Ex-Premie Forum 7 Archive
From: Sep 29, 2001 To: Oct 04, 2001 Page: 5 of: 5


Sir Dave -:- This myth, this lie -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 10:25:56 (EDT)
__ cq -:- What sanctions are meant to achieve -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 14:41:36 (EDT)
__ Chuck S. -:- The source was an article... -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 14:20:56 (EDT)
__ salam -:- No money -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 11:30:49 (EDT)
__ __ Mel Bourne -:- Bullshit...Read UNICEF report in above post -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 00:47:07 (EDT)
__ __ __ })Salam}) -:- Bullshit?})}) -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 04:14:41 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Mel Bourne -:- Re: Bullshit?})}) -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 04:39:41 (EDT)
__ __ __ Scott T. -:- Bullshit...read it yourself. -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 03:20:53 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Mel Bourne -:- Buffoon yourself, Scott -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 04:32:09 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Slow dancing with Saddam Hussein -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 09:44:14 (EDT)
__ __ Mel Bourne -:- Bullshit...Read UNICEF report in above post -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 00:47:04 (EDT)
__ __ __ Mel Bourne -:- Excerpt from UNICEF press release... -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 00:57:00 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Mel Bourne -:- The UNICEF report makes no mention.... -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 01:04:07 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- What a buffoon. -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 03:25:05 (EDT)
__ __ Sir Dave -:- Thanks, that explains it well [nt] -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 21:06:47 (EDT)

Scott T. -:- World Trade Center structural integrity -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 10:20:13 (EDT)
__ Sir Dave -:- Re: World Trade Center structural integrity -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 10:38:52 (EDT)
__ __ Scott T. -:- Re: World Trade Center structural integrity -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 11:03:26 (EDT)
__ Katie -:- Re: World Trade Center structural integrity -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 10:35:05 (EDT)
__ __ Scott T. -:- Re: World Trade Center structural integrity -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 11:09:21 (EDT)
__ __ __ Rick -:- Re: World Trade Center structural integrity -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 14:22:00 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: World Trade Center structural integrity -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 14:54:08 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Rick -:- Re: World Trade Center structural integrity -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 15:16:18 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: World Trade Center structural integrity -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 21:04:39 (EDT)
__ __ __ Katie -:- Re: World Trade Center structural integrity -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 11:26:18 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ sal -:- Re: World Trade Center structural integrity -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 17:30:05 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Salsa - e-mail JHB (John Brauns) -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 20:45:03 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ salsa -:- Re: Salsa - e-mail JHB (John Brauns) -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 01:06:23 (EDT)

Little Mo -:- Inside Al-Qaeda -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 07:25:47 (EDT)
__ Bob -:- Some qustions about Islam -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 09:12:20 (EDT)

Dermot -:- Jews and muslms live in harmony -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 23:31:46 (EDT)
__ JohnT -:- Re: Jews and muslims live in harmony -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 08:37:44 (EDT)
__ Scott T. -:- Re: Jews and muslms live in harmony -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 00:01:43 (EDT)
__ __ salam -:- Re: Jews and muslms live in harmony -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 05:10:25 (EDT)
__ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: Jews and muslms live in harmony -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 10:27:46 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ salam -:- Re: Jews and muslms live in harmony -:- Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 09:02:20 (EDT)
__ __ Dermot -:- ' I have a dream ' [nt] -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 00:18:53 (EDT)
__ Jethro -:- Re: Jews and muslms live in harmony -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 00:00:10 (EDT)
__ __ Dermot -:- Re: Jews and muslms live in harmony -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 00:17:39 (EDT)
__ Jethro -:- Re: Jews and muslms live in harmony -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 00:00:01 (EDT)

Jews and Muslims live in great harmony -:- -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 23:30:39 (EDT)

Dermot -:- Poor, tragic kids.... -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 23:07:00 (EDT)
__ Sir Dave -:- It's nothing knew -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 06:38:45 (EDT)
__ Rick -:- Re: Poor, tragic kids.... -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 00:15:39 (EDT)
__ btdt -:- Re: Poor, tragic kids.... -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 23:34:23 (EDT)
__ __ salam -:- Poor tragic everyone -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 05:03:38 (EDT)
__ __ __ [Blank] -:- RAWA Link -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 05:08:04 (EDT)
__ __ Mel Bourne -:- Re: Poor, tragic kids.... -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 00:00:42 (EDT)
__ __ __ Mel Bourne -:- Poor, tragic kids....donations -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 04:51:02 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Mel Bourne -:- Red Cross/Crescent - Afghan appeal -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 09:06:22 (EDT)
__ __ Dermot -:- Re: Poor, tragic kids.... -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 23:36:31 (EDT)
__ Dermot -:- 1 in 4 Afghan kids die before 5yo [nt] -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 23:08:50 (EDT)
__ __ Stonor -:- Canada has already pledged $1 million [nt] -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 02:15:22 (EDT)

Francesca -:- And thus spake 'god' -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 15:51:13 (EDT)
__ Jim -:- More like 'Thus spake the Onion' -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 17:40:34 (EDT)
__ __ G -:- Hijackers surprised to find selves in Hell -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 13:40:00 (EDT)
__ PatD -:- Great wit and great point [nt] -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 16:49:46 (EDT)

Rick -:- Perception of U.S. OT -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 11:44:44 (EDT)
__ JohnT -:- Re: Perception of U.S. OT -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 08:31:39 (EDT)
__ Jim -:- Yes, and your point is....? -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 14:18:31 (EDT)
__ __ Rick -:- Re: Yes, and your point is....? -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 15:23:38 (EDT)
__ __ __ Salam -:- Don't make sweeping assumptions -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 23:08:23 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Rick -:- Re: Don't make sweeping assumptions -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 00:20:13 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- He only skim reads Rick :) [nt] -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 00:26:48 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ salam -:- Re: He only skim reads Rick :) -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 04:53:45 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Re: He only skim reads Rick :) -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 07:05:12 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: Don't make sweeping assumptions -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 23:51:47 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- What about this, Scott? -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 09:01:46 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- I think this -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 10:56:27 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Ah, shit -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 09:08:57 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- You confused me. -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 11:50:45 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- UK arms trade too ... -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 10:03:22 (EDT)
__ Barbara -:- An article by Appleyard of UK Sunday Times OT -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 13:40:47 (EDT)
__ __ JohnT -:- Appleyard: Ignorance is Strength -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 08:18:38 (EDT)
__ __ __ Scott T. -:- And trite is trite. -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 12:15:09 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ JohnT -:- Gotcha! -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 16:33:11 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Is that Britspeak for 'which end is up?' -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 21:50:24 (EDT)
__ __ __ Barbara -:- Murdoch -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 11:43:42 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Re: Murdoch, Fox TV, the Simpsons -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 14:54:01 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Francesca -:- Dear Barbara -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 13:41:23 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Barbara -:- Hey, Fran.... -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 11:12:24 (EDT)
__ __ __ Dermot -:- Very good post John -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 09:48:02 (EDT)
__ __ bobo -:- Re: Appleyard: Ignorance - too true -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 09:35:33 (EDT)
__ __ __ Rick -:- Re: Appleyard: Ignorance - too true -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 15:34:20 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Hey Rick -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 16:45:10 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Rick -:- Re: Hey Rick -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 20:41:58 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Rick -:- Sorry -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 20:44:27 (EDT)
__ __ __ Dermot -:- Hi Bobo -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 10:20:34 (EDT)
__ __ PatD -:- The times they are a changing -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 18:31:27 (EDT)
__ __ Jim -:- What an excellent essay! -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 14:29:36 (EDT)
__ __ __ Pat:C) -:- But I still hate rock n roll -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 14:35:47 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Yet another false dilemna -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 14:40:50 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Puccini's last aria -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 14:55:05 (EDT)
__ __ Dermot -:- He has a point but -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 14:18:19 (EDT)
__ __ __ Jerry -:- Agreed -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 19:39:24 (EDT)
__ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: He has a point but -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 17:24:14 (EDT)
__ __ __ Barbara -:- Re: He has a point but -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 15:12:49 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Well, I'm feeling magnanimous -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 17:45:20 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Barbara -:- Lucky for me, I guess -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 21:23:08 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: Lucky for me, I guess -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 21:50:01 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Re: He has a point but -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 16:04:15 (EDT)
__ __ __ Pat:C) -:- What is perfection? -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 14:33:55 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Peg -:- Envy..You've got it there i think -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 05:07:28 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Give me a 10 foot pole -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 12:53:13 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Not sure about envy -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 09:55:28 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Or vice versa Katie?????? -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 10:42:05 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Re: Or vice versa Katie? -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 11:20:21 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Yes I think it is 'OBLIGATED' -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 13:05:17 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- The dilemma of obligation and independence. -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 14:34:29 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Thanks Scott -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 17:14:34 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- BTW Katie -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 11:18:44 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Dermot the fiery -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 11:28:05 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Re: Envy..You've got it there i think -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 07:07:57 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Peg -:- Re: Envy..You've got it there i think -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 14:30:22 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- You must be the only one Peg -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 14:36:03 (EDT)
__ __ __ Jim -:- Can you read, Dermot? -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 14:30:38 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ Dermot -:- An example, Jim ,Pat -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 14:43:01 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Dermot - a point -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 11:41:09 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- I know that Katie -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 12:29:46 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Okay, okay, enough already -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 15:11:49 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Healthcare beef. -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 18:14:42 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Jesus Christ, Dermot! -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 14:57:41 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- What's NEXT Jim? -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 09:55:11 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Complete rubbish Jim -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 15:49:31 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- The point. -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 18:36:10 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Leave Dermott alone -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 20:09:13 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Perfectly valid observation, sorry. -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 21:20:02 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Marxism bad for business -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 22:36:10 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: Marxism bad for business -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 22:48:11 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- Re: Marxism bad for business -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 14:57:08 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Take a bow... -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 02:39:43 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- But I think you enjoy it -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 03:36:25 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: But I think you enjoy it -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 13:28:55 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pat:C) -:- But Scott you're talking to ghosts -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 14:22:54 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Re: Perfectly valid observation, sorry. -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 21:53:43 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Observations. -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 22:09:18 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Re: Observations. -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 22:28:04 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- The Umma of the Mulk. -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 22:44:22 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- nope not making sense yet :) [nt] -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 22:50:42 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Then you need to do some research on your own. [nt] -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 23:15:43 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Me too I guess -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 00:08:18 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- My message didn't show -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 00:13:42 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Complexity and names -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 02:32:21 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Hey, leave Scott alone, why don't you? -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 21:19:55 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Hey, I like Scott, okay? -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 21:58:07 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Well I don't ... but still .... -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 23:04:29 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jerry -:- Aw, c'mon, he ain't such a bad guy -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 00:02:58 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Spoken like a TRUE patriot Jerry :) [nt] -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 20:13:58 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Re: The point....not the point -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 19:01:39 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Decartes... not Descartes -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 21:41:10 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- Re: Decartes... not Descartes -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 22:26:39 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Dermot -:- AND -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 23:45:00 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: Decartes... not Descartes -:- Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 23:30:43 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Marianne -:- Kissinger??? -:- Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 22:39:28 (EDT)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Re: Kissinger??? -:- Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 13:19:35 (EDT)


Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 10:25:56 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: All
Subject: This myth, this lie
Message:
It has been written and quoted somewhere on these forums:

''America has killed over 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of 5 years old with our anti-Saddam sanctions''

Some people read this and believe it. It just isn't true. Iraqi children have died, probably in that number because of the severe lack of medical supplies in Iraq. However, no Western country has imposed sanctions and prevented the flow of money for medical supplies for hospitals.

So where does the money go that the West gives to Iraq for medical supplies? It goes into Saddam Hussain's back pocket.

Perhaps someone else has more details about this lie which is constantly perpetrated.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 14:41:36 (EDT)
From: cq
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: What sanctions are meant to achieve
Message:
I hope the figures are wildly inflated, Dave, but I have to wonder just how many civilian deaths would be acceptable to you, in the furtherance of supporting these sanctions?

Here's a pro-Israeli, right wing assessment of what sanctions are meant to achieve - not in Iraq this time, but in Iran.

Considering it was written before February of this year, it's remarkably prophetic about Bin Laden.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/media/clawson.htm

PREPARED TESTIMONY OF PATRICK CLAWSON
DIRECTOR FOR RESEARCH, THE WASHINGTON
INSTITUTE FOR NEAR EAST POLICY

TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE
ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

'U.S. SANCTIONS ON IRAN: WHAT HAS BEEN
ACHIEVED AND AT WHAT COST?'
JUNE 3, 1998

It's a long report, but important.

(PS - just because I'm linking to it here, please don't get the idea that I endorse OR oppose all or any of the views expressed in the article).

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 14:20:56 (EDT)
From: Chuck S.
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: The source was an article...
Message:
... called 'Judgement Day in Mystery Babylon', by Fundamentalist Christian Anthony C. LoBaido. The link was on the Anything Goes Forum.

The author claims to have discovered this 'fact' while spending most of last year travelling through the muslim world. He makes many assertions, but does not offer any information on his souces. He quotes a book that someone named 'Stephanopolous' supposedly wrote about Clinton, but doesn't tell you the title, much less chapters or page numbers where the quote could be found in context. It's a good example of why we all need to remember, that on the internet, anyone can say anything. It doesn't make it true. When an author won't reveal his sources, you have to wonder what he's NOT telling you, and why.

How many Iraqi children under the age of 5 have died, and of what causes, is a good question. I don't know where one can find accurate information about that. The 500,000 figure could be nothing more than Saddam's propaganda. But real or not, I'm sure many of the arabs believe it's true, so it is real for them.
[ Judgement Day in Myster Babylon? ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 11:30:49 (EDT)
From: salam
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: No money
Message:
they don't give him money. They give him medical supplies. He then smuggle the supplies across Syria, Jordan or ship in the gulf and sell them on the black market. That is why the children are dying.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 00:47:07 (EDT)
From: Mel Bourne
Email: None
To: salam
Subject: Bullshit...Read UNICEF report in above post
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 04:14:41 (EDT)
From: })Salam})
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: Bullshit?})})
Message:
Am not arguing how many are dead. In ten years it's about 1.5 million. Read the post agin. Saddam is selling what he get for medication in the black market and don't bloody bullshit me mate. Get your facts straight.

@#w1$5 c#@t

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 04:39:41 (EDT)
From: Mel Bourne
Email: None
To: })Salam})
Subject: Re: Bullshit?})})
Message:
Salam

The 'bullshit' was intended at the 'myths & lies' post of Dave's at the top asserting that the 500,000 are false and chucks's prouncements that the figure may have been Saddam's propaganda, not to your particular comment re black marketeering (although, I think you may be overstating your point!). My apologies for the response appearing under your post!

Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 03:20:53 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: Bullshit...read it yourself.
Message:
The report makes no refutation of Salam's claim that Sadam is, himself, diverting funds and resources meant for humanitarian aid. The report indicates: 'Even if not all suffering in Iraq can be imputed to external factors [read, at least some of it is not, and the only internal factor of note must be the homicidal maniac himself], especially sanctions, the Iraqi people would not be undergoing such deprivations in the absence of the prolonged measures imposed by the Security Council and the effects of war.'

