The enemy of my enemy...
-
Jason Henderson wrote: you think Cheney would want to do it? nah, she's an author (of lesbian erotica, no less). i don't think the R's will let her into the big tent. -c To vote with no response is to follow the way of the coward.
Chris Losinger wrote: nah, she's an author (of lesbian erotica, no less). So, was the book any good? :rolleyes: -- I'm the figure head on a ship of fools
-
Chris Losinger wrote: nah, she's an author (of lesbian erotica, no less). So, was the book any good? :rolleyes: -- I'm the figure head on a ship of fools
I'll let you know when I've finished reading it...:-O Anna :rose: Homepage | My life in tears "Be yourself - not what others think you should be" - Marcia Graesch "Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart" - A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work. Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Visual C++ Add-In
-
Chris Losinger wrote: maybe we should try the opposite of isolation: flood them with cash, set up falafel stands on every corner, drop textbooks on them, do something to get the people up to speed with the rest of the world. maybe it would take, the way it did in Japan and its island neighbors. I don't have a problem with that idea, if you look at China and how it opened up prior to Tianamen Square that was what was happening to a large extent. The US was making inroads at opening trade and the people there saw the benefits to a Democracy. I still remember watching on television as they showed what happened there. I guess the problem I see, is what do you do when the government of a nation cracks down brutally on its own people. In China the government rolled back much of the progress that had taken place. In the USSR under Gorbachev and his glasnost policy, when the tanks rolled the troops refused to fire on the people. Do you disengage from the leaders of a nation that represses their own people? Do you just keep on going hoping that the benefits of the money and trade reach the people? I would tend the agree with you that the best way in general to deal with the policies of a repressive government is to try to work through its people. But I don't know that governments like North Korea or Uzbekistan are ever going to fold to the will of the people. I think Saddam and his kin were probably the same way. How do you open the minds of people who control their own people by limiting their access to information and the benefits others would give them? If Gorbachev hadn't allowed the start of glasnost during his tenure, the collapse of the Soviet Union might have come years later than it did. (I won't offend you by pointing out the fortunate circumstances of having Ronald Reagan in office at the time and John Paul being the Pope from a Soviet Bloc country all at the same time ;P). Chris Losinger wrote: i guess "bomb the dirty f***ers" is the generic neo-con stance these days. I don't know about that, I would have to same I'm relatively left of the idea of bombing all of the people that some folks might think we should have at. I do believe in a more carrot and the stick stance..... Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
Doug Goulden wrote: I would tend the agree with you that the best way in general to deal with the policies of a repressive government is to try to work through its people. here's a nice little survey: http://www.msnbc.com/news/916685.asp#survey[^]. (also, interestingly, GWB disapproval numbers 55% of those polled say that they won't support $60B over the next three years to rebuild Iraq. people already think we've spent too much money in Iraq - where was the outrage when GWB was proposing the war, asking for his initial $80B? didn't they understand that reconstruction would take a long time? it's clear that this country has a hypo-short attention span and no concept of long-term consequences. that doesn't bode well for the people of the countries we choose to reconstruct. here's my prediction: expect the US to be basically out of Iraq before the end of 2004, when GWB/Rove will declare the Iraq war, lack of WMDs, lack of terrorists, to be "old news". -c To vote with no response is to follow the way of the coward.
-
Chris Losinger wrote: nah, she's an author (of lesbian erotica, no less). So, was the book any good? :rolleyes: -- I'm the figure head on a ship of fools
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: So, was the book any good? Amazon ratings don't look too good. i think the first one starts out with "Awful..." To vote with no response is to follow the way of the coward.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: When our long time allies leave us "high and dry" you can expect more of the same. quick, get a newspaper. France, Germany, Canada and many others were part of the Afghanistan conflict. nobody left us "high and dry" there. To vote with no response is to follow the way of the coward.
