Post #45,580
7/14/02 10:46:22 PM
7/14/02 11:39:30 PM
|
A little web research - US and Iraq & why gulf war
Re 'Slant Drilling' & the reason Iraq gave for invading Kuwait (a former province of Iraq). I am not putting these items forward as any sort of proof - just that they are informative and can be insightful (if I think a particular item is good I will say so & why). Also the articles are pretty much as they apperared by doing a Google search with "Slant and Drilling and Kuwait".
I have not read *any* of these links before today (that I can remember)- my prior views are from following the complete events very closely and from travelling to US and SE Asia during the events of the past 12 years, and from a prior academic interest in modern history (my major). As a personal preference I am very pro US and believe that in general, the US protects my part of the world from bigger evils than US big business (which can get quite evil at times. - I am ambivalent on the real meaning of events seen from the perspective of power politics and the not nice things Govts will do in the interests of power & politics. I hate seeing innocents fed as death fodder to the higher interests of Govts as they play their political games, but, can see that this is the nature of humanity & has been since 'Cain smacked Able' with a brick).
This stuff is *really* interesting reading ... (enjoy) ...
******************************
[link|http://www.rense.com/general3/slant.htm|Iraq accuses Kuwait of further oil theft]
******************************
[link|http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA%20Hits/Iraq_CIAHits.html|Why Iraq invaded Kuwait]
*******************************
This article is very well written and backed up and as best as I can tell - spot on the mark of what US hostility to Iraq is all about.
[link|http://www.sonic.net/~doretk/Issues/98-04%20%20SPR/whydoeswash.html|Why US (Bush) hates Saddam (an excellent article)]
******************************
From US main news source ....
"At the forefront are U.S. and multinational oil companies with an eye on Iraq's huge oil reserves \ufffd American firms, through middlemen, still import the lion's share of Iraqi crude oil for consumption in the United States, despite congressional prohibitions on direct sales. "
etc: etc: etc: etc:
And since September, as the authoritative oil journal Middle East Economic Survey (MEES) has reported, Iraq and Kuwait have traded claims and counter-claims that one or the other is "stealing" oil underground from oilfields that straddle their border \ufffd one of the prime causes Saddam Hussein proclaimed for his August 1990 invasion of Kuwait.
Memos have been sent by both sides, dealing with alleged cross-border "slant" drilling by Kuwait. American oil companies, Iraq charges, are involved. Kuwait denies the charges vehemently and in documents replete with technical details.
[link|http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/iraq011119_cooley.html|ABC News on US desire to deal with Iraq]
******************************
From a Retired USAF Lt Colnel & now rev
"In August, 1990, the new Hitler, Saddam Hussein, invaded innocent, democratic Kuwait. The United States, protector of peace, democracy, freedom, and human rights responded, along with the United Nations, to drive the Iraqis out and rescue the people of Kuwait. Ever since, we have been patiently using sanctions and a minimum of force in an attempt to see that the evil Saddam never again threatens his neighbors or the world with weapons of mass destruction."
This much everybody knows \ufffd- and it\ufffds total B.S.! What is it? That\ufffds right, you can say it. I\ufffdm a clergyman. I love God and I serve God; and my God (and yours too, whether you\ufffdre Jewish or Christian or Moslem) is not offended to hear somebody say B.S. You know what offends my God? \ufffd the war against Iraq! That\ufffds what offends our God. Dying children \ufffd that\ufffds what offends our God!
[link|http://www.rmbowman.com/isss/iraqsp.htm|Invasion of B.S.]
******************************
[link|http://www.cb3rob.net/~merijn89/mumia/msg00083.html|Questions why some invasions are supported and some opposed by US]
******************************
Following small excerpt says a lot ...
"Late 1940s - after WWII British power begins to wane and America steps in. George Kennan, U.S. State Department stated in 1948," The US has about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. In this situation we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and daydreaming, and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford the luxury of altruism and world benefaction. We should cease to talk about such vague and unreal objectives as human rights, the raising of living standards and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.""
A quote from the author of this history bit ...
"I borrowed liberally from many sources for this chronology but most of the recent info came from Ramsey Clark's book The Fire This Time"
[link|http://www.scn.org/wwfor/iraqhist.html|IRAQ History & Oil Issues (creation of Kuwait by British)]
******************************
[link|http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/truth.html|Interesting points of view re US support of Taliban & Bin Laden]
******************************
Tons more just like it
Doug Marker
Edited by dmarker2
July 14, 2002, 10:50:42 PM EDT
Edited by dmarker2
July 14, 2002, 10:56:32 PM EDT
Edited by dmarker2
July 14, 2002, 11:39:30 PM EDT
|
Post #45,586
7/15/02 12:15:28 AM
|
Human nature.