You apparently don't know how to read a report. It says simply that, holding everything else equal, child mortality would be less in the absence of the sanctions or the effects of war. In other words it's seeking to monitor the effects of the sanctions not to eliminate them, but to minimize their undesirable effects. It does not say that everything would be better in the absence of those sanctions. Indeed, it makes no recommendation to lift the sanctions, which would seem to indicate that in the long run it believes the Iraqi people and the world in general might be better off with the sanctions than without them. Even if they *don't* believe that, it's simply a matter of common sense. (And one pretty obvious way to get rid of the sanctions is to get rid of Saddam.)

Indeed, they go so far as to say: 'Sanctions is a sensitive topic. It is important that UNICEF remains squarely in the humanitarian realm of sanctions and not cross into the larger political arena. In this sense, UNICEF advocates for protection of the vulnerable child. Articulation of this aim in a set of Sanctions Principles would further serve to clarify and limit UNICEF's interest to that of humanitarian actor. '

As anyone might, they seek to limit the impact of sanctions on those it is not intended to harm. How does this support the contention that the US is 'responsible for the murder of 500,000 innocent children' when in fact it is the US that foots the bill for minimizing the negative impacts of sanctions? What sort of warped view of history informs that twisted mind of yours?

And Saddam almost certainly *is* diverting resources meant for aid (often supplied by the US), for the perfectly obvious reason that you're willing to attribute any lack suffered by Iraq's population not to him, but to the US, the UN or the Security Council. Anyone, but him. You sir, are a dope. A dangerous dope, to boot. Your inability to see the truth actually encourages and empowers a murderous dictator to inflict greater misery on his people.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 04:32:09 (EDT)
From: Mel Bourne
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Buffoon yourself, Scott
Message:
Scott
I have never contended that '..the US is 'responsible for the murder of 500,000 innocent children'' or denied (even commented) that '...the US that foots the bill for minimizing the negative impacts of sanctions'. So you are grossly off the mark when you ask '..What sort of warped view of history informs that twisted mind of yours?... you're over reacting!

Indeed, it makes no recommendation to lift the sanctions, which would seem to indicate that in the long run it believes the Iraqi people and the world in general might be better off with the sanctions than without them.

Your opinion, Scott, the fact is that numerous humanitarian agencies have seen the UNICEF report in a different light to you, especially when '...UNICEF advocates for protection of the vulnerable child.' How can you possibly assert that a press release by UNICEF reporting a possible 500,000 deaths as a result of the sanctions could be possible interpreted in any other way?

You say...and Saddam almost certainly *is* diverting resources meant for aid....

I have not denied this, I merely stated that I thought that this would have been certainly mentioned in the UNICEF report if it had been widespread. Are you suggesting that that UNICEF wouldn't include such an abuse in their report given it's clear mandate and responsiblity as 'advocate' for 'protector' of the vulnerable child? Don't you think they would see it as a moral obligation to report it if it was widespread?

'Your inability to see the truth actually encourages and empowers a murderous dictator to inflict greater misery on his people'

Emotional rubbish, Scott, seems that when you are confronted with an independant report on the issues like this UNICEF onet, you grossly overreact and verge on personal abuse. I'm certainly not pro American as my posts clearly demonstrate, but I'm certainly not the 'with terrorism' (or Saddam) either. Maybe your President's simplistic utterances of late have swayed your better judgement, Scott, but at least try to be less paranoid about alternative perspectives.

Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 09:44:14 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: Slow dancing with Saddam Hussein
Message:
Your opinion, Scott, the fact is that numerous humanitarian agencies have seen the UNICEF report in a different light to you, especially when '...UNICEF advocates for protection of the vulnerable child.' How can you possibly assert that a press release by UNICEF reporting a possible 500,000 deaths as a result of the sanctions could be possible interpreted in any other way?

Because UNICEF says so, you twit. OK, millions of people interpreted the report as being opposed to sanctions, but the fact is that the UN (the Security Council is part of the UN, right?) established the mandate for UNICEF in order to monitor the effects of it's *own* sanctions... with the *expressed* intent of minimizing the impact on children. If that's what they say, then what difference does it make what light humanitarian agencies have seen the report in? Are you saying UNICEF has an implied subtext? If so, then what's the point of asking people to read the report, if it's *real* meaning is not spelled out?

You say...and Saddam almost certainly *is* diverting resources meant for aid....
I have not denied this, I merely stated that I thought that this would have been certainly mentioned in the UNICEF report if it had been widespread.

Well, that's a creative backpedal if I ever saw one. What is the word 'bullshit' supposed to convey Mel, mild reservation? You're so full of it it's spouting out your ears.

'Your inability to see the truth actually encourages and empowers a murderous dictator to inflict greater misery on his people'

Emotional rubbish, Scott, seems that when you are confronted with an independant report on the issues like this UNICEF onet, you grossly overreact and verge on personal abuse.

I didn't think this would be so hard to grasp, so let me put it plainly. Saddam can count on you to blame most (if not all) of the impact of deficiencies on the US, so any further reductions he can artificially create in resources through black market activity will automatically redound to his benefit in two ways: 1. put more pressure on the US to lift the sanctions, and 2. put a little extra pocket change in his grubby khakis. Hence, you are indirectly but substantially adding to the suffering of the people you intend to help, by your stubborn inability to give credence to the obvious, and to use good judgment. Now, just how is that an emotional over-reaction? It's a simple, plain vanilla deduction, that's all.

You're either an incorrigible liar or an irredeemable fool Mel, and in either case dangerous and destructive.

The only real way out of this for you is to acknowledge that you've made a huge error in judgment, that was motivated by good intentions. Then we can judge for ourselves, by your subsequent actions, what your intentions were and are. It's not like you have a monopoly on mistakes, but sometimes it seems like it.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 00:47:04 (EDT)
From: Mel Bourne
Email: None
To: salam
Subject: Bullshit...Read UNICEF report in above post
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 00:57:00 (EDT)
From: Mel Bourne
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: Excerpt from UNICEF press release...
Message:
Dave et al

From UNICEF press release dated Aug 1999..

Ms. Bellamy noted that if the substantial reduction in child mortality throughout Iraq during the 1980s had continued through the 1990s, there would have been half a million fewer deaths of children under-five in the country as a whole during the eight year period 1991 to 1998. As a partial explanation, she pointed to a March statement of the Security Council Panel on Humanitarian Issues which states: 'Even if not all suffering in Iraq can be imputed to external factors, especially sanctions, the Iraqi people would not be undergoing such deprivations in the absence of the prolonged measures imposed by the Security Council and the effects of war.'

Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 01:04:07 (EDT)
From: Mel Bourne
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: The UNICEF report makes no mention....
Message:
of the black marketeering you've suggested, Salam, and I'm sure they would have if it was as substantial as you suggest.

Mel

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 03:25:05 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: What a buffoon.
Message:
of the black marketeering you've suggested, Salam, and I'm sure they would have if it was as substantial as you suggest.

No they wouldn't since it's not part of their mandate. They are empowered and mandated to document and monitor the effects of the sanctions, not to research black marketeering by Saddam. If you actually read the document you're recommending others read you'd know that.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 21:06:47 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: salam
Subject: Thanks, that explains it well [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 10:20:13 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: All
Subject: World Trade Center structural integrity
Message:
One of the cyclists in my club is a structural engineer who had some interesting things to say about the WTC that I thought I'd share. According to Larry the WTC was constructed to withstand an impact from a 707, the largest jet at the time of its construction. What was not considered was the consequence of tons of burning jet fuel. He said the towers performed as they were designed to, maintaining structural integrity at the time of impact. Had there been less fuel the fires might have even been doused, but with the amount that went up there wasn't any real chance to stop it. He also said that there were huge water tanks on top of the buildings to maintain high pressure to fight fires, but again the conflagration was just too large for those to have an effect.

All of this suggests to me the possibility that New York *could* design a skyscraper that *would* withstand such an attack, using special fire retardant chemicals that become foam when exposed to air, instead of water for instance. That could mean the towers will be rebuilt to their former height, but it would be expensive. Perhaps worth the cost as an act of defiance though.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 10:38:52 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: World Trade Center structural integrity
Message:
I also think that such high buildings should be supplied with a parachute system to enable fast evacuation of the building, should a fire start.

The people who jumped from the buiding were alive and well when they jumped. Had they been able to don a self opening parachute, they could have survived the descent. I don't know how much parachutes cost but they wouldn't cost much more than life jackets do in planes and they would undoubtedly save lives.

Some people will think my idea a little crazy but if you're in a buiding that's on fire and the heat is unbearable enough to force you to jump out of the window; if you have a chance of surviving, isn't that better?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 11:03:26 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Sir Dave
Subject: Re: World Trade Center structural integrity
Message:
Dave:

That's thinking out of the box. A really good airfoil parachute with backup costs in the neighborhood of $2,000 to $4,000, but if you didn't care about a few broken limbs you could get some round chutes for a few hundred apiece. Might be problematic to use those in NYC environment though, since they aren't very maneuverable. An airfoil chute would be more desirable. Perhaps in bulk they might be had for $1000 apiece. Maintenance would be important too, and packing. Pack the damn things wrong and you're in a world of hurt.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 10:35:05 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: World Trade Center structural integrity
Message:
Hi Scott -
There was a good article in last weeks Newsweek about the structure of the twin towers. I am sure you are aware that far more people would have been killed if the towers had not imploded, which was part of their design. Also, as you said, the structural integrity of the design kept the towers standing for a while, enabling a lot of people to escape.

Re buildings as tall as the WTC - they are not energy efficient, for one thing, and some people have trouble working in them. I think the plan for rebuilding involves more but shorter towers.

Take care - hope you are OK.
Love,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 11:09:21 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Re: World Trade Center structural integrity
Message:
But Katie, they'd have to be *really* inefficient to make up for the cost of Manhattan real estate.

Went cycling yesterday. Had to get out even though the car was problematic. It died on the way home... so I'm now seriously car shopping, and for the moment carless.

I wonder how many DC residents are having dreams about being pursued? I'm having them, and so are many others I've talked to. There is a pervasive sense that we are ground zero for the next attack, and a kind of resignation about it. Wonder what New Yorkers are dreaming about?

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 14:22:00 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: World Trade Center structural integrity
Message:
Here's my prediction: The next target(s) is bridges, multiple on one day. Not sure how they disable them but they'll be disguised as Mexican-American rap fans (baggy clothes, bandannas, cocky prison-gait, the whole works). The key here is the economy; get that weak enough and the rest will be a cinch. What we need here more than anything is the sympathy and support of the Muslim world; it's the best weapon, the best protection and possibly our only hope. I don't think the terrorists will hit where everyone's looking, like D.C. or New York.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 14:54:08 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: Re: World Trade Center structural integrity
Message:
Rick:

I hope you're right about not targetting DC or NY, and about targetting bridges. Don't want to contribute to a ghoulish topic but the Mujahadeen did enormous damage to the Russians by targetting tunnels, creating the largest tunnel disaster in history (deaths in the thousands, I think). They also blocked both ends to prevent escape.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 15:16:18 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: World Trade Center structural integrity
Message:
Talk about having a bad day. I never heard that one. I thought the Mujahadeen were the one's with tunnels. And ironically, in yesterday's London Telegraph, it described a battle plan similar to the disaster you just mentioned.. with the exception of bombing the al Qaida out of the tunnels and then fighting them in hand-to-hand combat. Too bad they can't televise this.
[ tunnels... yikes ]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 21:04:39 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: Re: World Trade Center structural integrity
Message:
This was a mountain tunnel that was being used by the Russians for troop and supply convoys. I recall reading about it in major media at the time. It was either Time, Newsweek or the CS Monitor. Probably the latter.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 11:26:18 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: World Trade Center structural integrity
Message:
Hi Scott -
I know it is tough to live in DC right now - I remember the 'ground zero' feeling from the Cuban Missile Crisis. And, yes, you either accept the fact that you are going to feel like that, or you move away.

There was a front page article in the Washington Post today about the hijackers, which was quite disturbing. Apparently, they really were just a small group, with only four real pilots among them (and even that is questionable). They screwed up in many ways and left trails all over the US, but were still able to get away with the attack. (This actually made me very angry because they USED the fact that the US isn't a police state to hurt Americans.) It is frightening that a small group of people could take so many lives, and cause such devastation.

Re your car - all I can say is that that car probably doesn't owe you anything :).

Love,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 17:30:05 (EDT)
From: sal
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Re: World Trade Center structural integrity
Message:
Katie,

I cannot post at the foro. Can you please tell brian? I tried e-mailing him and it bounced.

I would like to know what happened so I don't keep going there for no reason.

Thanks

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 20:45:03 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: sal
Subject: Salsa - e-mail JHB (John Brauns)
Message:
He is taking care of el foro now, along with everything else on ex-premie.org.

Take care,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 01:06:23 (EDT)
From: salsa
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Re: Salsa - e-mail JHB (John Brauns)
Message:
thanks katie :)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 07:25:47 (EDT)
From: Little Mo
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Inside Al-Qaeda
Message:
Inside Al-Qaeda: a window into the world of militant Islam and the Afghani alumni

Heavy duty

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 09:12:20 (EDT)
From: Bob
Email: None
To: Little Mo
Subject: Some qustions about Islam
Message:
Does anybody know who has the authority in the muslim communities to isuue fatwas, jihad etc? Who would have the religious authority to condemn terrorism as an acceptable way, or even one step further, would declare jihad or fatwa AGAINST the terrorists?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 23:31:46 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Jews and muslms live in harmony
Message:
in Stamford Hill, a district in London.

20,000 Hassidic Jews and 20,000 muslims live side by side, quite happily. All the recent anti-muslim sentiment comes from outside the area.

There is hope huh?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 08:37:44 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Re: Jews and muslims live in harmony
Message:
As a few people have pointed out, it was in Europe and not in Arabia that the Holocaust took place. The Islamic Ottoman Empire lasted for half a millenium and never had such a terrible racist bloodletting.

For centuries, Jews, Muslims, and Christians lived largely in peace under the Islamic Ottoman Empire, in Palestine and Jerusalem too.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 00:01:43 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Re: Jews and muslms live in harmony
Message:
Perhaps the Palestinian issue might eventually be resolved by establishing three states: one Palestinian, one Israeli, and a third with both groups practicing self-government in the Swiss model. One can dream...
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 05:10:25 (EDT)
From: salam
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: Jews and muslms live in harmony
Message:
you need to concrete the Dead sea to accomodate them ()):)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 10:27:46 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: salam
Subject: Re: Jews and muslms live in harmony
Message:
Salam:

How about just whacking off a chunk from each side's proposed share and including some disputed territory? Admittedly not very likely. Would hate to get rid of the Dead Sea, since it experienced a layer inversion in the 1980s that caused it to come back to life. It's an interesting metaphor.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 02, 2001 at 09:02:20 (EDT)
From: salam
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: Jews and muslms live in harmony
Message:
could that mean something?

On second thought leave it alone.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 00:18:53 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: ' I have a dream ' [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 00:00:10 (EDT)
From: Jethro
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Re: Jews and muslms live in harmony
Message:
I just saw the same report.
Unfortunately only the negative side is ever given media attention.
I think you'll find in most of the UK there are no problems between Jews and Muslims.
Also in Israel there are plenty of joint peacefull projects going on between them, but these are given little or no media coverage.

