambodian politics. Both
sides did nothing.

In 1968, The Khymer Rouge, aided by the North Vietnamese, attacked Sihinouk government
forces and were victorious in 1970. Sihanouk was replaced by Lon Nol, a communist. The US
response was to bomb Vietnamese strongholds, which drove the rural people being bombed,
and more importantly the North Vietnamese, further into the Khymer Rouge camp. We supplied
the Lon Nol government with arms and money until 1973, even though it was a sinking ship
without political credability. In 1973, the US Congress cut off all money. In 1975, when
it became obvious we were fleeing SE Asia, the Khymer Rouge took Phnom Penh a few w

s
before we pulled the plug. The rest is history.

Cambodia is a case study in doing everything wrong.

1. Ignore small problems when they're easily corrected, despite knowledge they will
become big problems.
2. Back the government nobody wants.
3. Piss off the people whose support you need.
4. Refuse to talk with neighbors who share your goals and could have helped.
5. When the going gets tough, run away. Tell them they're on their own.

2007-09-22, 9:57 pm

In article <di98f3l6040ng6f8fcravv4d49108njl60@4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:33:17 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>
>
>Is my Socialism of the National variety?

Nah... just more of the usual 'the rights my side are in favor of are
Good and Decent, that the other sides call 'rights' are abominations.

DD

2007-09-22, 9:57 pm

In article <s8GdnRfyUvDoOWnbnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>And exactly what good is democracy that fails ten seconds after we walk
>out the door?

That might depends on who was trying to use it for what end.

>That's irresponsible - best voiced by then Secretary of
>State Colin Powell. He called it the Pottery Barn principle - "you
>break it, you buy it."

So... the United States brings it, the Iraqis break it and it then falls
upon the United States to bring in more. Seems more like 'they break it,
*we* buy it.'

>Democracy isn't something we can drop from an
>airlift - it has to be demonstrated, trained, and nurtured.

It was. 'This is how you form a government, this is how elections are
held and this is how elected representatives respond to the people. Got
that? Good, I have a transport out to catch.'

>
>
>Heh - if the Jews were running it, I think we'd be just fine. It's the
>terrorist-sympathizers that I have the problem with. :)

Terrorist-sypmathisers or Latter-Day Zoroastrians... the job of the media
is to sell eyeballs and column-inches; rules of the Free Market may be
applied in analysing the reasons for a particular view being presented.

>
>
>You're "seeming" this wrongly. Establishing a democracy that will last
>is a far cry from saying "You will do (x) and (y) and (z) by a certain
>date, or we will issue very, very stern warnings to you."

No, it is much simpler than that. 'That will last' begs the question
'last for how long?'; right now there is an Iraqi parliament so avanced
that it takes vacations that are just as long as those of the President of
the United States of America. This seems like a symptom of 'advancement',
no?

>I saw a chart
>that the Iraqi parliament has accomplished 8 of 17 "benchmarks"
>suggested to them, while the Democrat Congress chiding them for missing
>benchmarks has accomplished 1 of the 7 things on which its candidates
>ran leading up to November 2006. Who's missing the target here?

I've seen charts that show the project I'm working on is on time, on spec
and under budget.

>
>
>Training and reproducing is a natural part of maintaining a standing
>military - involving those of other nations in this training is
>commonplace.

Not according to those whose assertion that the military's job is 'to kill
people and break things'. You want training, hire DeVry Institutes.

>In my current job, I've met officers from several
>different countries who came to our Safety Center for training. We're
>not building their nations, but we share lessons learned and best practices.

Not too many of such folks are involved in shooting wars with the US, it
is hoped.

>
>The State Department folks are the ones giving the guidance.

Fine... then send over the Staties and guy my brothers in khaki... errrr,
olive drab... errrr, digitised whatever *out of the way of bullets*.

>
>
>Government has no money of its own.

This seems to be contradicted by the busily-humming presses of the Bureau
of Printing and Engraving and the Mint. Governments say 'this is what
will be accepted as money', make it and insure the circulation of it... or
at least they've seemed to do so over the past few years.

If government has no money then how, pray tell, does a currency
devaluation work?

>To have money, it has to take that
>money from its citizens; this taking of money, taxation, being done at
>the point of a gun. (You don't pay, you go to jail.)

Oooooo... guys with guns, the Libertarians (sometimes referred to as
'Jefferson's Mistakes') can be far away. Guys with guns take stuff that
says 'this is a product of the Mint/BPE... but that's not government
property, right?

>When the government takes *my* money to give it to someone else
>(not the aforementioned "common" things), *that's* socialism.