-
Chris Losinger wrote: maybe we should try the opposite of isolation: flood them with cash, set up falafel stands on every corner, drop textbooks on them, do something to get the people up to speed with the rest of the world. maybe it would take, the way it did in Japan and its island neighbors. ha... i sound like a liberal. i guess "bomb the dirty f***ers" is the generic neo-con stance these days. Would it do any good to point out the obvious cultural imperalism involved with doing that, and also that Japan came around only after we had thoroughly bombed them? For the most part, however, I agree with you absolutely - the US should stop trying to find allies. We should waltz in where ever we like, do our business and leave without asking permission or for help from anyone. Actually, I'm Reverend Stan.
bitwiser wrote: Would it do any good to point out the obvious cultural imperalism involved with doing that why would it have to be a cultural imposition? so we don't drop Backstreet Boys CDs, we drop math and science textbooks, graph paper and #2 pencils. maybe we could give them food, plastic sheeting and duct tape, too. bitwiser wrote: also that Japan came around only after we had thoroughly bombed them? i'm not sure this matters. if the only thing keeping people from turning on a tyrant is fear and ignorance, maybe we could teach and aid their way to revolution. i think letting the people do their own revolution is better than imposing one from the outside - the US has an overall terrible record when it comes to fostering revolutions / regime change. bitwiser wrote: the US should stop trying to find allies of course you know i didn't say that. bitwiser wrote: Actually, I'm Reverend Stan ah. that explains it. -c To vote with no response is to follow the way of the coward.
-
Doug Goulden wrote: I would tend the agree with you that the best way in general to deal with the policies of a repressive government is to try to work through its people. here's a nice little survey: http://www.msnbc.com/news/916685.asp#survey[^]. (also, interestingly, GWB disapproval numbers 55% of those polled say that they won't support $60B over the next three years to rebuild Iraq. people already think we've spent too much money in Iraq - where was the outrage when GWB was proposing the war, asking for his initial $80B? didn't they understand that reconstruction would take a long time? it's clear that this country has a hypo-short attention span and no concept of long-term consequences. that doesn't bode well for the people of the countries we choose to reconstruct. here's my prediction: expect the US to be basically out of Iraq before the end of 2004, when GWB/Rove will declare the Iraq war, lack of WMDs, lack of terrorists, to be "old news". -c To vote with no response is to follow the way of the coward.
Chris Losinger wrote: it's clear that this country has a hypo-short attention span and no concept of long-term consequences Like thats a new thing? Why do you think everyone was so suprised when the dotcom bubble burst? The US has always been shortsighted. As an example look at the US in the 70's when American business was trounced by the Japanese who were taking a long term view of business as opposed to the short term profit method of management. The idea that the US has a short attention span has nothing to do with a Republican (or Democratic) administration. Chris Losinger wrote: 55% of those polled say that they won't support $60B over the next three years to rebuild Iraq. people already think we've spent too much money in Iraq - where was the outrage when GWB was proposing the war, asking for his initial $80B? didn't they understand that reconstruction would take a long time? I have to ask the question of why does the US have to fund the rebuilding of a nation with potentially the largest oil reserves on Earth? The US should be committed to a long term assistance program where we would fund the repair of the Iraqi oil programs and use the sale of the oil to rebuild the countries infrastructure and help set up a government. The initial cost (billions I'm sure) could be repayed over a 10 or 15 year period at a vey low interest rate. And just to keep things on the up and up, set up a group of other nations (preferably Arab) to monitor the expenses and where the money is spent. Take the politics out of it, put in the Red Crescent and Red Cross so that a group that is largely non political could keep an accounting of what happens to the money. Chris Losinger wrote: expect the US to be basically out of Iraq before the end of 2004, when GWB/Rove will declare the Iraq war, lack of WMDs, lack of terrorists, to be "old news" I don't think the US should be there for a long period of time, once tht the situation is stabilized we should leave, but the idea that we should try to schedule the withdraw of our troops is nuts. I'm still withholding judgement about where th weapons are. I wouldn't be suprised if the Iraqi's either buried them somewhere under a parking lot, or even shipped them over the border to Syria. No I don't think that we should bomb Syria, but it really makes you wondr when Syria states they don't believe that there is an Al-Quaida Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weir