Take care

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 00:17:39 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Jethro
Subject: Re: Jews and muslms live in harmony
Message:
Hi Jethro

You're up late.....it's too late for me really , must crash soon.

Glad you didn't step into my Sharon thread, Jim was hard enough work :)

Yep those Hassidics were nice folks ....and the muslims. It's just got to be the extremists either side that keep it rolling violently along.

Regards to you and yours

Dermot

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 00:00:01 (EDT)
From: Jethro
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Re: Jews and muslms live in harmony
Message:
I just saw the same report.
Unfortunately only the negative side is ever given media attention.
I think you'll find in most of the UK there are no problems between Jews and Muslims.
Also in Israel there are plenty of joint peacefull projects going on between them, but these are given little or no media coverage.

Take care

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 23:30:39 (EDT)
From: Jews and Muslims live in great harmony
Email: None
To: All
Subject:
Message:
in Stamford Hill, a district in London.

20,000 Hassidic Jews and 2000 muslims live side by side, quite happily. All the recent anti-muslim sentiment comes from outside the area.

There is hope huh?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 23:07:00 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Poor, tragic kids....
Message:
Jesus, it's getting so bad in and around Afghanistan. Millions in need and the winter coming on.

On BBC news24 they were interviewing a bunch of kids ....asked a 6yo what she wanted in life , she replied 'bread'

Asked a7yo, she replied 'bread and meat'

WHAT A SHITTY DIRTY FUCKING TWISTED WORLD WE LIVE IN

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 06:38:45 (EDT)
From: Sir Dave
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: It's nothing knew
Message:
United Nations figures are that a child dies every four seconds somewhere in the world due to easily treatable disease. The diseases aren't treated because the simple medical resources aren't available where they live. I'm talking about antibiotics and antisceptics here.

So that works out that 21,600 children die each day due to easily preventable and treatable disease.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 00:15:39 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Re: Poor, tragic kids....
Message:
That is sad. Definitely a shitty, dirty, fucking twisted world. I believe btdt is correct that they'll get food soon. The U.S. can't afford to overlook this one.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 23:34:23 (EDT)
From: btdt
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Re: Poor, tragic kids....
Message:
It would be great if we could do something, anything. Does anyone know of relief organizations that are able to get food to these children and their parents?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 05:03:38 (EDT)
From: salam
Email: None
To: btdt
Subject: Poor tragic everyone
Message:
you may not have the stomach to read this. Mature adults only.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/afghanistan/#_Toc506997510

Try Contacting RAWA. They are an Afghan aid agency.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 05:08:04 (EDT)
From: [Blank]
Email: None
To: salam
Subject: RAWA Link
Message:
RAWA
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 00:00:42 (EDT)
From: Mel Bourne
Email: None
To: btdt
Subject: Re: Poor, tragic kids....
Message:

[ CARE - Afghanistan ]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 04:51:02 (EDT)
From: Mel Bourne
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: Poor, tragic kids....donations
Message:

[ Care donations ]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 09:06:22 (EDT)
From: Mel Bourne
Email: None
To: Mel Bourne
Subject: Red Cross/Crescent - Afghan appeal
Message:

[ Red Coss donations ]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 23:36:31 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: btdt
Subject: Re: Poor, tragic kids....
Message:
Hi btdt

I guess all that will become available within the next 24 hrs or so because it is getting DESPERATE now.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 23:08:50 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: 1 in 4 Afghan kids die before 5yo [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 02:15:22 (EDT)
From: Stonor
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Canada has already pledged $1 million [nt]
Message:

[ CBC news ]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 15:51:13 (EDT)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: All
Subject: And thus spake 'god'
Message:
I got this from a friend and got a few chuckles. Don't know who the author is. There's some good points there, at least for me.

Francesca :)

NEW YORK—Responding to recent events on Earth, God, the omniscient creator-deity worshipped by billions of followers of various faiths for more than 6,000 years, angrily clarified His longtime stance against humans killing each other Monday.

'Look, I don't know, maybe I haven't made myself completely clear, so for the record, here it is again,' said the Lord, His divine face betraying visible emotion during a press conference near the site of the fallen Twin Towers. 'Somehow, people keep coming up with the idea that I want them to kill their neighbor. Well, I don't. And to be honest, I'm really getting sick and tired of it. Get it straight. Not only do I not want anybody to kill anyone, but I specifically commanded you not to, in really simple terms that anybody ought to be able to understand.'

Worshipped by Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike, God said His name has been invoked countless times over the centuries as a reason to kill in what He called 'an unending cycle of violence.'

'I don't care how holy somebody claims to be,' God said. 'If a person tells you it's My will that they kill someone, they're wrong. Got it? I don't care what religion you are, or who you think your enemy is, here it is one more time: No killing, in My name or anyone else's, ever again.'

The press conference came as a surprise to humankind, as God rarely intervenes in earthly affairs. As a matter of longstanding policy, He has traditionally left the task of interpreting His message and divine will to clerics, rabbis, priests, imams, and Biblical scholars. Theologians and laymen alike have been given the task of pondering His ineffable mysteries, deciding for themselves what to do as a matter of faith. His decision to manifest on the material plane was motivated by the deep sense of shock, outrage, and sorrow He felt over the Sept. 11 violence carried out in His name, and over its dire potential ramifications around the globe.

'I tried to put it in the simplest possible terms for you people, so you'd get it straight, because I thought it was pretty important,' said God, called Yahweh and Allah respectively in the Judaic and Muslim traditions. 'I guess I figured I'd left no real room for confusion after putting it in a four-word sentence with one-syllable words, on the tablets I gave to Moses. How much more clear can I get?'

'But somehow, it all gets twisted around and, next thing you know, somebody's spouting off some nonsense about, 'God says I have to kill this guy, God wants me to kill that guy, it's God's will,'' God continued. 'It's not God's will, all right? News flash: 'God's will' equals 'Don't murder people.''

Worse yet, many of the worst violators claim that their actions are justified by passages in the Bible, Torah, and Qur'an.

'To be honest, there's some contradictory stuff in there, okay?' God said. 'So I can see how it could be pretty misleading. I admit it—My bad. I did My best to inspire them, but a lot of imperfect human agents have misinterpreted My message over the millennia. Frankly, much of the material that got in there is dogmatic, doctrinal bullshit. I turn My head for a second and, suddenly, all this stuff about homosexuality gets into Leviticus, and everybody thinks it's God's will to kill gays. It absolutely drives Me up the wall.'

God praised the overwhelming majority of His Muslim followers as 'wonderful, pious people,' calling the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks rare exceptions.

'This whole medieval concept of the jihad, or holy war, had all but vanished from the Muslim world in, like, the 10th century, and with good reason,' God said. 'There's no such thing as a holy war, only unholy ones. The vast majority of Muslims in this world reject the murderous actions of these radical extremists, just like the vast majority of Christians in America are pissed off over those two bigots on The 700 Club.'

Continued God, 'Read the book: 'Allah is kind, Allah is beautiful, Allah is merciful.' It goes on and on that way, page after page. But, no, some assholes have to come along and revive this stupid holy-war crap just to further their own hateful agenda. So now, everybody thinks Muslims are all murderous barbarians. Thanks, Taliban: 1,000 years of pan-Islamic cultural progress down the drain.'

God stressed that His remarks were not directed exclusively at Islamic extremists, but rather at anyone whose ideological zealotry overrides his or her ability to comprehend the core message of all world religions.

'I don't care what faith you are, everybody's been making this same mistake since the dawn of time,' God said. 'The Muslims massacre the Hindus, the Hindus massacre the Muslims. The Buddhists, everybody massacres the Buddhists. The Jews, don't even get me started on the hardline, right-wing, Meir Kahane-loving Israeli nationalists, man. And the Christians? You people believe in a Messiah who says, 'Turn the other cheek,' but you've been killing everybody you can get your hands on since the Crusades.'

Growing increasingly wrathful, God continued: 'Can't you people see? What are you, morons? There are a ton of different religious traditions out there, and different cultures worship Me in different ways. But the basic message is always the same: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Shintoism... every religious belief system under the sun, they all say you're supposed to love your neighbors, folks! It's not that hard a concept to grasp.'

'Why would you think I'd want anything else? Humans don't need religion or God as an excuse to kill each other—you've been doing that without any help from Me since you were freaking apes!' God said. 'The whole point of believing in God is to have a higher standard of behavior. How obvious can you get?'

'I'm talking to all of you, here!' continued God, His voice rising to a shout. 'Do you hear Me? I don't want you to kill anybody. I'm against it,
across the board. How many times do I have to say it? Don't kill each other anymore—ever! I'm fucking serious!'

Upon completing His outburst, God fell silent, standing quietly at the podium for several moments. Then, witnesses reported, God's shoulders
began to shake, and He wept.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 17:40:34 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: More like 'Thus spake the Onion'
Message:
Interesting how their humour isn't really as biting as usual. Good for them.
[ The Onion ]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 13:40:00 (EDT)
From: G
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Hijackers surprised to find selves in Hell
Message:
http://www.theonion.com/onion3734/hijackers_surprised.html
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 16:49:46 (EDT)
From: PatD
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: Great wit and great point [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 11:44:44 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: All
Subject: Perception of U.S. OT
Message:
Dr. Bob Arnot (NBC correspondent in Pakistan) claimed yesterday that widespread hatred of the U.S. exists in Pakistan, and that the attempt of the U.S. to capture bin Laden, has vaulted him to saint-like status. Arnot claims that bin Laden is an absolute hero to young men of Pakistan, far more than before he was accused of these crimes. He said the U.S. was seen as an invincible monster and that one of their own changed that.

Arnot conculded this by anecdotal evidence; travelling throught the streets, talking with people, listening to others talk, watching crowds, etc. I was surprised at how widespread he thought the hatred of the U.S. was.

Later last night, John McLaughlin, an old turd if ever there was one, also expressed the perception that hatred toward the U.S. was widespread throughout the Muslim world. Tony Blankley agreed. McLaughlin's solution was for the Bush administration to 'wrestle Arafat and Sharon to ground for a resolution to Mideast violence'.

McLauglin reiterated (as well as Chris Matthews on CNBC's Hardball) that bin Laden has at least 100 and as many as 800 operatives in the U.S. that are here legally and haven't done anything yet to warrant arrest or detention.

It's difficult to assess how 'widespread' the hatred for the U.S. is. They don't have polls there where you can see how many cried when WTC was attacked.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 08:31:39 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: Re: Perception of U.S. OT
Message:
Largely accurate, I'm afraid.

But we are not allowed to say that, or to try to explain the reasons why, except to suggest primitive, atavistic hatred as the sole cause.

Ignorance is Strength.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 14:18:31 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: Yes, and your point is....?
Message:
So what, Rick?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 15:23:38 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Re: Yes, and your point is....?
Message:
The public sentiment in the Islamic world is important for a number of reasons. First, the countries we need in our coalition need the support of their people. Without that, their own governments are in jeopardy.

Second, the sentiment of the Islamic world is a barometer for how extreme and how numerous the forces might be that we're facing. If the terrorists willing to commit acts like on September 11 are relatively small, the threat we still face today is small, and just as important, the job we have to do to eliminate them is also small.

Third, understanding the roots, depth and details of the negative sentiment that exists in the Islamic world can be used to formulate a plan to address it. Hopefully, there's some way to diminish this sentiment as time goes on. If not, we should find that out too.

Fifth, widespread hatred of the U.S. in the Islamic world would dictate different details in attacking our enemies. It's already obviously a factor in how the U.S. is planning a response. How widespread the negative sentiment is, exactly, will govern specifics of how we respond.

My point, in posting the apparent fact that there is widespread hatred for the U.S. in the Islamic world, was my surprise. I thought there was little support for the kind of terrorism that happened on Sept. 11. The fact it makes it a whole different ballgame, if true, is obvious. I'm still not convinced of the extent of hatred towards the U.S. from the general population. So far, the evidence is sketchy and opinionated.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 23:08:23 (EDT)
From: Salam
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: Don't make sweeping assumptions
Message:
like that.

You have made some good points. but believe it or not, there are people in the places that you refer to that want 'Western' style of living. Not everyone man and woman cherish living under a 'Hujab' and going to a Mousque five times a day.

If, for example you speak to Arabic people that have immigrated as to why they did so, many will tell you that there was no other way for them. They could not fit in a society that refuses to change.

So, my take is simple, sink the the whole place and start new.

Oh oh.....

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 00:20:13 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Salam
Subject: Re: Don't make sweeping assumptions
Message:
I'm not making any assumptions, Salam. I think if you re-read my post you'll see that I say I'm not convinced. What I'm pointing out is that several commentators in the U.S. are saying that hatred for the U.S. is 'widespread' in Islamic countries. What I said is true. Maybe what they said isn't. We'll see. I say we should respect Muslims.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 00:26:48 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: He only skim reads Rick :) [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 04:53:45 (EDT)
From: salam
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Re: He only skim reads Rick :)
Message:
why you dub me in like dat, ha? uh})
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 07:05:12 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: salam
Subject: Re: He only skim reads Rick :)
Message:
Just Pulling ya leg in jest :)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 23:51:47 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Salam
Subject: Re: Don't make sweeping assumptions
Message:
Salam:

So, my take is simple, sink the the whole place and start new.

Oh oh.....

Now why did this evoke a memory of the satsang about fixing the car while it's running? (As though we have a choice between doing that and blowing the damn thing up and specifying a Saturn.) One thing that we *are* doing right is stengthening the economic and trade ties between Jordan and Israel, but to do so we're stuck with supporting a sometimes repressive monarchy. The Jordanians that stake their future on this approach will be in a precarious position, if we aren't very careful. But in the mean time many of the people in the King's service were educated here, and I've done my best to corrupt a few of them to the American ideological perspective. Hopefully that will result in a few people who actually understand the US, rather than simply assume we're following the money.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 09:01:46 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: What about this, Scott?
Message:
Scott, your 'ideology' is a dream you learned about in grammar school. When it comes to making money, that ideology has a tendency to fly out the window, fast. Check out this little tidbit I discovered in one of Salam's links:

Money Talks, Nobody Walks

In God we trust. Says so right on the dollar bill.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 10:56:27 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: I think this
Message:
The article doesn't even have a by-line. It's a mix of assertions and half-truths, with little if any empirical evidence to back up its primary claims. More importantly the simple explanation of Bin Laden's success is sufficient without getting into these hackneyed anti-americanisms. Namely, terrorism is an order of magnitude more difficult and complex than conventional intelligence problems, requiring an order of magnitude greater skills and preparedness. Does this writer work for the el Quaeda information agency or something? We didn't see Pearl Harbor coming either. Do we need anti-American holdovers from the Marxist era to explain what happened?

Scott, your 'ideology' is a dream you learned about in grammar school. When it comes to making money, that ideology has a tendency to fly out the window, fast.

Again, I think your perspective is what was learned in gramar school. They certainly don't teach anything about the American Ideology at any stage below grad school, which is a shame since it results in most Americans being ignorant about what *makes* them American. Money doesn't replace that to any greater extent or with any greater legitimacy than it replaces being French or German or English, but it will fill a vacuum if one exists. Like I said, you need to do some research. Do you know yet what *Democracy in America* was about? And anything about what's been said since? It's pretty robust in terms of empirical evidence, BTW. But I wouldn't want to name drop so suppose you just do the look up yourself. Anyway it looks like you just want to believe what you want to believe, and aren't really open to learning anything that would refute your assumptions. Wonder why?

-Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 09:08:57 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Ah, shit
Message:
It doesn't go directoy to the sublink, but here's the text from the link I'm talking about. It's about arms deals to Saudi Arabia.

One of the most politically powerful claims supporting U.S. arms trading today is that weapons exports sustain American jobs. But the employment benefits of arms exports are diluted, and may be negated, by seldom-discussed side deals known as 'offsets.' These agreements require a supplier to direct some benefits—-usually work or technology—-back to the purchaser as a condition of the sale.

Shrinking military budgets have reduced the demand for military equipment, creating a buyer's market, and increased international competition allows customers to extract very favorable deals from suppliers. Former Under Secretary of State Lynn Davis said in 1993, 'The demand for offsets is growing, with practically every arms purchaser demanding some form of offset.' The value of offsets frequently exceeds the value of the weapons sold.

Offsets come in two forms. Through 'direct' offsets, the purchaser receives work or technology directly related to the weapons sale, typically by producing the weapon system or its components under license. 'Indirect' offsets involve barter and countertrade deals, investment in the buying country, or the transfer of technology unrelated to the weapons being sold. Both types of offsets send work overseas, but direct offsets also raise serious security concerns, as they assist the development of foreign arms industries.

Why aren't American workers protesting this practice? Some are. Workers for Boeing and Lockheed Martin have rallied against licensed production of weaponry and technology transfers that result from direct offsets. In October 1995, one-third of Boeing's workforce went on strike, largely to protest the use of foreign subcontractors. In other cases, though, workers and firms may not realize that they are being negatively affected by military offsets. If an American furniture company loses a bid for a contract to a Swedish or South Korean firm, for example; it doesn't know that an American arms corporation helped the foreign firm secure the furniture sale as part of a military offset obligation.

If the public realized that U.S. arms corporations were jeopardizing American jobs by assisting foreign competitors, opposition to arms sales would increase. The arms industry knows this, and it has worked hard to keep offsets safely out of view. Although the government has examined offsets twice in the past (1985 and 1988), and some new oversight measures have recently been enacted (see below), it is still very difficult to point to specific firms that have been hurt by military offsets or to ascertain how much offsets are costing U.S. industries and workers.

Campaigning for Change
The Arms Sales Monitoring Project seeks to increase understanding by the public, media, and policy makers of the existence and effect of military trade offsets. We do this through collection of information on offset agreements, including case studies illustrating specific sales and associated offsets, writing of articles and op-eds, and sharing our information with grassroots organizations.

The military and business press are currently the best sources of information on offsets. While the U.S. arms industry holds information on offsets closely, claiming that it is 'proprietary,' purchasing countries often disclose such information for their own political purposes (to convince their citizenry that they are gaining some tangible benefits from the millions or billions of dollars they are spending on arms). Over the past three years, we have built up extensive files, including government documents on offsets, the arms industry's views, buyers' offset guidelines, and thousands of press clips with anecdotal information about individual offset cases.

Greater information about offsets will enable activists to:

—identify where offsets have benefited American military exporters at the expense of American commercial exporters;

—gauge the extent to which offsets have assisted non-American military subcontractors at the expense of American military subcontractors;

—undertake case studies of specific arms sales;

—generate op-eds targeted to the communities that were negatively impacted by offsets;

—track corporate offset guidelines, proposals, and obligations; and

—compare offsets entered into by U.S. firms with those of other countries.

Our Past Work on Offsets
Since 1993 the Arms Sales Monitoring Project has led efforts to expose and curtail offsets. We supported the 'Feingold amendment' to the fiscal year 1995 State Department Authorization Act. This provision—sponsored by Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI)— requires 'real time' notification to Congress of offsets being considered in connection with an arms sale subject to Congressional approval. This provision will help Members of Congress develop a truer picture of the employment impact of potential arms sales. However, this information will not be available to the public. We continue to work with Congressional staff to ensure that the law is adhered to.

We pressed for implementation of a 1992 law which requires the Commerce Department to produce an annual report on the employment, trade, industrial competitiveness and military preparedness implications of offsets. These reports—modeled on two previous surveys—will present only highly aggregated generalizations; they will not provide information about firms and workers displaced by offset commitments. The first report was released in May 1996, and the second in August 1997.

We encouraged the Clinton administration to consider offsets in its 1993-95 review of conventional arms transfer policy. We outlined several recommendations for changes in policy toward both direct and indirect offsets in a January1994 report, 'Sweet Deals and Low Politics: Offsets in the Arms Market.'

In that report, we opposed offsets on arms sales financed by U.S. taxpayers. Such deals cost Americans thrice—first when they pay for researching and developing the weapons, secondly when they pay for the sale, and again when their jobs are shipped overseas. Rep. Cardiss Collins, then Chair of the Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Commerce, Consumer Protection, and Competitiveness, challenged the practice at a June 1994 hearing. The Government Accounting Office came out with the same recommendation in a report released at the hearing.

Our research on offsets has been presented to Congress in testimony by Lora Lumpe and incorporated into testimony and reports by staff of the World Policy Institute, the Economic Policy Institute, and the Project on Demilitarization and Democracy. In 1997 Lora Lumpe was invited to give a public interest perspective on the impact of offsets to a National Research Council panel tasked with advising the White House on offset policy.

We provided background information to staff at the Center for Defense Information for an episode of their weekly TV show (America's Defense Monitor) on offsets. Lora Lumpe appeared in the show, called 'Selling Our Jobs,' which aired in May 1995. We regularly provide information on offsets to journalists, activists and scholars. For example, we assisted the National Security News Service and Mother Jones magazine in highlighting the issue.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 11:50:45 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: You confused me.
Message:
Jerry:

Sorry, I thought you were talking about the article on failures of US intelligence. Anyway, lots of this sort of thing was going on prior to WWII (though the financing was less sophisticated) during which we were actually selling arms to Japan. It was all stopped by Roosevelt's 'Board of Economic Warfare.' I've suggested we need something like that, and a cycling friend of mine who is a former editor of Newsweek says he thinks we will establish such a thing on par with the 'Office of Homeland Security.' Both are needed, and are long past due.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 10:03:22 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: UK arms trade too ...
Message:
America is the biggest arms dealer worldwide but Britain too is right up there with a massive industry.I think the second or third largest supplier worldwide.

Not going into similar details as your post ...employment issues etc .....but Britain arms some lovely , peaceful civilised friends. Helped Indonesia to kill and maim it's own citizens and the East timorians....helps Saudis by selling billions of pounds worth of weapons .....Saudis frame Brits for bombing? ....Hey let's ignore it and lick those lovely arab arseholes.....don't want to upset them

Helps anyone and everyone ......you got money? we got the guns !!!!!.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 13:40:47 (EDT)
From: Barbara
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: An article by Appleyard of UK Sunday Times OT
Message:
Here's an article addressing the hatred of the U.S. by Appleyard of the Sunday Times (UK). Hope this posts okay; my computer took a dive, and I'm using my husband's antediluvian laptop, probably developed by Turing in the '40s.

The USA saved Europe from the Nazis, defeated communism and keeps the West rich. Bryan Appleyard analyses why it has become the land of the loathed Why do they hate America?

We have seen Pakistanis waving pictures of Osama Bin Laden and wearing T-shirts celebrating the death of 6,000 Americans. We have seen Palestinians dancing in the streets and firing their Kalashnikovs in
glee. We have heard Harold Pinter and friends pleading with the West to stop a war we didn't start. A few of us have read a New Statesman editorial coming perilously close to suggesting that bond dealers in the World Trade Center had it coming.

Or consider what Elisabetta Burba, an Italian journalist, reported for The Wall Street Journal from Beirut. She saw suited, coiffed professionals cheering in the streets. Then she went into a fashionable cafe. 'The cafe's sophisticated clientele was celebrating, laughing, cheering and making jokes, as waiters served hamburgers and Diet Pepsi. Nobody looked shocked or moved. They were excited, very excited,' she writes.

'Ninety per cent of the Arab world believes that America got what it deserved,' she is told. 'An exaggeration?' she comments. 'Rather an understatement.'

It is horrifying but not entirely surprising; we have seen it before. I, certainly, have always lived in a world suffused with savage anti-Americanism. In my childhood the grown-ups were all convinced that the apparently inevitable nuclear holocaust would be the fault of the Americans. In my student years I saw the Vietnam war used as an excuse for violence and intimidation that would have made Mao Tse-tung proud - indeed, my contemporaries were waving his Little Red Book, his guide to mass murder, as they attempted to storm the American embassy. I saw many of those who now weep like crocodiles burning the Stars and Stripes.

How strange, I thought, even then. They wore Levi jeans, drank Coke, watched American television and listened to American music. Something inside them loved America, even as something outside them hated her. They were like fish that hated the very sea in which they swam - the whisky, in Samuel Beckett's words, that bore a grudge against the decanter. Like the Beirut elite, they wanted to have their hamburgers and eat them, to bite the Yankee hand that fed them.

But there is something more terrible, more gravely unjust here than 1960s student stupidity, more even than the dancing of the Palestinians and the Lebanese.

Let us ponder exactly what the Americans did in that most awful of all centuries, the 20th. They saved Europe from barbarism in two world wars. After the second world war they rebuilt the continent from the ashes. They confronted and peacefully defeated Soviet communism, the most murderous system ever devised by man, and thereby enforced the slow dismantling - we hope - of Chinese communism, the second most murderous. America, primarily, ejected Iraq from Kuwait and helped us to eject Argentina from the Falklands. America stopped the slaughter in the Balkans while the Europeans dithered.

Now let us ponder exactly what the Americans are. America is free, very democratic and hugely successful. Americans speak our language and a dozen or so Americans write it much, much better than any of us. Americans make extremely good films and the cultivation and style of their best television programmes expose the vulgarity of the best of ours. Almost all the best universities in the world are American and, as a result, American intellectual life is the most vibrant and cultivated in the world.

'People should think,' David Halberstam, the writer, says from the blasted city of New York, 'what the world would be like without the backdrop of American leadership with all its flaws over the past 60 years.' Probably, I think, a bit like hell.

There is a lot wrong with America and terrible things have been done in her name. But when the chips are down all the most important things are right. On September 11 the chips went down.

The Yankophobes were too villanously stupid to get the message. Barely 48 hours after thousands of Americans are murdered, we see the BBC's Question Time with its hand-picked morons in the audience telling Philip Lader, the former US ambassador, that 'the world despises America'. The studio seethes with ignorance and loathing. Lader looks broken.

Or we have the metropolitan elite on Newsnight Review sneering at Dubya Bush. 'So out of touch,' Rosie Boycott, the journalist, hisses, 'there was no sense of his feeling for people.' Alkarim Jivani, the writer, wades in by trashing Bush's response when asked how he was feeling: 'Well, I'm a loving guy; also I've got a job to do.' Jivani thinks this isn't good enough, no emotion.

Hang on; I thought the bien- pensant left wanted restraint from Bush. And that 'loving guy' quote was the most beautiful thing said since September 11. Poetically compressed, rooted in his native dialect, it evoked duty and stoicism. But these are not big values in Islington.

Or here's George Monbiot in The Guardian: 'When billions of pounds f military spending are at stake, rogue states and terrorist warlords become assets precisely because they are liabilities.' I see; so the United States, the victim of this attack, is to be condemned for somehow deviously making money out of it. I'll run it up the flagpole, George, but I suspect only the Question Time audience will salute.

Or here's Suzanne Moore in The Mail on Sunday: 'In this darkest hour my heart goes out to America. But my head knows that I have not supported much of what has been done in its name in the past. As hard as it is, there are many who feel like this. Now is not the time to pretend otherwise.' So, Suzanne, how many corpses does it take for it to be a good time to pretend otherwise? Do you laugh at the funerals of people with whom you disagreed?

Or here are two more venomous voices, both quoted in The Guardian. Patricia Tricker from Bedale: 'Now they know how the Iraqis feel.' And Andrew Pritchard from Amsterdam: 'If the US's great peacetime defeat results in defeating America's overweening ego as the world's sole remaining superpower, it will be a highly productive achievement.' Would that achievement be the dead children, Andrew, or the crushed firemen?

Anti-Americanism has long been the vicious, irrational, global ideology of our time. 'It combines,' says Sir Michael Howard, the historian, 'the nastiest elements of the right and left.' It is dangerous and stupid and, in the days after September 11, shockingly distasteful.

In the name of God, more than 6,000 noncombatants are dead, more than 6,000 families bereaved. From what dark wells of malevolence springs this dreadful reflex desire to dance on their graves?

From history, says Michael Lind, senior fellow at the New America Foundation in Washington: 'There's an anti-bourgeois, anti-capitalist and ultimately anti-modern theme that always emerges to criticise the dominant power of the day. It was directed at the cities of northern Italy, then in the 17th century at the Netherlands, then at Britain when she picked up the torch of capitalism, and now it's the US.'

So at the most basic level America is loathed simply because she's on top. The world leader is always trashed simply for being the leader. The terms of the trashing are remarkably consistent. ineteenth-century Germans, Lind points out, responded to Britain's dominance by saying, in effect, 'they may be rich but we have soul'. That is exactly what many Europeans and all anti-Americans are now saying: we're for God or culture or whatever against mammon. This is inaccurate - America has more soul, culture and a lot more God than any of her critics - but it is the predictably banal rhetoric of envy.

This form of 'spiritual' anti-Americanism has close links with anti-semitism. 'Anti-Americanism and anti-semitism are closely interwoven historically,' says Tony Judt, professor of history at New York University. 'Not because there are so many Jews here - there weren't always - but because both are in part about fear of openness, rootlessness, change, the modern anomic world: Jews as a placeless people, America as a history-less land.'

As Jon Ronson recently demonstrated in his book, Them: Adventures with Extremists, almost every crazed cult in the world believes there is a global Jewish conspiracy run from Hollywood and Wall Street. Those bien-pensant chatterers are, I'm sure, anti-racists all, but they are swimming in deeper, darker, crazier waters than they imagine.

Judt's word 'openness' is important. The fanatic - in Islington or Kabul - hates openness because he finds himself relativised and turns on the very society which permits his freedom of expression.

George Orwell noted in 1941: 'In so far as it hampers the British war effort, British pacifism is on the side of the Nazis and German pacifism, if it exists, is on the side of Britain and the USSR. Since pacifists have more freedom of action in countries where traces of democracy survive, pacifism can act more effectively against democracy than for it. Objectively the pacifist is pro-Nazi.' Elsewhere he wrote of the 'unadmitted motive' of pacifism as being 'hatred of western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism'.

So bog-standard anti-Americanism in the developed world is a dark, irrational combination of hate-the-father/leader and infantile fantasies of rebellion and control. It is a reflex hatred of home - the place that provides succour or, in this case, Levi's. But of course there are local nuances. The French have, in contrast to the British, been consistently anti-American at governmental and diplomatic levels.

'It is a long-standing resentment born of 1940,' says Judt. 'A sense that France was once the universal, modern reference or model and is now just a second-class power with a declining international language to match. There is a loose analogy with British complexes about the US - us in decline, them over-mighty - but in France it is complicated by a layer of hyper-revolutionism among the intelligentsia in the years between 1947 and 1973, precisely the time when the US rise to world domination was becoming uncomfortably obvious.'

