Re: [OpenHeroQuest] Vote RRRRRRRRRRRRR !!!!!!!!!

From: Chris Lemens <chrislemens_at_USGEQJ4iaJsY974ZgaFfS3aZjyPQGl51bQ12L-HsuBfd295Xyas_rknUS-Xzbb_T>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 07:41:01 -0700 (PDT)

Oh, well, in that case, Bork was a raving right wing loon who waned to strip all right thinking Americans of their basic constitutional freedoms just because he's a mean person.

> At least in the country next door it's a specific
> Constitutional comittee that's the final arbiter,
> and in the UK it's the Lords and
> Commons combined.
>
> Having a handful of appointed cronies deciding such
> vital matters is of course a vast improvement over
> our own democratically challenged Old European
> procedures.

Does it really make sense for the same body to decide whether the constitution grants it the power to do what it wants to do? This is one of the reasons why government spending as a percent of GDP is so much higher in Britain than in the US.

> > Fair argument. It does, though, reflect a
> > genuinely confederal system.
>
> The South Will Rise Again !!!!

Dumb ass. Our constitution is a confederal system. The states and the national governments are equal branches constitutionally. It has nothing to do with secession, which the constitution does not contemplate.

> Convicting and imprisoning people has turned
> into a politically corrupt private enterprise,
> that disenfranchises the pinko commies
> of their natural rights.

So, how, in your opinion, should we handle violent criminals? Cut them loose? Or should we make an exception for pinko criminals?

> But not the WMDs. BTW I'm glad Bush is scrapping
> some of them. But it's likely just a budgetary
> concern.

No, it was part of the executive deal that Bush cut with Putin. As part of that deal, we provide expertise and money to Russia to assist in the elimination of their nukes that they junk, too. Aren't we just awful, morally culpable people?

> Anti-gasoline, though. Seriously anti-gasoline.

Me too. I think we should get off gasoline in the next 10 years, then tell Saudi good luck in spreading their vicious ideology without any financial backing.

> Oh right : So :
>
> 1) Sign treaties
> 2) Destroy illegal weapons
> 3) Be invaded by foreign powers
> 4) Be unable to defend oneself because of 1) & 2)
> 5) Hide in a corner
> 6) Wait for bullet
>
> Next_Dictator
>
> Goto 1) ?
>
> Yeah, Bush has _reallly_ sent a positive signal to
> the world, hasn't he ... :-(
>
> (and that evil faux-rouge Blair, too)

Look, the point here is that we believed that he had not done #2. That's what put him into a special category. That does send a positive signal to a lot of would-be nuclear powers: "Don't bother spreading horrific weapons, because we'll take you out before you get there." Korea is actually the problematic message.

I find it amusing that the conservative here is arguing for non-proliferation and the socialist is apparently willing to let WMD spread unchecked. Kind of a reversal of the cold war stances.

> No. The alternative, indeed the inevitability, is
> that unless the US can agree to abide to a
> framework of International Law, then countries
> will continue to develop WMDs for self-Defence.
> Defence against whom ? The USA of course.
> Not so much against the military as against the
> ideology and the commercial clout.

Hmm. Let's see. US developed them to counter Germany; USSR to counter US; China to counter USSR; India to counter China; Pakistan to counter India; Pakistan gave he technology to North Korea. So it's all Germany's fault! I knew it was old Europe.

Seriously, North Korea's efforts go way back to pre-Bush days. And the truce there is enforced, from their viewpoint, by the artillery aimed at Seoul. There is more firepower there than any nuke they can develop.

> Do you think that Syria's proposed anti-Israeli
> Resolution has a snowball's chance in hell ?

Sadly, no. I think Israel needs to be sent a message to come to peace. We need to cut them off.

> I'm sorry, but why should it be a given that
> American military might must have such a far
> reach ?

Because there are people willing to use violence, who are organized, and desire to destroy western civilization.

> I'm sorry, but it appeared obvious to me at the time
> that no WMDs would be found.

It certainly did not to me. He was known to have developed and used them in the past; he continued to refuse to cooperate fully with inspections. What conclusion do you draw from that? That he had nothing to hide? The conclusion does not make sense.

> Face it, we were lied to.

I disagree. I think we assumed he worst case. Whn dealing with WMD, that's not unreasonable.

> I can never support a war, but I would have
> understood a war waged for clear reasons.

The reasons were clear, just based on incorrect assumptions. By the way, it is good to know your perspective. Is war never justified? What if you are attacked? What if the other side commits genocide?

> Saddam was the 9/11 scapegoat, let's face it.

Not really. 9/11 just vastly lowered our tolerance to threats to our security and vastly raised our willingness to take military casualties.

> The USA has sent a clear message to the World :
> OK to unilateral action and "pre-emptive wars".
>
> After what happened in Iraq, how could any
> country continue to trust the US to keep its word ?

It is a problem. It is difficult to articulate a standard that tells the rest of the world when we will take military action, so that they know when not to be threatened.

I realized another problem on this last night: Our military reflects our political culture. Our political culture says that the US does not engage in wars of conquest. This means we've not developed any of the capabilities needed to hold and administer territory. Our military is built to win a war decisively, with low casualties. We don't how to handle the next stage when we take over the whole country. If we are seriously going to address the issue of failed states, we need to develop this capability.

> Remember : you financed the guy !!

Yes, along with a lot of other despots. Guilty, m'lord. Cold war dirty fighting, unfortunately. We should do what we can to remedy it, as we did in Iraq and as we did in the Phillipines (a different, but successful, approach).



Chris Lemens

Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com            

Powered by hypermail