-
Chris Losinger wrote: it's clear that this country has a hypo-short attention span and no concept of long-term consequences Like thats a new thing? Why do you think everyone was so suprised when the dotcom bubble burst? The US has always been shortsighted. As an example look at the US in the 70's when American business was trounced by the Japanese who were taking a long term view of business as opposed to the short term profit method of management. The idea that the US has a short attention span has nothing to do with a Republican (or Democratic) administration. Chris Losinger wrote: 55% of those polled say that they won't support $60B over the next three years to rebuild Iraq. people already think we've spent too much money in Iraq - where was the outrage when GWB was proposing the war, asking for his initial $80B? didn't they understand that reconstruction would take a long time? I have to ask the question of why does the US have to fund the rebuilding of a nation with potentially the largest oil reserves on Earth? The US should be committed to a long term assistance program where we would fund the repair of the Iraqi oil programs and use the sale of the oil to rebuild the countries infrastructure and help set up a government. The initial cost (billions I'm sure) could be repayed over a 10 or 15 year period at a vey low interest rate. And just to keep things on the up and up, set up a group of other nations (preferably Arab) to monitor the expenses and where the money is spent. Take the politics out of it, put in the Red Crescent and Red Cross so that a group that is largely non political could keep an accounting of what happens to the money. Chris Losinger wrote: expect the US to be basically out of Iraq before the end of 2004, when GWB/Rove will declare the Iraq war, lack of WMDs, lack of terrorists, to be "old news" I don't think the US should be there for a long period of time, once tht the situation is stabilized we should leave, but the idea that we should try to schedule the withdraw of our troops is nuts. I'm still withholding judgement about where th weapons are. I wouldn't be suprised if the Iraqi's either buried them somewhere under a parking lot, or even shipped them over the border to Syria. No I don't think that we should bomb Syria, but it really makes you wondr when Syria states they don't believe that there is an Al-Quaida Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weir
Doug Goulden wrote: The idea that the US has a short attention span has nothing to do with a Republican (or Democratic) administration. i'm not sure i was trying to invoke D vs R with this. i'm saying it's a bad thing for the countries we claim to be rebuilding - and we do claim that. remember, we want Iraq to be a shiny example of democracy in the region, not just another stumbling 5th rate sand lot. Doug Goulden wrote: why does the US have to fund the rebuilding of a nation with potentially the largest oil reserves on Earth? you break it, you fix it... ? i agree, Iraq can eventually finance the construction. but, until the time comes when everything is in place where Iraq can actually start producing and selling oil, it's up to us to run the place. and, if that costs money then too friggin bad - that's what GWB signed us (the people who ultimately fund his military adventures) up for. maybe Iraq can pay us back someday, that'd be fine. but it might not be for a long time since even oil doesn't guarantee a thriving economy (Russia, Argentina). Doug Goulden wrote: Take the politics out of it, put in the Red Crescent and Red Cross 100% agree. Doug Goulden wrote: I wouldn't be suprised if the Iraqi's either buried them somewhere under a parking lot, i thought we had spy satellites watching the whole time? how could they undertake a construction project of that size unnoticed? how is our intel so good that we know exactly what Saddam has/had, but not good enough to know where it is? even Rumsfeld is floating the "maybe they destroyed it all" idea these days. i'm still waiting patiently. remember, even most (all?) of us opposed to the war didn't dispute that Saddam had WMDs; we believed what we were told, the same as everyone else did. those of us opposed to the war just disagreed on how to handle the situation. luckily, the CIA is investigating itself now. this is amusing, since Rumsfled and Bush are reported to have ignored the CIA's intel, choosing instead to set up their own intel system. so, the CIA can easily say "we didn't find anything - and that's what we told GWB." ack... too much to say, not enough energy to put it together well :) -c To vote with no response is to follow the way of the coward.