In Britain we did not have the Sartres and the Derridas leading us to political and philosophical extremes. But members of the British left had something simpler: a burning hatred for America for disproving almost everything they ever believed. They so wanted rampantly capitalist America to be wrong that even Stalin hadn't quite turned them off Russia.

There was, admittedly, a pause in this crude British form of anti-Americanism. When Bill Clinton was elected president, the British left suddenly constructed a fantasy America as co-pioneer of the Third Way. The new mandarins - Martin Amis, Salman Rushdie - said that America was where it was all happening. It was a fantasy because Clinton, even to himself, was window-dressing. Capitalist, religious America had merely put on this smiling mask. When Bush was elected the left felt betrayed.

Much of the present wave of anti-Americanism, and especially the awful contempt for Bush, springs from this sense of betrayal. It also springs from an inability to escape from post-cold war attitudes. 'The anxiety about American behaviour now,' says Hugh Brogan, research professor of history at Essex University, 'is a hangover from cold war anxiety about nuclear war.'

Fear of the bomb was such that it provoked in some an abiding belief that at any moment we would be fried or irradiated because of the miscalculation of some mad American in a cowboy hat - an image burnt into many brains by Stanley Kubrick's apocalyptic film Dr Strangelove.

Somehow the Soviet Union, probably because of ignorance, escaped our disapproval. It was all wrong, if just about understandable, then. Now it has become a pernicious and destructive failure to know a friend when we see one.

With the cold war confrontations gone, the anti-capitalism, anti- globalisation movements abandoned potentially rational, cultural and environmental anxieties in favour of a monstrous random bag of anti-American loathing. And, of course, the Middle East seemed to provide a clear case of the arrogant, bullying superpower persecuting the poor.

The idea of the bully fits neatly with one of the most grotesquely enduring of all anti-American beliefs: that Americans are all dumb Yanks. This is a delusion of the right as much as the left and it began with Harold Macmillan's absurd aspiration, later taken up by Harold Wilson, that somehow Britain should play Athens to America's Rome.

The idea was that America was this big, blundering lummox and we were these terribly refined deep thinkers. Precisely the same attitude inspires the raised eyebrows and condescending tut-tutting of leftish dinner party opinion. They're so naïve, say the chatterers, so innocent - and this, sadly, leads them to do such terrible things.

Well, I've spent some time among the American intelligentsia and I have been awestruck and humbled. They are, without doubt, the best educated, most cultivated and cleverest people in the world. They are also the most humane. There are 30 or more American universities where our best and brightest would be struggling to keep up. Apart from that, how could we be so dumb as to accuse the nation of Updike, Bellow, Roth, DeLillo, Ashbery, Dylan, of Terence Malick, The Simpsons, Martin Scorsese and Francis Ford Coppola of stupidity, let alone innocence?

The roots of this are obvious. We want the bully to be thick for the same reason as we want the beautiful model to be thick. We can't bear the possibility of somebody having strength or beauty as well as brains.

In fairness, the stupidity charge is partly fuelled by one of the odder forms of anti-Americanism: American anti-Americanism. There has always been, within the US, cultivated East and West Coast elites who take the charge of stupidity seriously and feel they have to apologise for the embarrassment of the unsophisticated masses of the Midwest or deep South.

At its best this produces the brilliant satire of Randy Newman, at its worst the mandarin, Europhile posing of Gore Vidal. The masses bite back with their own form of anti-Americanism - a hatred of the elites. The Rev Jerry Falwell has already made common cause with the errorists by blaming the attack on 'the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays, and the lesbians'. To Falwell modern America really is the Great Satan.

However, it is Middle Eastern anti-Americanism that is the burning issue of the moment. Again this is deeply misunderstood by the chatterers of the West. For them it is simply a matter of Israel, apparently a clear case of a surrogate bullying on America's behalf, and of oil, a clear case of American greed swamping all other human considerations.

In fact, America has always had more allies in the region than it has had enemies - although, this being the Middle East, allies become enemies and vice versa with bewildering rapidity. In the 1950s and 1960s, the US and her allies worked to subvert the secular Arab nationalist power of President Nasser of Egypt by backing Islamicist groups. Good idea, bad tactics. These groups started out pro-American and became anti. The unwelcome result was the more or less total destruction of nationalism and the creation of the powerful religious movement that now haunts Arab politics.

Israel forms a part but not the whole of this picture. Islamicism makes it a larger part because of an ancient enmity that goes back to the story of the prophet's betrayal by Jewish tribes and, more ecently, to the defeat and expulsion of the Moors from Christian Europe.

In this context, Arab hardliners see Israel as a further Christian-backed offensive against the Islamic world. Even without Israel, the idea of such an offensive would still be a powerful imaginative force.

People who suggest September 11 would never have happened if America had pulled back from her support for Israel are almost certainly wrong. Israel is not even in the foreground of Bin Laden's murderous imagination. The Palestinians have actually complained that he cares nothing for them. For Bin Laden and for many more moderate Muslims, the turning point was the Gulf war in 1990-91.

'Contrary to popular belief that was the first real build-up of American military force in the region,' says Dr Clive Jones at Leeds University. 'This was in Saudi Arabia, a country with the holiest sites in Islam at Mecca and Medina. This created a new form of anti-Americanism that cannot in any way be related to Israel.'

To these newest and most savage anti-Americans, Israel is secondary. The primary crime is blasphemy against the holiest Islamic soil. One widely circulated picture of two women GIs in a Jeep, their shirts unbuttoned to their waists, driving across the Arabian desert, was enough to inflame the sensibilities of thousands of devout Muslims and to fling the most unstable of them into the arms of the extremists. They had a point but not one that justifies murder. Islam, at heart, is as peaceful a creed as Christianity.

The truth about the Gulf war was that the Americans saved an Arab state, Kuwait, from Saddam Hussein, the most savage oppressor in the region. They would have been as surely damned for not doing this as much as they are now damned for doing it. Now they are also damned by the chatterers for keeping the pressure on Saddam. Do the chatterers know what Saddam is still doing? I do and I'm with the Americans.

Of course America has made terrible mistakes in the Middle East. Much resentment would have been and may still be prevented by a humane settlement with the Palestinians. But America was usually trying to do the right thing, always with the collusion of large sections, if not the majority, of the Arab population. As Winston Churchill said, the Americans usually do the right thing once they have tried all the alternatives.

Yet anti-Americanism has become the savage reflex of the entire region. It is the result of cynical manipulation by, mostly, appalling Arab governments and by extremists who wish to relaunch a medieval war of civilisations between Christianity and Islam.

This is the anti-Americanism that informs the ignorant dinner party guests of the West who, in their comfortable stupidity, pretend to have more in common with fanatical theocrats than they do with the land of The Simpsons and John Updike.

Perhaps worst of all is the deep vacuity of this reflex malevolence. In truth there is little that can be said about the attack on America. Our 'thinkers' are trapped in a history they do not understand. They can grasp global conflict only as a series of confrontations between competing humanist ideologies - most obviously capitalism and communism. But this is something different. It is a confrontation between civilisation and an atavistic savagery that has no time for the delicate ways of life we have, at such terrible cost, constructed. Unable to see this, the chatterers must search for something to say.

'It's not for nothing they're called the chattering classes,' observes Brogan.

So they blame the victim. It is a heartbreaking spectacle of delusion turned to savagery. What has America done wrong? In the days since September 11, its president and people have done nothing but demonstrate dignity and restraint. Bush will lash out, the chatterers said. But he hasn't yet. Bush is a bumbling hick, they sneered. But he isn't. Even CNN, that usually incomprehensible tumult of undigested events, has been steady and calm, devoid of all trace of prejudice, xenophobia or empty emotion.

Civilisation? It lies exactly 3,000 miles to the west of where I write and some of it is in ruins. I just wish it was closer.

I am sick of my generation's whining ingratitude, its wilful, infantile loathing of the great, tumultuous, witty and infinitely clever nation that has so often saved us from ourselves. But I am heartened by something my 19- year-old daughter said: 'America has always been magic to us, we don't understand why you lot hate it so much.'

Anti-Americanism has never been right and I hope it never will be. Of course there are times for criticism, lampoons, even abuse. But this is not one of them. This is a time when we are being asked a question so simple that it is almost embarrassing - a question that should silence the Question Time morons, the sneering chatterers and the cold warriors, a question so elemental, so fundamental, so pristine that, luxuriating in our salons, we had forgotten it could even be asked. So face it, answer it, stand up and be counted.

Whose side are you really on?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 08:18:38 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Barbara
Subject: Appleyard: Ignorance is Strength
Message:
There's nothing in the piece. Nothing. Just a display of prejudice masquerading as loyalty. That's called madness. Ask yourselves what sort of Americans would command Appleyard's loyalty? Only a very, very few ...

Perhaps worst of all is the deep vacuity of Appleyard's reflex malevolence. In truth there is little that he can say about the attack on America. As a 'thinker' he is trapped in a history he does not understand. He can grasp global conflict only as a ... confrontation between civilisation and an atavistic savagery that has no time for the delicate ways of life ... enjoyed by such as himself.

The depths of Appleyard's idiotic blathering is revealed when he writes from the comfort of London, England "Civilisation? It lies exactly 3,000 miles to the west of where I write."

What a shit! Hope you get your Green Card, Appleyard, so you can go whore for your Master, Mr Rupert Murdoch, elsewhere than in this uncivilised country of ours.

This was worth praise? ELK droppings are more sincere.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 12:15:09 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: And trite is trite.
Message:
There's nothing in the piece. Nothing. Just a display of prejudice masquerading as loyalty. That's called madness. Ask yourselves what sort of Americans would command Appleyard's loyalty? Only a very, very few ...

Like about 90% of the US population that establishes the context within which exceptionalism thrives. (Now, that statement's bound to set off an orgy of jealousy.) So, there's nothing to the notion of an anglophile prejudice against American intellectual life? Nothing to the notion that the US contributed the balance of power that won WWII, and then reconstructed the defeated foes? Nothing to the notion that it defeated Marxism with minimal direct confrontation, and no WWIII? Nothing in the article at all, John? My, your sense of historical context is quite impressive, I must say.

He can grasp global conflict only as a ... confrontation between civilisation and an atavistic savagery that has no time for the delicate ways of life ... enjoyed by such as himself.

How about the delicate ways of life enjoyed by you, John? Since you don't seem to value them then perhaps you'd be willing to make the sacrifice and enjoy Arab or Taliban hospitality for awhile? (Seriously, isn't that what you imply as the acceptable alternative?) But don't worry, Dermot will congratulate you on your amazingly insightful comments. Not that you contributed anything beyond pure unsupported invective. Double standard?

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 16:33:11 (EDT)
From: JohnT
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Gotcha!
Message:
Scott: Not that you contributed anything beyond pure unsupported invective.

Do you mean this, Scott ...

Appleyard: Perhaps worst of all is the deep vacuity of this reflex malevolence. In truth there is little that can be said about the attack on America. Our 'thinkers' are trapped in a history they do not understand. They can grasp global conflict only as a series of confrontations between competing humanist ideologies - most obviously capitalism and communism. But this is something different. It is a confrontation between civilisation and an atavistic savagery that has no time for the delicate ways of life we have ...

No, it won't wash, and the idea that the dinner party goers of Islington are somehow out of skew with the opinions of say Brixton or Croydon, is a nonsense. Really, talk to people at bus stops round here. They express the idea, that if the States had conducted itself differently in the world, things might have turned out different. Not so nicely, that's all.

Was it my plagiarism that you complained of as pure unsupported invective. I used Appleward's words ... Perhaps worst of all is the deep vacuity of Appleyard's reflex malevolence. In truth there is little that he can say about the attack on America. As a 'thinker' he is trapped in a history he does not understand. He can grasp global conflict only as a ... confrontation between civilisation and an atavistic savagery that has no time for the delicate ways of life ... enjoyed by such as himself and bought at terrible cost by others I should add.

Do you want to talk about being in a cult?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 21:50:24 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Is that Britspeak for 'which end is up?'
Message:
John:

My, that's a clever trick. Plagiarize someone else in a completely opposite context and then claim you've scored a victory when someone says it doesn't make sense? Yeah, that's really impressive. 'Reflex molevolence' as used by Appleyard quite correctly applies the concept to the 'knee jerk' attitudes of British SD intellectuals. As though everyone doesn't know that's true without taking a poll, right? Now, what 'reflex malevolence' are *you* talking about? Who is Appleyard malevolent toward? He's just making reference to what everyone already knows about the crowd he's criticizing. So in his usage it makes sense. In yours it doesn't. How is that a 'gotcha?'

As used by Appleyard: Our 'thinkers' are trapped in a history they do not understand. They can grasp global conflict only as a series of confrontations between competing humanist ideologies - most obviously capitalism and communism. But this is something different. It is a confrontation between civilisation and an atavistic savagery that has no time for the delicate ways of life we have ...

Well, it's an assertion to be sure. It's not presented as anything more. So, it's *not* true? The Brit intellectuals are prepared to see history as something more complex that capitalism vs. socialism? Well, if Ernest Gellner is typical of British intellectual life then I'd say Appleyard's simply wrong... but just how typical *is* Gellner, really? I wouldn't 'play cute' and use the same phraseology he uses, especially after criticizing him for not having said anything. I mean, he *did* say quite a bit more than that, didn't he? Or do you know how to draw those distinctions? WWII? Korea? I guess you're not in a mood to either answer or acknowledge error there, huh?

enjoyed by such as himself and bought at terrible cost by others I should add.

So, what does that mean (apart from the fact that you're being cute)? Who do you think paid that price, if it wasn't the US and Britain, half of whom he's attempting to suggest *deserve* some credit? Or are you saying that those living in this atavistic savagery are somehow supporting *his* way of life by their state of misery? This is silly. A capitalistic economy needs clients more than resources or workers, so it's in his interest as well as theirs to end their savagery, permanently. So, as used by yew the statement makes no sense, whether it's plagiarized or not. Very clever. Sure.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 11:43:42 (EDT)
From: Barbara
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Murdoch
Message:
JohnT:

I didn't realize the Sunday Times was a Murdoch paper (I don't know how the journalistic food chain plays out in the UK, and certainly am no fan of Rupie). I thought the article was yet another log to throw on the fire, and that it fit nicely under Rick's header. I had no clue it would make so many people talk amongst themselves.

Regards
B

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 14:54:01 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Barbara
Subject: Re: Murdoch, Fox TV, the Simpsons
Message:
Well, Rupie gets some things right. He was the first one to see how brilliant and funny Tracy Ullman is. Life in Hell (the precursor to The Simpsons) got its start on that show.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 13:41:23 (EDT)
From: Francesca
Email: None
To: Barbara
Subject: Dear Barbara
Message:
Don't worry at all dear -- that's what Forums are for! Haven't chatted at 'ya before, but hello! :)

Francesca

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 11:12:24 (EDT)
From: Barbara
Email: None
To: Francesca
Subject: Hey, Fran....
Message:
Good to see you. I received the Appleyard article via email from a friend, and didn't really read it thoroughly. Just thought it'd fit under the 'perceptions of US' heading. What a tempest...