Not according to the definitions cited previously about 'collective
ownership of the means of production' and 'goernment administration of the
distribution of goods'. Governments which have functioned on any
decent-sized scale have always, to the best of my knownedge, have had the
power to take a buck from over here and put it over there; if doing so is
'socialism' then all governments, by that criterion, are socialist... and
that appears to be an absurdity.

[snip]

>Yet,
>last time I checked, both of these organizations received some sort of
>subsidy from the Federal government.

Receiving a subsidy from the Federal Government is neither, last I looked,
demonstrating a 'collective ownership of the means of productions' nor
'government administration of the distribution of goods'. Insofar as that
is correct then the situation you've cited is, by definition, *not*
socialism.

DD

Robert

2007-09-23, 3:55 am

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 02:38:03 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:

>In article <s8GdnRfyUvDoOWnbnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

>
>Receiving a subsidy from the Federal Government is neither, last I looked,
>demonstrating a 'collective ownership of the means of productions' nor
>'government administration of the distribution of goods'. Insofar as that
>is correct then the situation you've cited is, by definition, *not*
>socialism.

cir·cum·lo·cu·tion

1 : the use of an unnecessarily large number of words to express an idea
2 : evasion in speech

LX-i

2007-09-23, 3:55 am

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <s8GdnRfyUvDoOWnbnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> That might depends on who was trying to use it for what end.

I really don't see that pulling out before it is firmly established is
moving the target.

>
> So... the United States brings it, the Iraqis break it and it then falls
> upon the United States to bring in more. Seems more like 'they break it,
> *we* buy it.'

We didn't break the democracy, we broke their existing government. We
need to leave them with a functional, potent government.

>
> It was. 'This is how you form a government, this is how elections are
> held and this is how elected representatives respond to the people. Got
> that? Good, I have a transport out to catch.'

OK - catch a flight over there and give that a shot. Let me know how
you get on...

>
> Terrorist-sypmathisers or Latter-Day Zoroastrians... the job of the media
> is to sell eyeballs and column-inches; rules of the Free Market may be
> applied in analysing the reasons for a particular view being presented.

Are you telling me that the free market somehow changed between World
War II / Korea and Vietnam? I don't think it was the market, I believe
it was the providers.

>
> No, it is much simpler than that. 'That will last' begs the question
> 'last for how long?'; right now there is an Iraqi parliament so avanced
> that it takes vacations that are just as long as those of the President of
> the United States of America. This seems like a symptom of 'advancement',
> no?

Vacations are actually beneficial to productivity, and they also allow
the representatives time to reconnect with their constituents. This is
one of those "can't make a baby in 3 months by using 3 women" things -
to get it done *right* takes time. You work on it a while, step back
and look at it, think some more, then dig back in.

>
> I've seen charts that show the project I'm working on is on time, on spec
> and under budget.

Ah - but this chart was illustrating actual fact! :)

>
> Not according to those whose assertion that the military's job is 'to kill
> people and break things'. You want training, hire DeVry Institutes.

So how do the people in the military know how to kill people and break
things? Are they just naturally gifted in this area, and we've been
oh-so-fortunate as a nation that they enlist? If you're training a
*military*, it makes sense to use *military* trainers.

>
> Not too many of such folks are involved in shooting wars with the US, it
> is hoped.

Heh - well, they're involved, but they're shooting the same direction we
are. :)

>
>
> Fine... then send over the Staties and guy my brothers in khaki... errrr,
> olive drab... errrr, digitised whatever

Sorry for the mid-sentence snip - don't get me started on this stuff
they're calling uniform fabric...

> *out of the way of bullets*.

I'd love to. But, I'd rather the bullets be fired at those who know how
to evade and retaliate than for them to be directed at the Iraqi
legislature. If unguarded, it would probably take very little time to
assassinate every governmental leader over there now. We're back to
buying what we broke...

>
> This seems to be contradicted by the busily-humming presses of the Bureau
> of Printing and Engraving and the Mint. Governments say 'this is what
> will be accepted as money', make it and insure the circulation of it... or
> at least they've seemed to do so over the past few years.
>
> If government has no money then how, pray tell, does a currency
> devaluation work?

The government prints the money - but if printing the money were the
solution to funding the government, why have taxation at all? "Spend
all you want, we'll print more!" would make a great political slogan...

>
> Oooooo... guys with guns, the Libertarians (sometimes referred to as
> 'Jefferson's Mistakes') can be far away. Guys with guns take stuff that
> says 'this is a product of the Mint/BPE... but that's not government
> property, right?

Quibble over how I describe it, but it's true. If every single American
stopped paying taxes tomorrow, the government coffers would dry up in a
hurry. (Granted, it would be difficult to pull that off, since they
collect money in so many different ways...)