I hate seeing innocents fed as death fodder to the higher interests of Govts as they play their political games, but, can see that this is the nature of humanity & has been since 'Cain smacked Able' with a brick). Then you'll understand how people who have lost loved ones to these games will feel towards the governments and individuals playing said games. As a personal preference I am very pro US and believe that in general, the US protects my part of the world from bigger evils than US big business (which can get quite evil at times. - I am ambivalent on the real meaning of events seen from the perspective of power politics and the not nice things Govts will do in the interests of power & politics. The US protects US interests better than anyone else could or would. In the short term. Those US interests center around the US consuming more of the resources of the world than anyone else. The problem is that this is not a viable plan over the long term. For the long term, we'll need an interconnected web of interdependant nations. What we're building is an empire with us at the center and weakened vassel states supplying us with the resources we need to maintain that situation.
|
Post #45,593
7/15/02 1:41:51 AM
|
Re: Human nature - is there a meaningful answer
It does trouble me, the bit about simple folk being consumed as collateral in the interests of power & politics. But, I don't have any ready answer that isn't unrealistic or blatantly simplistic.
Pray to God that all will come good ? (hmmmmm)
Everyone learn to share the world's resources? (some might! but otherwise downright naive)
Everyone learn to live together (as for above)
Universal education & a program to teach people to be self sufficient (wonderful ideal - so who does it ?)
Human reality is that someone/tribe/group/clan, will always want to dominate. When someone dominates, someone else is being dominated. My view is that the best one can hope for is to be among the dominant ones during one's lifetime or as second best, to be protected by the dominant ones in the same period.
But, as soon as the dominant power gets a conscience, history of the past 1000s of years shows that that power then gets seen as weak and some other force then has the will to become dominant.
Seems to me that warfare is not diminishing, we just keep getting more efficient at it. Wars bacame global in our lifetime. We have made little to no progress toward fighting wars by non lethal means.
Fighting wars by proxy was all the rage in the 1960s/1970s/1980s and 1990s.
Doug Marker
|
Post #45,603
7/15/02 7:46:54 AM
|
Yes and No.
Pray to God that all will come good ? (hmmmmm)
Everyone learn to share the world's resources? (some might! but otherwise downright naive)
Everyone learn to live together (as for above)
Universal education & a program to teach people to be self sufficient (wonderful ideal - so who does it ?) A few problems. #1. There are a limited amount of resources at any given point in time. #2. The US consumes more of these resources, per capita, than any other nation. #3. The US will use military might to maintain the status quo. Human reality is that someone/tribe/group/clan, will always want to dominate. Yep. And at the moment, it is us. When someone dominates, someone else is being dominated. Again, yep. My view is that the best one can hope for is to be among the dominant ones during one's lifetime or as second best, to be protected by the dominant ones in the same period. If you're taking the short-term, self-absorbed viewpoint, that is so. What is best for the individual is not always best for the group (group == world in this instance). Not only that, but it becomes impossible to "justify" our actions in any other form than "I've got mine and I'll kill anyone who tries to take it or stop me from taking more". Now, when viewed in that light, there is no difference between our actions and Osama's actions or Saddam's actions or Stalin's actions. If you're at the top of the food chain, you have to kill to protect your position. If you're not at the top of the food chain, you have to kill to get there. Now, imagine how our international relations would look if they were practiced by individuals in a city. Anarchy. Of the bad kind. The question is, since we are at the top right now, can we change the situation? Can we establish Law as the rule instead of Might? We sort of tried this with the League of Nations (which became the UN), but we didn't want our ability to enforce our will through our might to be restricted. So we didn't give it any power over us. But, as soon as the dominant power gets a conscience, history of the past 1000s of years shows that that power then gets seen as weak and some other force then has the will to become dominant. I don't see that. I see the standard struggle to rise against the clearly defined "oppressor". The rise to the top of the food chain. The fight to stay there. The decline as luxury leads to decadence. And a new culture fights its way to the top. It isn't being perceived as weak that makes a society vulnerable. It is being weaker than the upcoming society. Societies, as with individuals, gain strength by exerting themselves against resistance. If we're basing the global society upon Might Makes Right, then the cycle will continue. There will always be someone struggling against the dominant society and getting stronger because of it. Seems to me that warfare is not diminishing, we just keep getting more efficient at it. It is not diminishing. It is part of the struggle that I refered to. How many people do you know that have spent their entire life in combat zones? We have that now. In several nations. Not in the US. Places where generations have been fighting. Refining themselves through battle. Wars bacame global in our lifetime. Yup. We have made little to no progress toward fighting wars by non lethal means. Nor will we. Until we (the US) are willing to abide by third party arbitration/judgement regarding our dealings with other nations. We are the dominant power and we set the tone for the world. What we do, not what we say or how we justify or rationalize what we do. Instead of channeling the world's resources to support the luxuries we enjoy as individuals, we need to start building a WORKABLE United Nations. Without Justice there is no Peace. The alternative is a future of increasingly destructive terrorist attacks and our eventual decline.
|
Post #45,605
7/15/02 8:49:27 AM
|
Re: Yes and No - nice clear cut logic - good points ...