Hope you're well.
Take care
B

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 09:48:02 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Very good post John
Message:
I instictively knew it was rabid , right wing bullshit but with all these 'anti-American' jibers yapping at my heels incessantly :) , I tried my best to say SOMETHING (anything) positive about it. Hence, he has a point. Hence,a well made case etc. On reflection I'll just limit that to 'he has a point'. Not a good one but ....

Of course you are right, anything coming from a Murdoch rag (that 100% hands on opportunist) will ultimately only have one agenda. The man who dropped Americas closest ally (Britain) by condemning (in effect) Chris pattens valid criticism of that bastion of 'civilisation' CHINA and drpping contracts with the BBC for the same reasons simply for the bottom line dollar.....yeah we need such sermons from the likes of that ilk.

I can imagine Murdoch ringing London "hey Appleyard , I want you to write a 100% biased, lop sided piece so all legitimate talk of American foreign policy is considered treachery ....the bonus cheque is in the post".

Hhahahaha

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 09:35:33 (EDT)
From: bobo
Email: None
To: JohnT
Subject: Re: Appleyard: Ignorance - too true
Message:
Well done John,
I wondered when someone would point out that taking seriously the ramblings of a writer from a Murdoch Right Wing rag was not the wisest thing.
'a display of prejudice masquerading as loyalty' is right and
This was worth praise? ELK droppings are more sincere.'
Although this article was just as barf-making.
I would have said much that same as you but I couldn't quite get the words out and had to re-read some of the posts due to my disbelieve that some ex-premies actually thought it was a reasonable piece of journalism.

bobo

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 15:34:20 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: bobo
Subject: Re: Appleyard: Ignorance - too true
Message:
Shit, I'll jump aboard this train. Now that I see it ain't going so fast I'll skin my knees. Absolute, utter tripe that article was. Made my stomach churn. Thanks JohnT.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 16:45:10 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: Hey Rick
Message:
:) A little bit of moral cowardice is ok if you are aware of it and transcend it :)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 20:41:58 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Re: Hey Rick
Message:
`1234567890-=QWERTYUIOP[]ASDFGHJKL;'ZXCVBNM,./
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 20:44:27 (EDT)
From: Rick
Email: None
To: Rick
Subject: Sorry
Message:
Just trying to figure how you get the smiley faces. Figured it was some character capitalized.

My moral cowardice is always cured by some big guy standing in front of me.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 10:20:34 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: bobo
Subject: Hi Bobo
Message:
Hahaha yeah John put it well huh?

BTW , who is who here ? Are Bob Swarchz ? Are you the Bob in the post above? It's confusing.

Cheers

Dermot

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 18:31:27 (EDT)
From: PatD
Email: None
To: Barbara
Subject: The times they are a changing
Message:
Great article Barbara : the intellectual life of this country ( or at least some of the parts of it that writes & broadcasts) has been hijacked by people whose views are marxist . How these people have managed to maintain their view of the world after the fall of communism beats me.

Where were the Fascist running dogs after 1945 ? Gonzo is where , so how come the mental architecture of cultural marxism survives ? Don't know why , but maybe the writing is on the wall now .

I certainly hope so because I'm getting sick of people who ever openly insinuate that my views are not open to discussion because anyone who deviates from the goodthink position is mentally ill .

Not so long ago it was merely , 'you're a joke'.

T.Blair , the greatest actor manager of our times (excepting his old mate B. Clinton )is not immune from dabbling in this mess to his own advantage .

Well time will tell I suppose

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 14:29:36 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Barbara
Subject: What an excellent essay!
Message:
Thanks from me too for finding and posting that. For once, PatC and I agree on something. :)
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 14:35:47 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: But I still hate rock n roll
Message:
and one day I will get you nice and high on a fabulous cabernet and then play Nessun Dorma for you.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 14:40:50 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Yet another false dilemna
Message:
I'm not sure what Nessun Dorma is but if it's anything like Monopoly, I'm in.

:)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 14:55:05 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Puccini's last aria
Message:
But I can't stand Coke and hamburgers either. I guess that makes me very un-American.

One day, Jim, I'll have tears of joy running down your dimpled cheeks as Puccini sends frissons up and down your chakras.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 14:18:19 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Barbara
Subject: He has a point but
Message:
his extreme 'pro' Americanism is as ridiculous as extreme 'anti' Americanism.

America is neither perfect nor the pits.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 19:39:24 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Agreed
Message:
I didn't read the whole thing. The bits I did sounded more opinionated than informative. Being an American, I don't mind people having a high opinion of us, but I'm inclined to agree with you, Dermot. There's no saints living in America. But that doesn't mean we're the Great Satan, either.

I just wish our foreign policy wasn't as friendly to oppressive regimes as it has been, especially in the advent of the global economy. That can only come back to us in a bad way.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 17:24:14 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Re: He has a point but
Message:
Well, if it's neither perfect nor the pits that puts it slightly above England and below Wales.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 15:12:49 (EDT)
From: Barbara
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Re: He has a point but
Message:
Dermot:

I noticed the 'rah-rah' elements in the essay, but I thought it was important to post the article in order to dispel some of the misconceptions about the States. There has been a surfeit of articles about what's wrong with the States, so I thought this'd provide some balance. There's a lot of information floating around out there, and I think it's up to us to inform ourselves and to provide ourselves with the balance which is needed. It's tough, if not impossible, to find just one article/news source which provides that balance.

I live in a state which has the largest immigrant population of any country outside of that country itself, eg., Russians, Armenians, Thai, Lao, Hmong, etc. and I, and my friends, really enjoy the diversity and the insights into their cultures (not to mention the food :>). I mention this to dispel the myth that all Americans are isolationists, xenophobes, or look at their country with rose colored glasses. I know you know this, but it's worth stating.

There's a lot I could say, but given the complexity of our current crises, I'll just leave it that these issues are incredibly complex and it's up to each of us individually to try to come to an understanding that defies sound bites and which, hopefully, combines pragmatism (rooting out the terrorist web) and compassion (not decimating the civilians). A tough one, for sure.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 17:45:20 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Barbara
Subject: Well, I'm feeling magnanimous
Message:
Barbara:

Rah Rah.

That out of the way, I recognize the good and bad about the US and reckon it's a ratio of something like 7 to 3 or 8 to 2. But, much of what is good about the states was inherited from England... and the best of that is common law, and the rule of law. The US also invented political parties, but the English and Scots hammered out the rough draft, and the American Revolution really began in Glasgow. The single most reliable and powerful correlate of a country's level of democratic success is whether it was ever a British colony. This is an extraordinary legacy, from the mother country and it's settler societies. Heck, even the American flag is the flag of the British East India Company with nothing changed but the crossed crowns of Stephen and George replaced by a field of stars. And knowing this, I'll waive it anyway, right along with those poor ignorant sods that Rich eschews, who think we invented it.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 21:23:08 (EDT)
From: Barbara
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Lucky for me, I guess
Message:
Sis boom bah. Couldn't resist that one.

I knew about most of the other stuff you mentioned, but I didn't realize that about the flag. I think flag, I think Betsy Ross.

Have you ever read Thousand Plateaus by Gilles DeLeuze and Felix Guattari?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 21:50:01 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Barbara
Subject: Re: Lucky for me, I guess
Message:
Barbara:

No, haven't read that. Will have to look it up. I'm intending to write a book proposal myself, which is no small task. Maybe 'Thousand Plateaus' will give me some ideas.

The story on the flag is interesting. It seems that someone did a woodcut inspired by a drawing done of the participants of the Boston Tea Party standing under a tree immediately after the event. Leaning against the tree was the captured flag of the British East India Company and people took it to be the new American flag because of the 13 stripes. In fact, the stripes stood for the 13 British colonial holdings, not the 13 American colonies (which they thought of as one colony). The mistake simply became institutionalized, although they couldn't think of a reason to keep the crowns of St. Stephen and St. George and substituted 13 stars. A bit redundant, but fortunately we started adding new states pretty soon. Not much is new under the sun.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 16:04:15 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Barbara
Subject: Re: He has a point but
Message:
Hi Barbara,

I enjoyed a lot of the post actually. I thought I just replied , quite fairly, that the USA was neither perfect or the pits and Jim brings out his 'Anti' stuff....ridiculous IMO.

But thanks for posting it ...it adds to the discussion.

Hope you're well

Cheers

Dermot

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 14:33:55 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: What is perfection?
Message:
The US may not be perfect (whatever that means) but is the BEST we have, the greatest hope we have for your beloved world without borders. Like the RC church it absorbs and Americanizes all cultures by osmosis.

I did not see any ''extreme pro-Americanism'' in the article but of course it is written in reaction to Yankophobia and therefore probably a bit more forgiving. I just loved it.

When I first came here I really hated the US and found the people arrogant and superficial. Later I had to admit to myself that I was envious of their easy-going confidence and optimism. I had hated the fact that not only were they strong and muscular and athletic and beautiful but also brainy. That was a hard one to swallow.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 05:07:28 (EDT)
From: Peg
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Envy..You've got it there i think
Message:
Later I had to admit to myself that I was envious..
The fact that the US is the most powerful nation, and the most influential these days means that there will be envy.
And I think for all the learned, sophisticated, informed etc presentations, this is a root cause of anti-American feeling and (sadly) unavoidable. Whoever is powerful will get undermined.

I'm sure GB gets some of this also because of its indisputable history (although our sad demise as a world power has wiped a lot of that out)

I listened to a radio4 'from our own correspondent' yesterday that described the people of America as being like people who have 'been mugged in daylight in their own neighborhood' No-one not even in the middle of the Manitoba(?)plains, feels safe. This and reading these forums brought home to me that I don't really know what it's like for you guys. The difference here between London and the country is considerable because in London there is quite a strong identification with NY and much more of a feeling that it could happen there.
It must feel really sick to be experiencing both these things. The horror and aftermath of September 11th and the awful 'kick them when they're down' envy bandwagon.
Peg

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 12:53:13 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Peg
Subject: Give me a 10 foot pole
Message:
On the cable channel there's been persistent coverage of an 'Anti-War Anti-Racism' rally with numerous speakers and a consistently preposterous dialogue. If I were against racism I'd hardly want to connect that movement to an anti-war movement with such low credibility. I don't know what these organizers are thinking. The left has never had much political savvy in the US, and is now something more along the lines of a nostalgic social club. Give me a 10 foot pole.

--

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 09:55:28 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Peg
Subject: Not sure about envy
Message:
Hi Peg (good to see you here) -
I'm not sure about 'envy' exactly - but I do think there is a tendency to see the US as an authority figure, and, of course, most people have very mixed emotions about authority figures. I said this in a post below, but sometimes it seems as if the US cannot do anything right - they are criticized even if they do nothing. This happens inside the US just as much as outside, I think - although there's not as much hatred for the US inside the US (except by people like Timothy McVeigh, the Unabomber, etc.) I do think people need to rethink their expectations of the US - I am not sure if this is possible for people in the Middle East, but it certainly is possible for the people on this forum, IMHO.

Thanks for the rest of your post - I really appreciated it.

Love,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 10:42:05 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Or vice versa Katie??????
Message:
Maybe those who accuse people of being 'Anti-American' should rethink.

As for expectations. Let's broaden it. Let's say USA , UK , EUROPE. AUSTRALIA, CANADA, NEW ZEALAND .

Given the vast wealth of these countries (much of it , rightly or wrongly, sustained to the detriment of poorer countries.) what sort of expectations (not just in terms of continual short term survival aid when their plight just HAPPENS to be centre focus)should a 6yo Afghani child have? A crust of bread?

The way I see it we continue trading arms, we continue building up despots who turn into monstrous enemies, we continue to accentuate the north/south rich'poor divide, we continue to pollute the planet.

As the leader of these bunch of super rich countries (Britain for example has the 4th largest economy in a world of 200 odd nations) what SHOULD we expect frm America ?

To tear up treaties such as Kyoto ? To put the US car driver ahead of the health of the planet? To arm vicious psychopaths so they can continue to further American aims at the expense of the psycopaths own people.

Of course, I have included the WEST as a whole (I've made that point countless times) but America is the worlds only SUPERPOWER. THAT IS WHY THE WORLD HAS A RIGHT TO EXPECT A HUGE AMOUNT MORE THAN AMERICA IS PREPARED TO ACCEPT.

America can't have it both ways. Like it or not , as a superpower, a mediocre (or worse) response to the world and its problems are not good enough.

If America truly wants to live up to its noble ideals which it always makes a point of reminding the world of. Freedom. Democracy. Benevolence. Justice.Then , again like itor not, it must ACT toward that. So too must the West as a whole.

Expectations? YES YES YES .

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 11:20:21 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Re: Or vice versa Katie?
Message:
Hi Dermot -
I can't disagree with you about some of the shortcomings of the US as stated in your post (particularly the environmental concerns), and I didn't like the isolationism that Bush was apparently promoting before September 11 (I didn't vote for him, remember?) I do think it's important for the US to cooperate with other countries in problems like global warming, the arms business, etc. And, BTW, did you know that Russia is getting into the arms business big time as well? They will sell to almost anyone, too.

But I don't think that it's true that America is OBLIGATED as a 'superpower' (whatever that is) to take actual action all over the world. I still think this needs re-thinking - to my mind, it is a historical premise based on the US's role as 'world policeman' in the past.

And my other point was that no matter WHAT the US does, it will be criticized by some people - and hated by others. Almost everyone on this forum has pointed out many many failures of US foreign policy over the years - and some (not all) of these failures came from well-intentioned acts. They've also pointed out how the current terrorist crisis apparently resulted from the actions of the US overseas. My emotional reaction to this is definitely isolationist - if US actions overseas are so horrible, then why do people who criticize the US past foreign policy still expect the US to step in here and there and do 'the right thing' (when the world situation is so complicated that there IS no 'right thing')? It seems like a can't win situation to me - and it certainly makes me wish that people's expectations of the US were more like those they have of Canada, for example.

As you pointed out in your post about health care, there are a lot of domestic problems in the US as well that need to be taken care of. Everyone in the US is NOT rich, healthy, well-fed. If you don't have, and can't get, health insurance, you're screwed when it comes to medical care (I have been there). We have has horrible droughts all over this country - and we are using up the water in the aquifers that supply some of our major cities. There are real drug and violence problems in our cities - the innocent families that have no choice but to live in those cities are terrorized. People like me, who will need it, have no idea if we will get our Social Security retirement money when we are 65. And right now, we are in an ecomomic recession that has been exacerbated by the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon.

I agree that richer countries should help poorer countries with economic aid if they can - but so often this noble intention becomes politicized as well. The aid never reaches the people who are actually starving and the situation becomes another stick to beat the US with.

I'm sure you can read a lot of frustration in my post - it's been building up since September 11. I have tried to see both sides of the question, but I'm also tired of the constant criticism of the US government that I hear on this forum. And I do think it has a lot to do with people's expectations of the US.

Take care, Dermot - hope you are well,
Love,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 13:05:17 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: Yes I think it is 'OBLIGATED'
Message:
Hi Katie

I think it is the only imperial power in history that wants to have its cake and eat it too. First, I know there is no 'emperor' , I know there is no ' political' empire .....but this does not mean it IS NOT the worlds imperial power in EFFECT. Like ancient Rome, like Britain in the 19c ....it is the THE world power.It's empire is spread through commerce (just as the Brit empire was once 'the Bitish east india co '.), through finance, through culture, through diplomacy, through military power. For Americans to deny this has been her schizophrenic problem . IT IS NOT CANADA KATIE, THAT IS THE POINT !!!!!! NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU'D LIKE IT TO BE.

