cctalk digest, Vol 1 #473 - 49 msgs

From: Lawrence Walker <>
Date: Sat Feb 22 23:50:00 2003

 Try to read a little history or have you not heard of the
War of 1812 with Canada, the invasion of Cuba, the
various sorties with Mexico, not to mention the numerous
other wars that weren't quite so close as Canada or
 As for wars on it's neighbors, Iraq was a client state of
the US in it's war with Iran, and the Kurds were gassed
with supplies from the US. Kuwait likely wouldn't have
happened if Saddam hadn't got suckered by Albright into
thinking the US wouldn't do anything if they attacked
Kuwait over oil piracy issues, and the poor Shiites and
Kurds were suckered into thinking the US would support
them in a rebellion against Saddam to their tragic regret.

 And you can believe it that most canadians feel their
health-care is under attack by US med corporations,
Our industries are under attack and have been decimated
by "free" trade, and our softwood lumber industries and
water resources are also under attack, not to mention our
cultural industries. But one takes that into account when
you are in the same bed as a hungry giant.

And you better believe the ordinary Mexican is no more
convinced of the benevolence of the corporate-run US
administartion despite the sucking up of the Fox

 And those so-called agreements a defeated Iraq agreed
to under the UN were also binding on the US and which
the US and it's lackey Blair are willing to ignore if the UN
doesn't go along with its take on things.

 The UN was set up to prevent attacks by nations on
other nations following the horror of WWII. The US has
been involved in every major conflict since that time.
 The UN has laws that would be against an attack on
Iraq. Do only US-made laws apply ?

 Reminds me of Double Speak from Orwells "1984"


On 22 Feb 2003, , Al Hartman wrote:

> > From: Vintage Computer Festival <>
> >
> > Based on the off-list exchanges we had, your "proof"
> > was most likely merely jingoistic non-sequiturs
> > that Sridhar would have probably found as stupid as
> > I did.
> Being that you haven't read said reply, you can't
> possibly make a comment on them. I notice, as usual
> you stoop to personal attacks rather than discuss the
> issue.
> > > But, how can you quibble with the concept that
> > it's wrong for a county
> > > to attack it's neighbors, or to build up offensive
> > weapons?
> >
> > Look, every time you open your mouth you contradict
> > yourself. When will you realize that everything
> > you ascribe as the reasons for which we want
> > to go to Iraq, the US has committed the same? Are
> > you seriously this dense?
> Personal attack.
> And what contradiction.
> When has the U.S. attacked it's neighbor?
> Last I heard Canada and Mexico are unmolested. And
> before you bring up stuff that's 100's of years old,
> you can't address stuff that old with todays mores.
> Iraq attacked it's neighbors in modern times, with
> modern weapons.
> > This is typical of the mindset of control freaks:
> > everyone else is a child and must be punished if
> > they don't do as we tell them. I consider this
> > deviant psychological behavior.
> Personal Attack yet again.
> Do you understand a basic concept?
> It's called "Being one's word".
> When Iraq AGREED to disarm, to not own or develop
> weapons of mass destruction, and then broke those
> agreements. That's where the problem lies.
> It's not about "control" or being a "control freak".
> Adults make agreements and keep them.
> That's the only way world affairs can work. Treaties
> and agreements have to be kept, and there must be
> trust that they will be.
> When they are broken, they must be enforced. Otherwise
> the entire house of cards based on agreements and
> "word" collapses.
> That leads to chaos.
> > > Nobody wants war, but in case such as this... This
> > > war will prevent the deaths of millions. Not only
> > > by Iraq and Hussein, but by others in the future
> > > who will take this example to embolden themselves
> > > to do evil without fear of retribution.
> >
> > Contradiction.
> None that I can see.
> You'd like there to be one, so that you can attack me
> personally.
> It's a common tactic of people who are unable to have
> intelligent discussions of issues.
> Instead of discussing the issue or facts, and keeping
> the discussion on that level. You attack the person
> directly.
> I could be the world's worst idiot. But, if I was
> speaking a truth... What difference does that make?
> I could be a drooling idiot and point up and burble
> "Sky.. Blue..."
> The fact that I could be an idiot, doesn't change the
> fact that sky is indeed blue.
> So keep the discussion on the facts, rather than
> making personal attacks. When you do this, you rob
> yourself of any power, and ability to have your
> opinions considered and respected, and convince people
> that they must be indeed, invalid since you needed to
> make a personal attack.
> > No it's not. It's in our power to change our
> > President's ill pursuits because we elected the
> > bastard and we can take him down.
> I got news for you. Our President is not doing ANY
> "ill pursuits". He has the highest sustained approval
> rating of ANY President in history.
> He is doing the right thing most of the time.
> I got that you don't like what he's doing, and don't
> agree with it. It doesn't make him wrong.
> > He's OUR servant, and our problem. Saddam Hussein
> > is someone else's tyrant, not outs.
> No. He surrendered to us in a war. He has made
> agreements with our Government AND the U.N. that he is
> not keeping.
> He attacked two of our allies, was defeated and he
> must disarm to keep the terms of the treaty.
> He is not doing that, and that makes it our business.
> Sticking our heads in the sand (or up a bodily
> orifice) as you would have us do, does not make the
> problem go away, and emboldens others to break
> agreements or to attack their neighbors without fear
> of reprisals.
> > Simple: we are not the police force of the world.
> People would like us not to be.
> I'm not sure where I stand on this.
> Generally, I'm happy when we take principled stands
> against terrorism, and agression against neighbors.
> > Of course, logic eludes you, Al.
> Not at all.
> I would recommend you go to college, take some World
> History and Civics courses. Also Ethics.
> You hold some naive opinions. That sound good on the
> face, but don't hold up under rigorous scruitiny.
> They only seem good on the face, but when you extend
> the consequences of what you would like to see happen
> out on a timeline, you see that they don't actually
> bring about the things you claim to stand for.
> "Peace at any cost" is a misused statement. Often, the
> price of peace IS war. Perhaps it wouldn't seem so
> contradictory if you consider that in this context...
> "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure..."
> If there were some science fictional way to look at
> alternate timelines where we could see the different
> outcomes for different decisions, perhaps there'd be
> some data for you that might convince you of this.
> Having this stand that I hold, takes some faith. It
> takes trust that there are things that never happened
> that we will never hear about, because they were
> deterred.
> If every country or terrorist made a press release
> saying...
> "I was going to do X, but didn't do it because I was
> afraid that the U.N., the U.S., the U.K., etc... Would
> punish me for doing it..."
> Then, you'd see how well deterrence works.
> There was an article in Time Magazine (or it may have
> been Newsweek) fairly recently that said, that when
> the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam, it emboldened all
> sorts of actions.
> Within three years of the pull-out, American Embassies
> were attacked, Cuba stepped up it's actions in South
> America, and more.
> Backing down has consequences.
> It's a tough row to hoe, and not as simplistic as you
> make it.
> Al

Received on Sat Feb 22 2003 - 23:50:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:35:56 BST