-
Christian Graus wrote: So we agree that this decision IS idiotic ? I'm not so quick to call something idiotic just because I don't agree with it. Especially in a case like this when I have so few details about the situation. On the surface it looks bad, but I'll reserve "idiotic status" until I know more about it. The US seems to be under a huge microscope right now so I'm learning to become slow and deliberate about "news" stories both positive and negative until they get "fleshed out" over time. Disclaimer: I'm not complaining about the microscope on the US. It kind of comes with the territory. But it rarely pays to rush to judgement in these matters. Mike Mullikin :beer:
We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special.
Stephen Hawkingit rarely pays to rush to judgement in these matters Good thing we didn't rush to judgement when a) the U.S. funded and assisted Saddam Hussein's war against Iran, or b) the U.S. funded and assisted Osama bin Laden's mujahedin war against the Soviets. Otherwise we might have had to go back later to try to clean up the messes we created. Oh, wait a minute!! We did have to go back.....
-
Doug Goulden wrote: The idea that the US has a short attention span has nothing to do with a Republican (or Democratic) administration. i'm not sure i was trying to invoke D vs R with this. i'm saying it's a bad thing for the countries we claim to be rebuilding - and we do claim that. remember, we want Iraq to be a shiny example of democracy in the region, not just another stumbling 5th rate sand lot. Doug Goulden wrote: why does the US have to fund the rebuilding of a nation with potentially the largest oil reserves on Earth? you break it, you fix it... ? i agree, Iraq can eventually finance the construction. but, until the time comes when everything is in place where Iraq can actually start producing and selling oil, it's up to us to run the place. and, if that costs money then too friggin bad - that's what GWB signed us (the people who ultimately fund his military adventures) up for. maybe Iraq can pay us back someday, that'd be fine. but it might not be for a long time since even oil doesn't guarantee a thriving economy (Russia, Argentina). Doug Goulden wrote: Take the politics out of it, put in the Red Crescent and Red Cross 100% agree. Doug Goulden wrote: I wouldn't be suprised if the Iraqi's either buried them somewhere under a parking lot, i thought we had spy satellites watching the whole time? how could they undertake a construction project of that size unnoticed? how is our intel so good that we know exactly what Saddam has/had, but not good enough to know where it is? even Rumsfeld is floating the "maybe they destroyed it all" idea these days. i'm still waiting patiently. remember, even most (all?) of us opposed to the war didn't dispute that Saddam had WMDs; we believed what we were told, the same as everyone else did. those of us opposed to the war just disagreed on how to handle the situation. luckily, the CIA is investigating itself now. this is amusing, since Rumsfled and Bush are reported to have ignored the CIA's intel, choosing instead to set up their own intel system. so, the CIA can easily say "we didn't find anything - and that's what we told GWB." ack... too much to say, not enough energy to put it together well :) -c To vote with no response is to follow the way of the coward.
Chris Losinger wrote: I'm not sure i was trying to invoke D vs R with this I didn't mean to imply you did, just meant that the shortsightedness has more to do with the American attention span and 30 second sound bites.:rolleyes: I would also agree that in the short term that the US is going to spend the money necessary to correct a lot of long term problems in Iraq. But I think if we do follow through (and its hugely important we do), the US will stand to gain a lot in the region. If the US can be seen as being even handed in how it is dealing with Israel and Palestine, and we work to help the Iraqi and Afghanistan people, it can only help people's perception of us in the world. Maybe it sounds weird, but the attack by Al Quaida in Saudi Arabia last week probably helps us to make out point about terrorism being everyones problem. I've goten the impression anyway that a lot of Muslims are re-evaluating their outlook towards religious extremism. Will it fix the problems in the world? No. But if people could have intelligent conversations maybe that would. Oh well I'm rambling..... :rolleyes: Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?