All previous SUPERPOWERS reluctantly accepted the ' world policeman ' role, America never really has.It's a bit like being in a playground with a bunch of vicious squabbling kids and one 7ft tall martial artist. He can ignore everything, occasionally get kicked in the shins, watch terrible beatings and atrocities going on OR use his influence and power to bring order once and for all.

Little old Britain (no doubt as a remnant of empire) is doing far more than America. Our troops are probablty the best trained peacekeepers on the planet. The UN can always fall back on them. But it can't really afford it or stretch it much longer.

America isn't OBLIGATED in a sense of someone putting a gun to it .....it is OBLIGATED (or should be) by accepting that instead of using its power to 1. defend itself at last resort 2.use it willy nilly when it seems safe to do so.

That's not to suggest it should go in meddling and throw its weight about and create more problems / enemies. It is to suggest that it uses it 's power and influence for benign reasons.

The criticism it encounters is because of its double standard willy nilly approach.

I believe if it abandoned its isolationism but also got involved in a CREATIVE diplomatic way .....it would be verbally and physically attacked less but its power for good would be so much more enhanced.

You see, my so called 'Anti-Americanism' has Americas best interests at heart. Flag waving isolationism, with occasional interference here and there does not.

So you're right it's not OBLIGATED per se. It is OBLIGATED according to its admittedley high and noble ideals.

It shouldn't just jump into the approach I suggest, just like that. That would be a recipe for unbelievable confusion and disaster. Like I've suggested from day one ....it should do it with it's soulmate/allies, other rich, western allies with a broadly liberal agenda. Very carefully, very diplomatically, very cleverley, very long termly (haha no such word).

That's why I say a RADICAL change. Be involved to make an ever growing circle of friends, not be meddlesome and create an ever growing circle of hateful enemies.

Sounds simple. It's probably the most complicated scenario ever in history. But America and the West has to choose. Will America TRULY lead for the good ????????

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 14:34:29 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: The dilemma of obligation and independence.
Message:
Dermot:

The criticism it encounters is because of its double standard willy nilly approach.

Which is, unfortunately, at least partly dictated by its anti-statist ideology. We do the same thing with industrial policy. But you and I agree that this should change. There is a classic article by a fellow named J. David Greenstone that expresses an extraordinary methodological approach for defining what this new role could and should be. I'm not dropping names here, because Greenstone was a student at the time he wrote the article, and he died in a plane crash shortly afterward so was never able to elaborate or defend his position sufficiently. His article has been circulating for years, ever since his death. It has a rather intimidating title, something like 'The State as a Conceptual Variable.' It is a way to address the fundamental anti-statism of Americans, especially in terms of foreign policy, and develop a coherent long term approach that leads eventually to world government.

I believe if it abandoned its isolationism but also got involved in a CREATIVE diplomatic way .....it would be verbally and physically attacked less but its power for good would be so much more enhanced.

You see, my so called 'Anti-Americanism' has Americas best interests at heart. Flag waving isolationism, with occasional interference here and there does not.

So you're right it's not OBLIGATED per se. It is OBLIGATED according to its admittedley high and noble ideals.

Well that's the wedge you have to use if you want to *really* change things. It's all I've been saying.

I can't find a direct electronic reference for Greenstone's articles, but here's a recent dissertation by Adam Maze at the University of Chicago that discusses his thesis intelligently. It also discusses Louis Hartz, who is worth reading on his own. Maze has written a pretty good dissertation and in general I agree with his conclusions. His outline will give you a good feel for the debate.

--Scott
[ The Liberal Persuasion ]

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 17:14:34 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Thanks Scott
Message:
I've bookmarked it....I'll read it when I've got a spare minute or so.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 11:18:44 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: BTW Katie
Message:
Hi there .....nice to see ya :)

Excuse the lack of hello/goodbye in the last post .....I knowsome are more sensitive to this than others.

I tend to forget the basic niceties in a lot of my posts because I get carried away with the thrust of my points .....I take it for granted that no one thinks I bear any personal ill will to anyone (which obviously I don't) ....but guess my directness can come over as rudeness.

:)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 11:28:05 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Dermot the fiery
Message:
I already know that about you - and I don't take offense - because I also know that you do listen to what other people are saying.

Love,
Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 07:07:57 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Peg
Subject: Re: Envy..You've got it there i think
Message:
Ah well let's ignore delving into things huh?

It's just plain ole envy. I think not.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 14:30:22 (EDT)
From: Peg
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Re: Envy..You've got it there i think
Message:
Just for the sake of my poor vanity I did say 'a' root cause and I stand by that. I didn't mean you Dermot by the way.... I hear and believe you aren't anti-American.
Peg
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 14:36:03 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Peg
Subject: You must be the only one Peg
Message:
to hear that :)

Hope you're well

Cheers

Dermot

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 14:30:38 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Can you read, Dermot?
Message:
Take a deep breath and read it again, Dermot. Your criticism makes absolutely no sense whatsoever!
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 14:43:01 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: An example, Jim ,Pat
Message:
Yes I can read Jim. You must know what I mean Pat when I say the States isn't perfect.

What is the life expectancy of a young black kid?

But to both of you ....let's consider HEALTHCARE. A recent international survey listed all the countries of the world in terms of access, service, delivery etc. By far, France had the very best Health service in the world. UK was ranked 11th I think (but it may have been 16th).

America ranked 32nd. NOT THE BEST.And don't tell me healthcare isn't central to the quality of a society. In spite of superb universities much of American education for poor kids is sub-standard.

I'm not ANTI Amrican .....but don't you two bully me into thinking it has the BEST to offer for all ....sorry.....disagree strongly :)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 11:41:09 (EDT)
From: Katie
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Dermot - a point
Message:
You asked:
What is the life expectancy of a young black kid?

At one point - although not sure if it's still true - the leading cause of death among young black men in the US was murder. This has nothing to do with health care. There are also lots of black children (white, too) born with AIDS, drug addictions, or to mothers who are too young, or too wacked out, to care for them. I agree that this is a real problem - but again, this is not caused by lack of health care.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 12:29:46 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Katie
Subject: I know that Katie
Message:
:) That was a beginning 'aside' of many pertinent points I could have chosen ......then i started a new paragraph and said ' BUT....let's consider healthcare.. '

My fault I guess for unclear expression. My point was that in another post Pat was saying America was 'best'. I don't see America, in terms of being the 'best' society. A society that, yes sadly, has to witnesss such horrendous crime, poor healthcare,widespread poverty,free marketism without social constraint etc is far from best. The UK too, in many respects is like a mini-America with mirrored problems, though not as bad.

America is 'best' at having the largest economy, most powerful military,entrepreneurship, peoples democracy etc

In terms of being the best civil society it is way down the 'civilisation' league. You'd have to look to the likes of countries such as Denmark (just to pull one,of many others, out 0f the hat) to look for good health care, clean enviromment, good economy, feedom and democracy as a BALANCED package.
etc etc etc

To say America is the 'best' country in the world flies in the face of the facts. To then cite the fact that so many emigrate there is a reflection of those immigrants aspirations not the actual state of America. People are greedy for themselves and their families ( UNDERSTANDABLY, I GUESS )....America is best for entrepreneurial reasons so they go there. Not all, but the vast majority go for that reason. Hey, they wanna get rich !!

If it were for a safe, civil society with lots of social care then they'd go to countless other countries.

Cheers me dear.

Dermot

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 15:11:49 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Okay, okay, enough already
Message:
You said: ''What is the life expectancy of a young black kid?''

Point taken. They do tend to kill each other quite a lot.

As for healthcare: I worked in hospitals in S Africa, UK and US for 30 years. All are good but the US has the best that money can buy and unfortunately the best is beyond the means of most. As for PROVISION of healthcare, this is one area where I tend to sympathise with the socialists. Free catastrophic emergency care is available to all in the USA (but not cosmetic surgery or liver transplants.) If you can pay you will be billed for emergency treatment later. If you can't the state will pick up the tab. However I actually detest the US health business especially the pharmaceutical companies. When it comes to health I am definitely a bit of a socialist.

Yes, public education is not good but it's free. The problem is we don't pay teachers enough.

But, Dermot, these are all things that we debate constantly and they are not being neglected. They will all be improved with time.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 18:14:42 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Healthcare beef.
Message:
Pat:

Yeah, healthcare is the strongest case for socialization. I'm not even sure it's the best that money can buy. You don't get any better than Johns Hopkins, and an elderly friend of mine recovering from a stroke at Johns Hopkins got bed sores so bad they were life threatening. No excuse for that.

'Free catastrophic emergency care is available to all in the USA (but not cosmetic surgery or liver transplants.) '

That's more or less true, although catastrophic emergency care is a bit like treating battle injuries to the point where the victim can hop around a bit, and then sending him back into battle.

This friend of mine, who is now recovering pretty well, started asking all the nurses the other day if they were Finnish. He knew that the Finns were famous for their wonderful care of the aged and infirm, but unfortunately couldn't find any Finns in Baltimore. They must have settled farther north.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 14:57:41 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Jesus Christ, Dermot!
Message:
First, why don't you admit it -- you are most definitely anti-American. Let's be honest here. For two weeks now you've been expounding on all the faults of the states which comments only have relevance now as some sort of explanation, if not justification, for the terrorist attacks. Otherwise, why even bother? Yet, like the other posters here advancing this position, you're skittish about admitting its real import and on-again, off-again about conceding your bottom line. Hell, Dermot, you're not the only one.

Health care in the states is a porblem, sure. But it's also a problem here where socialized medicine is both inept, obsolete, woefully inadequate, cumbersome and downright dangerous. In B.C. now one waits forever for the most urgent procedures, all the health care pro's are demoralized for beign overworked and underpaid and still projections just this week are that health care will eat up a full 50 % of our provincial budget in just a few years! I lived in the U.S. for nine years, I know that society. I see advantages in both it and Canada's, maybe even more than you do. But I fail to see the point of using this specific crisis as a platform for the omnibus slagging of America that you're enjoying. Appleyard's article was tailor-made for you, too bad you can't appreciate it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 09:55:11 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: What's NEXT Jim?
Message:
You align yourself with the propaganda sheets of Murdoch ....Reverend Moon .........is Rawat in the newspaper business yet?

:)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 15:49:31 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Complete rubbish Jim
Message:
It's going to get to the point of whether you are calling me a liar or not. Let me repeat , one more time .....I AM NOT ANTI-AMERICAN.

Now , in my book discussing and criticising and pointing out obvious faults and flaws in America or ANY country doesn't make a person ANTI-WHATEVER.

Now if for example I was citing Americas healthcare system and LYING about it , then yes you could legitimately and quite rightly call me anti-American.

If the IRA had flown two planes into lONDON and devasted the city and killed thousands , then perhaps the topic here would be pre-dominantly about BRITAIN, not USA. USA , though, is central to the discussion at the moment , so to skirt round valid (even if after further discussion provably mistaken ) issues is intellectually dis-honest.

Now had it been an IRA attack I would be unreservedly criticising British policy going right back in history but I would have also unreservedly condemned the IRA. IT'S CALLED FREE SPEECH JIM. IT'S CALLED DISCUSSION. IT'S CALLED , IN MY OPINION, WEIGHING PROS AND CONS You know whatthough Jim, I love both Ireland and England.Would I then be 'Anti-English' ???? Would I be 'Anti-Irish' ???? I think not. Liking, caring and in many respects respecting a society doesn't mean I have to ignore flaws.

I have vehemently condemned 'Islamic ' fundamentalism , I've criticised Arab politics and society as well as focusing on the USA.

These ANTI jibes are infantile as far as I'm concerned. A distraction from valid, discuabb issues.

In my opinion, like McCarthyism (though it hasn't got even close to that and maybe it never will ) ....it's DANGEROUS.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 18:36:10 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: The point.
Message:
Dermot:

I think the point here, and Jim will correct me if I'm wrong, is that if all you can think to discuss when someone has been seriously wounded, is that person's faults (which are, on balance, minor), then you've clearly got a negative bias toward that person. Isn't that obvious? There may also be a bit of escapism, in the sense that it's difficult to ascribe such awful events to someone's petty envy warped by a combination of religious conviction and a messianic complex. The victim must have been 'asking for it.'

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 20:09:13 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Leave Dermott alone
Message:
Scott,

If you ask me, you've been much more lopsided in your PRO-American views than Dermott in his Anti-American ones. At least he had this to contribute about Islamic fundamentalism:

Myself and others have pointed to the fact that the West in general and America in particular (as the powerful leader of the West) must fundamentally review and change its attitudes, approaches and actions toward the rest of the world including Muslims.

In fairness, I think we've also pointed out that a lot of the Islamic world, politically and socially, are basket cases.

That sounds balanced to me. You on the other hand haven't got a poor word to say, at all, about America's support of corrupt regimes. Well, that support is there, Scott, and it's coming back to bite us in the ass. Rather than deny it and state our case that we're not that bad, we'd be wiser to face the facts. Much of what we do in the third world is that bad. It's fucked up and we really don't have any defense against it. If you ask me, in the face of it, the best we can do is hang our heads in shame because our leaders obviously don't want to do anything about it so long as the money rolls in.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 21:20:02 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Perfectly valid observation, sorry.
Message:
That sounds balanced to me. You on the other hand haven't got a poor word to say, at all, about America's support of corrupt regimes. Well, that support is there, Scott, and it's coming back to bite us in the ass. Rather than deny it and state our case that we're not that bad, we'd be wiser to face the facts.

Well, I have posted that we've mistakenly concluded that all revolutions in the French and Marxist model are necessarily undemocratic, and have therefore chosen the stability of authoritarian regimes of the right over those of the left. That is definitely nothing saying it's not *that bad*. But your conclusion that we should have just willy nilly supported every popular uprising against authority is even more ill-advised. Now that, apparently, involves facing facts you don't particularly like, but it's not hiding from anything.

Much of what we do in the third world is that bad. It's fucked up and we really don't have any defense against it. If you ask me, in the face of it, the best we can do is hang our heads in shame because our leaders obviously don't want to do anything about it so long as the money rolls in

No, we needn't hang our heads in shame because we opposed Castro, the Khmer Rouge, the Sandanistas, and a host of other repressive regimes of the left. But perhaps if we had identified the 'Irish kind of hero' and supported those in lieu of the Samoza's vs the Sandanistas we wouldn't have been faced with the devil's choice in the end. If we can be faulted for not being able to identify such genuine democratic factions it's partly due to the fact that *you* can't seem to differentiate them, and partly because they haven't been there to identify in the first place. (We can't support a faction for Lockean democracy and the rule of law that doesn't exist.) So, to avoid such a devil's bargain we'd have had to simply destroy both factions completely and impose our own solution... much the way the British did during the age of colonialism. You seem to be the answer man. Maybe we should have just asked you how to do that ethically.