>
> Not according to the definitions cited previously about 'collective
> ownership of the means of production' and 'goernment administration of the
> distribution of goods'. Governments which have functioned on any
> decent-sized scale have always, to the best of my knownedge, have had the
> power to take a buck from over here and put it over there; if doing so is
> 'socialism' then all governments, by that criterion, are socialist... and
> that appears to be an absurdity.

Call it absurd if you want. It's not USSR-level socialism, but it is a
form. "Government administration of the distribution of goods." When
they take *my* money, and distribute it to *other* people, how exactly
would you categorize that?

Should I go across the street, take one of our neighbor's 5 cars, and
give it to the folks two streets over who only have 2? Of course not -
that's not my place. I don't know what my neighbors need with 5 cars,
but I'll bet they could tell me. Is it fair that they have 5 cars while
my other neighbors have 2? We just don't know. Maybe one house has 4
legal drivers, while the other only has 2. Maybe the folks with 2 are
saving up for a third. It's doesn't really matter, though, because the
point of this is that it is *not my place* to take from one and give to
the other, just because I perceive an imbalance.

Ditto with the government and people's hard-earned wages. Mr. Business
Owner gets 35% of his income confiscated - that's 35% of his earnings
that he cannot reinvest in his business, to expand it and provide more
jobs. Meanwhile, the money seized from Mr. Business Owner goes to fund
unemployment checks. If the free market were allowed to work, the
unemployment check would be unnecessary, because business would be
expanding at such a rate that the unemployed could get work. The
biggest problem with this, for a lot of people, is that no one
*controls* it.

What was that definition again? Something about controlling the
distribution of goods?

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \/ _ o ~ Live from Albuquerque, NM! ~
~ _ /\ | ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ Tech Blog ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog ~
~ Personal E-mail ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address ~
~ Personal Blog ~ http://daniel.summershome.org ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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++++

"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine

2007-09-23, 7:56 am

In article <mhmbf3d2j98v89cf8pedtu6ceaf8sui1kj@4ax.com>,
Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 02:38:03 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>
>
>
>cir·cum·lo·cu·tion
>
>1 : the use of an unnecessarily large number of words to express an idea
>2 : evasion in speech

se·qui·tur

the conclusion of an inference : CONSEQUENCE

Now, are there any other miscellaneous definitions to be hurled about with
such abandon? The Buddha is supposed to have made sermons requiring only
a lotus-flower; such brilliance-for-the-ages is neither expected from
participants here nor, in this case, demonstrated by any.

DD

2007-09-23, 7:56 am

In article <zNGdnb-Q8paiZGjbnZ2dnUVZ_uKpnZ2d@comcast.com>,
LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>I really don't see that pulling out before it is firmly established is
>moving the target.

A: 'We need to establish a democratic government before we leave.'

B: 'All right, it is established, let's go home.'

A: 'No, we cannot... we need to establish a democratic form of government
and insure that it endures according to the intention of our establishing
for (period of time).'

That is not 'moving the goalposts' Our definitions are rather different,
it seems.

>
>
>We didn't break the democracy, we broke their existing government. We
>need to leave them with a functional, potent government.

We've established that already, there have been elections... remember the
happy purple thumbs? It is theirs to do with as they want.

>
>
>OK - catch a flight over there and give that a shot. Let me know how
>you get on...

It is not my role as a citizen to do that... it is my role as a citizen
to, if I see that as a desired course of action, to attempt to elect
officials who will do such a thing.

>
>
>Are you telling me that the free market somehow changed between World
>War II / Korea and Vietnam? I don't think it was the market, I believe
>it was the providers.

I'm trying to tell you that 'the job of the media is to sell eyeballs anc
column-inches', my apologies if I failed.

>
>
>Vacations are actually beneficial to productivity, and they also allow
>the representatives time to reconnect with their constituents. This is
>one of those "can't make a baby in 3 months by using 3 women" things -
>to get it done *right* takes time. You work on it a while, step back
>and look at it, think some more, then dig back in.

So you agree that the Iraqi government exists, is democratically elected
and is productive. Seems to satisfy the Mission Statement rather well.

>
>
>Ah - but this chart was illustrating actual fact! :)

The chart I referred to was claiming to do just that, too... and perhaps
it did, until a Corner-Office Idiot said 'Oh, and while you're at it, can
you give us the inverse-barometric pressure sort, too?'

>
>
>So how do the people in the military know how to kill people and break
>things? Are they just naturally gifted in this area, and we've been
>oh-so-fortunate as a nation that they enlist? If you're training a
>*military*, it makes sense to use *military* trainers.

If military matters are all that are being taught then bring the folks who
need training over to the USA... there are a bunch of closed and/or
underutilised bases that can be used for this purpose.

[snip]

>
>Sorry for the mid-sentence snip - don't get me started on this stuff
>they're calling uniform fabric...
>
>
>I'd love to. But, I'd rather the bullets be fired at those who know how
>to evade and retaliate than for them to be directed at the Iraqi
>legislature. If unguarded, it would probably take very little time to
>assassinate every governmental leader over there now. We're back to
>buying what we broke...