As Pat says, I don't think anyone who believes Marxism to be a valid system will ever see the choices made by the US as acceptable. I don't think Marxism was ever a valid choice, but perhaps there were a small number of instances where it was only a first step in a longer road to liberty. We didn't see that in the case of Vietnam, but then I opposed the Vietnam War so you can hardly lay that at my doorstep.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 22:36:10 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Marxism bad for business
Message:
Yes, we have supported nasty tyrants on the right but at least they did not threaten to socialize American businesses.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 22:48:11 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Re: Marxism bad for business
Message:
Pat:

Do you mean nationalize? I don't know that anyone has made a proposal to to turn Standard Oil into an ESOP or a Cooperative. I could have missed it though.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 14:57:08 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: Marxism bad for business
Message:
Yes, Scott, I did mean ''nationalize'' but as I said to you in a thread below, I need to bow out of the political discussions as I am not an ideologist. It's getting too abstract for me.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 02:39:43 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Take a bow...
Message:
but please don't bow out.

Pat:

If it get's too abstract then like as not it's getting too impractical. I know what you meant by 'socialize' anyway. The most important thing is that you seem to consistently exercise good judgment whether or not you know all the theories or related facts. Please don't bow out, or I'll have to leave the field to nitwits like Mel Bourne. It just gets too fatiguing to fight these battles alone. (Not that it matters, I guess, but there are probably 50 lurkers for every poster and I'd hate to see a default.)

I am quite alarmed at immoderate talk I'm hearing recently from John Kasich and Ashcroft. They don't seem to realize the impact of hearing a congressman or AG agree that biological warfare is 'likely' and that we have enough serum for 'elected officials' but not for the general public. I always knew Republicans were a little weak in their understanding of political legitimacy, but this level of ignorance is rather apalling. If you don't have enough water in the lifeboat you don't comment about how hot the sun is, how little water is available, and then take a swig from the flask. Shit! Am I allowed, as a card carrying pseudo-hawk, to say 'bad leadership?'

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 03:36:25 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: But I think you enjoy it
Message:
You said: ''It just gets too fatiguing to fight these battles alone.''

Well, you seem to be having fun doing it. Why even bother to read Mel Boring? He is simply another ghost.

Living in a city where there are only 25 Republicans out of 250,000 voters I have come to learn when not to do battle. The Peace and Freedom, Libertarian, Green and Socialist Parties all garner more votes than the GOP here. I'm not a Republican, too white, christian etc but I am an old fogy.

Yes, not all in Bush's cabinet are sane. I guess they got the jobs as pay-offs for Party favors, dad's cronies etc.

Three of my customers tonight were talking about the fact that Bush has begun bombing Afghanistan with food bombs containing messages of friendship and telling our side of the story. I wonder if the NSA reads this forum or if it's just that great minds think alike. Or at least sane old fogies do. Or it could be a rumor. I haven't heard it on the news yet.

I don't sweat the details. Mistakes will be made as they always are. It's called learning. I just hope that the Shrub is still capable of learning from his mistakes and his father's. I'm an optimist. I trust evolution. It got us this far and can take us much further.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 13:28:55 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Pat:C)
Subject: Re: But I think you enjoy it
Message:
Pat:

I enjoy it too much perhaps, though it is fatiguing. It also helps to clarify my thinking in preparation to writing a book proposal. But the real reason I'm doing it is because of people like Vera, who have never thought critically about their own prejudices. And I also find it worrisome that American critics of American policy don't seem to appreciate how they arrived at this marvelous platform for dissensus. Reminds me of that story someone used to tell about sawing off the branch where you're sitting. It can't be going too far to ask them to take a good close look at the branch once in awhile.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 14:22:54 (EDT)
From: Pat:C)
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: But Scott you're talking to ghosts
Message:
Vera is another ghost and possibly just another cultweasel trying to sound like a human being so as to sneak in and be accepted and then later act as a cult apologist.

Well, yes, if you're writing a book about this stuff, then it is worthwhile.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 21:53:43 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: Perfectly valid observation, sorry.
Message:
But your conclusion that we should have just willy nilly supported every popular uprising against authority is even more ill-advised.

Did I say that? Where? I don't even think I implied that. My only point is that, as it appears, we don't care how corrupt a government is so long as somebody, here, makes a profit.

No, we needn't hang our heads in shame because we opposed Castro, the Khmer Rouge, the Sandanistas, and a host of other repressive regimes of the left.

Well, maybe if there was a profit to be made by supporting them, we would have. Maybe they just didn't want to do business with us.

The only point I'm trying to make, Scott, is that we DO shake hands with the devil when there's some money to be made. Can that be avoided? I don't know. It is a dog-eat-dog world. And we're just one of the dogs, far as I can tell. I'm still glad to be living in this country, don't get me wrong. I'm free, I'm aware of that. I can come and go as I please, say what I want, worship in whatever manner, etc., but when it comes to foreign policy, I'm deeply ashamed of what this country does. Like Rick says, we pillage the rest of the world for the benefit of a selfish few.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 22:09:18 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Observations.
Message:
Did I say that? Where? I don't even think I implied that. My only point is that, as it appears, we don't care how corrupt a government is so long as somebody, here, makes a profit.

Oh but we do care, and the more corrupt they are the greater the dissensus in the US, which is tolerated and in some cases actually reverses policy. Such a self-correction mechanism doesn't exist in many of the regimes you'd have had us support, nor does it exist in many of the regimes we *did* support. There's a very good analysis of this dilemma in Robert Dahl's *Polyarchy*. We didn't listen to people like Dahl as closely as we should, or we might have found a way out in more instances.

Well, maybe if there was a profit to be made by supporting them, we would have. Maybe they just didn't want to do business with us.

You're making the same fatal error that many American critics have made, by assuming the Americans are more motivated by business than ideology. Our very indentities are circumscribed by ideology, and business is only one dimension of that. A lot of fertile ground there, if you're willing to till it.

What money was there to be gained in Somalia and the Balkans? Why didn't you espouse a coherent policy there? Hard to come by, isn't it? I think we choose economic gain by default, because we lack leaders who can inspire, and are inspired by, the American Ideology. Understand what it is, and then demand such leadership. It's all I'm saying. There's no fertile ground in Marxist-Socialism. It's barren as a salt flat.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 22:28:04 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: Observations.
Message:
You're making the same fatal error that many American critics have made, by assuming the Americans are more motivated by business than ideology.

Well, let's take a look, Scott. What does this have to do with ideology?

Made in China

There's a lot more where this came from. I helped setup the National Labor Committee's first computer network in the early 90s and I've been following their work ever since. It's disgusting, DISGUSTING, what American companies are doing in foreign lands.

There's no defense for it.

What money was there to be gained in Somalia and the Balkans? Why didn't you espouse a coherent policy there? Hard to come by, isn't it?

We were on the world stage, Scott. There's plenty of shit going on in today's world just as bad that we turn a blind eye to. Why? Nobody's bugging us to do something about it is what I figure. And, of course, there's no money to be made, I guess. Call me a cynic if you want, Scott. I just can't deny what I see.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 22:44:22 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: The Umma of the Mulk.
Message:
Jerry:

Call me a cynic if you want, Scott. I just can't deny what I see.

No, but you can start to see what you've been systematically ignoring because it doesn't agree with your priors. I said that Americans follow economic gain *by default*. You don't really get the significance of that statement unless you understand what's being defaulted. To do that you need to understand that being an American is to subscribe to a pervasive ideological position that has come to be called the 'American Ideology' (Carl Ladd, Martin Lipset, Larry Diamond, etc.) It was first expressed by Tocqueville in the 1830s. We aren't defined by a common ethnic heritage, as are other countries, so it stands to reason we must be defined by something else. Understand that context and you have a powerful lever. Fail to understand it, and you're just reacting the same as the people you feel are so disgusting. Am I making sense yet?

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 22:50:42 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: nope not making sense yet :) [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 23:15:43 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Then you need to do some research on your own. [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 00:08:18 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Me too I guess
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 00:13:42 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: My message didn't show
Message:
I must have typed it in the 'Quoted Message' box. Anyway, I think you're talking about how we define ourselves through our ideolgy, something like that, throwing out names left and right as you have a penchant for I might add, people we never heard of, but that doesn't strengthen your argument. I try to keep things simple, Scott, and just look at them head on. You're too complex. I think something gets lost in there.
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 02:32:21 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Complexity and names
Message:
Jerry:

So if something is complex we should just represent it as simple anyway? Isn't that how we got into this jam in the first place? And if you've never heard of Alexis de Tocqueville shame on you.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 21:19:55 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Hey, leave Scott alone, why don't you?
Message:
Jerry,

Are you saying that the U.S. should not have defended Kuwait and, by implication, Saudi Arabia? Yes or no? Because that's what's 'coming back to bite us in the ass'. Not the so-called 'plight' of the Palestinians, not the woes of blacks in America. It was American intervention in Saudi Arabia. I guess the States, the U.N. for that matter, could have just acquiesced to Saddam Hussein's invasion but my understanding is that that wasn't a safe alternative. bL's crazy as in religious crazy. The States shouldn't have to apologize for pissing him off.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 21:58:07 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Hey, I like Scott, okay?
Message:
Are you saying that the U.S. should not have defended Kuwait and, by implication, Saudi Arabia? Yes or no?

No, Jim, what I'm saying is that the Saudi government is protecting and expanding it's own wealth while oppressing it's own people. Since we support that regime, we help them, inadvertantly, in their corruption.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 23:04:29 (EDT)
From: Jim
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Well I don't ... but still ....
Message:
This world is like that. What should the U.S. do to absolve itself of guilt in Saudi Arabia? 'Order' them to hold elections?
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 00:02:58 (EDT)
From: Jerry
Email: None
To: Jim
Subject: Aw, c'mon, he ain't such a bad guy
Message:
This world is like that. What should the U.S. do to absolve itself of guilt in Saudi Arabia? 'Order' them to hold elections?


---

I really don't know what the US should do, Jim. I don't know if there's anything that can be done. I just know that there's a lot of pissed off Saudis who see us as the puppeteers of their corrupt regime. We should do SOMETHING to change that image, don't you think?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 20:13:58 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Jerry
Subject: Spoken like a TRUE patriot Jerry :) [nt]
Message:
[nt]
Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 19:01:39 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: The point....not the point
Message:
the point is to go beyond propaganda .....whether it be the aggressors or the victims and TRY to understand something and hopefully thus ensure that the cycle won't just continue indefinitley with different actors playing the same roles.

I don;t think I've been 'Anti-American' in the emotional and mindless sense of the phrase as it's been liberally bandied about here so I don't have to apologise for it. I've always thought and felt that the tragedy in the USA was abomibable.

When sympathy for IRA bombings here were few and far between I didn't o around labelling people 'anti-British' even when they argued with me the pros and cons of a complex situation. Same thing here....

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 21:41:10 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Decartes... not Descartes
Message:
Dermot:

the point is to go beyond propaganda .....whether it be the aggressors or the victims and TRY to understand something and hopefully thus ensure that the cycle won't just continue indefinitley with different actors playing the same roles.

Well I certainly agree. Different actors have been playing the same roles in the Middle East for 500 years. Time we, and they, recognized what's going on.

I don;t think I've been 'Anti-American' in the emotional and mindless sense of the phrase as it's been liberally bandied about here so I don't have to apologise for it. I've always thought and felt that the tragedy in the USA was abomibable.

No, I think you've been anti-American in the unconscious sense. That is, you refuse to give any creedance to the good and insist on emphasizing the bad. The good is like blood, extract it from history and you have a corpse. (The same is true of the British, BTW.) That's a decent legacy, and I think you can put it at the head of the agenda without sacrificing principle. You could get a lot of mileage out of inspiring Americans to live up to their own history and vision... but, you have to *know it* and appreciate it first.

When sympathy for IRA bombings here were few and far between I didn't o around labelling people 'anti-British' even when they argued with me the pros and cons of a complex situation. Same thing here....

Well there's an interesting set of lables. Strictly speaking you can't be 'un' American without being an American first. You can be 'anti' American though. Now, there is no such thing as 'un' British, apart from that rejected draft of the Declaration of Independence that began 'We, the un-British.'

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 22:26:39 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Re: Decartes... not Descartes
Message:
Scott you welsh wizard :)

First part , we agree. A miracle.

Second part ......if I point out the narrowness of flag waving just for the sake of it and point out that pursuing the same old course will just perpetuate ill-feeling toward America (whether that ill-feeling is ULTIMATELY justified or not.That is almost irrelevant)then that is being helpful, isn't it? I may have put it more diplomatically and politely, ok.So I'd accept my greatest fault as being 'bad manners'. But not out and out 'Anti-Americanism'. If America changed it's approaches (and the WEST in general, as I often point out...America is the leader)as I and others suggest and pursue policies that negate the hatred felt by Mid East countries etc then THEY ARE FOLLOWING THEIR HIGHEST IDEALS ARE THEY NOT? THE NOBLE HISTORY AND VISION? Isn't that helpful? I'm not saying or pointing out things hatefully. I'm not suggesting anyone militarily attacks America.But maybe you're right, maybe I ignore the GOOD aspects of America too much when I make my points.

Thirdly .....what are you on about? I said 'anti' not 'un'.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 23:45:00 (EDT)
From: Dermot
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: AND
Message:
The only reason I conceded 'bad manners' was because it so obviously upsets the likes of you and Jim et al .....in reality I think your being upset is really due to your misjudgement of my words , not my words in an OBJECTIVE light.

I was being polite, but your crapping on the doorstep jibe is

UTTER BULLSHIT

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 23:30:43 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Dermot
Subject: Re: Decartes... not Descartes
Message:
Second part ......if I point out the narrowness of flag waving just for the sake of it and point out that pursuing the same old course will just perpetuate ill-feeling toward America (whether that ill-feeling is ULTIMATELY justified or not.That is almost irrelevant)then that is being helpful, isn't it? I may have put it more diplomatically and politely, ok.So I'd accept my greatest fault as being 'bad manners'.

Well, if you want to chaulk it up to bad manners that's fine with me, but it's a little more significant than failing to use the butter knife. More like crapping on the doorstoop.

If America changed it's approaches (and the WEST in general, as I often point out...America is the leader)as I and others suggest and pursue policies that negate the hatred felt by Mid East countries etc then THEY ARE FOLLOWING THEIR HIGHEST IDEALS ARE THEY NOT? THE NOBLE HISTORY AND VISION? Isn't that helpful?

I've been saying that all along. It's the details thar are important, and as Jim so eloquently puts it there are no demands by the Bin Laden cult which, if met, wouldn't simply exacerbate the problem. He *has* no legitimate demands. Not one. The larger issue of terrorism requires that we take into account the (often self-conflicted) desires of people in the Middle East. In some cases that may involve direct opposition of popular movements that we deem serve the wrong interests. That may make us unpopular, but this isn't a popularity contest; it's a war. As Kissenger said recently, we should let our actions be guided solely by whether they serve the goal of defeating terrorism... and that alone. To win a war you sometimes have to allow yourself to become a target, though you do it in such a way that it compromises the opponent as much as possible.

--Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 22:39:28 (EDT)
From: Marianne
Email: None
To: Scott T.
Subject: Kissinger???
Message:
I cannot believe you are quoting Kissinger in any debate.

Marianne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 13:19:35 (EDT)
From: Scott T.
Email: None
To: Marianne
Subject: Re: Kissinger???
Message:
Marianne:

Why wouldn't I quote Kissinger if I think he's right about something (which he is)? I don't get it. Are former members of the Nixon administration beyond the pale? Does this restriction include Pat Moynihan?

--Scott




Copyright 1997 Paradise Web Enahancements


All Rights Reserved

Return to Index -:- Top of Index