Were that scenario to be played out... once again, *we* would not be the
ones breaking the democratically-elected government of the Iraqis,
*someone else* would be breaking that we installed by complying with our
mission objectives.

>
>
>The government prints the money - but if printing the money were the
>solution to funding the government, why have taxation at all? "Spend
>all you want, we'll print more!" would make a great political slogan...

These questions are answered in most basic textbooks of Economics... do
you really need them repeated here?

>
>
>Quibble over how I describe it, but it's true.

I have not quibbled, I believe I have shown the argument to be wrong.

>If every single American
>stopped paying taxes tomorrow, the government coffers would dry up in a
>hurry. (Granted, it would be difficult to pull that off, since they
>collect money in so many different ways...)

If every single American decided to break a given law there would be a bit
of disruption; this is Now News, either. Remember 'what if they gave a
war and nobody came'?

>
>
>Call it absurd if you want. It's not USSR-level socialism, but it is a
>form.

It does not fit any of the criteria given in the definition... but the
definition applies? None of the criteria of 'leg' apply to 'tail' but
calling it such makes it one, it seems.

>"Government administration of the distribution of goods." When
>they take *my* money, and distribute it to *other* people, how exactly
>would you categorize that?

Not this again. 'Money', by definition, is 'something generally accepted
as a medium of exchange, a measure of value, or a means of payment'; that
kind of stuff, in the USA, is, usually, manufactured, controlled and
distributed by the government.

>
>Should I go across the street, take one of our neighbor's 5 cars, and
>give it to the folks two streets over who only have 2?

No more than you should be allowed to declare war, establish treaties,
raise and maintain an army and other such Stately Matters. Some things a
country does, some things an individual does... been that way for a while,
too.

DD

donald tees

2007-09-23, 6:55 pm

LX-i wrote:
> Call it absurd if you want. It's not USSR-level socialism, but it is a
> form. "Government administration of the distribution of goods." When
> they take *my* money, and distribute it to *other* people, how exactly
> would you categorize that?

Taxes.

>
> Should I go across the street, take one of our neighbor's 5 cars, and
> give it to the folks two streets over who only have 2? Of course not -
> that's not my place. I don't know what my neighbors need with 5 cars,
> but I'll bet they could tell me. Is it fair that they have 5 cars while
> my other neighbors have 2? We just don't know. Maybe one house has 4
> legal drivers, while the other only has 2. Maybe the folks with 2 are
> saving up for a third. It's doesn't really matter, though, because the
> point of this is that it is *not my place* to take from one and give to
> the other, just because I perceive an imbalance.

IT is only OK if it is somebody else's government?

I have severe doubts that a government forced onto a people by an army
is "democracy", or "freedom", however you tart it up in rhetoric.

Donald

SkippyPB

2007-09-23, 6:55 pm

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 20:36:35 -0500, Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:10:10 -0400, SkippyPB <swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>Yes, it did happen. As direct result of our retreat from Vietnam in April 1975, the
>Khymer Rouge took over Cambodia in April 1975 and the Pathet Lao took over Laos in
>December 1975. Neither would have happened if the US had been a deterrent OR if the North
>Vietnamese army had not been fully occupied in South Vietnam. It was the North Vietnamese
>who eventually ended the rape of Cambodia in 1979. Had they been available in 1975, the
>Killing Fields would never have taken place.
>
>Our failure caused the death of 1.5 million Cambodians.
>
>US Intelligence knew it was coming. Khymer Rouge leaders TOLD us what they planned to do
>in their PhD thesesm, which were published while attending French universities in the
>'60s. It is little known that they were all intellectuals with PhDs in Political Science,
>economics and law. They were well read in French literature. We had been watching both
>groups since the '60s. I know because I was in the group doing the watching, USMC Recon.
>In 1963, Pol Pot and about 1,000 followers, mostly tribesmen, were hiding in the
>mountains of the Ratanakiri province in northern Cambodia. A battalion of Marines (or an
>Army division :) could have wiped them out in a month. We knew where they were and what
>the had. So did the North Vietnamese, who had long controlled Cambodian politics. Both
>sides did nothing.
>
>In 1968, The Khymer Rouge, aided by the North Vietnamese, attacked Sihinouk government
>forces and were victorious in 1970. Sihanouk was replaced by Lon Nol, a communist. The US
>response was to bomb Vietnamese strongholds, which drove the rural people being bombed,
>and more importantly the North Vietnamese, further into the Khymer Rouge camp. We supplied
>the Lon Nol government with arms and money until 1973, even though it was a sinking ship
>without political credability.