This quote ...
"The alternative is a future of increasingly destructive terrorist attacks and our eventual decline."
Is it an insight or a prediction :-) (I tend to think it is both).
****
When I was talking about how a dominant group with a conscience essentially become vulnerable, I was thinking in one aspect of the Moriori peoples - a sad story.
[link|http://history-nz.org/moriori.html|History of the Moriori]
"Similarly to the Maoris, inter tribal warring led to a dangerous decline in the number of the Moriori population, and this was said to have been stopped by the chief Nunuku Whenua, who ordered no more warring to take place so that the population would not become decimated. If a dispute took place, the custom was to cease immediately at the first drawing of blood. In this way, the Moriori became a totally peaceful people. "
When the Maoris eventually discovered the Chathams and the Moriori people (they did this while a chiefs son was sailing with British sailors). The chief's son eventually went back to his mainland tribe who than arranged to invade the Chathams and over a period of years systematically slaughtered and enslaved the peaceful Moriori until only a few remained. The Moriori had found a degree of peace and harmony but lost it to others who had no such goodwill.
I suspect that this type experience is not uncommon for us humans and unlikely to change. I fear that the Moriori practice for peace is too difficult to ever become universal - there are too many destabilising factors, more so as the worlds population keeps spiralling.
Doug
|
Post #45,623
7/15/02 10:12:07 AM
|
Forecast?
How about "forecast"? Like with the weather. You see the storm clouds coming, you prepare for rain. :)
Yup. Your example is good. That's why we need a world-wide system of law.
Having any single nation/tribe/whatever swear off violence will only make them an easy target for violent conquest.
And the other tribes were still practicing the struggle-and-get-stronger method of survival.
|
Post #45,688
7/15/02 5:40:51 PM
|
Beyond logic, then.
The above sequence adequately demonstrates IMhO the validity of the (recent historian's) observation that,
The only thing we learn from history is that, we do not learn from history.
OR: what is it we call someone who repetitively follows a course of action - yet expects different results This time?
That 'we' are deranged may not be so fruitful a conclusion as that - we are, have been - remain thus far immature, incapable of following our best overall plan for continued survival (never mind ideas of Dominance: cf. above).
As the Sages have always counselled; as most humans have always ignored - unless and until the ..collective? of humanity somehow realizes.. somehow achieves a more profound level of overall consciousness (?)
Our future is precisely as indicated in this excellent / brief summary above. One might say that - any who 'realize' this already, yet smugly watch the predictable replay One More Time:
these (we??) are the genuine 'criminals' who deny the species survival from a merely comfortable, reasonably-safe 'present' - when we remain silent, do Not Make Waves\ufffd. Risk nothing.
As aforementioned Sages also 'say':
We Are responsible for what we (ever manage to dis-cover) Know = the perhaps huge danger of ever inquiring beyond mere overt appearances. (BTW - every 'Sage' indeed expresses This Caveat starkly.. to those 'students' who think.. they Want to Know Stuff \ufffd)
Of course too.. we can all just go back to sleep, check out the colors of leather in the new UAV seats.. and get that new DVD. Hey! it ain't in My job description.
Ashton
ZZzzzzzzzzzz...Huh? Oh..zzzzzzz
|
Post #45,699
7/15/02 6:41:29 PM
|
Other reasons for war
One other reason for Iraq's invasion of Kuwait that I have heard from more then one source was that Iraq was angry that Kuwait was depressing the price for oil at just the time that Iraq needed to get huge amounts of money to pay of it's war debt.
Kuwait was intentionally depressing the price of oil at the time as part of it's deal with the US for protection during the Iraq/Iran war. From what I have read this makes sense, and explains why Saddam's negotiations with Kuwait where not so much about them stopping but them paying him for his loses. Simply put, he wanted a bribe to cover his loses for their actions.
What I do find hard to believe is that the US intentionally set Saddam up during the invasion of Kuwait. I find the idea that they just bungled the situation far easier to believe. The US intelligence and diplomatic agencies simply didn't realize the lengths that Saddam was willing to go.
Jay
|
Post #45,707
7/15/02 7:20:01 PM
|
I have this *exact* answer for you, from an Expert:
The genius of you Americans is that you never make clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves that make us wonder at the possibility that there may be something to them that we are missing.
--Gamel Abdel Nasser (via Ric Locke) {sigh} Is this *really* much of an exaggeration ???
|
Post #45,722
7/15/02 10:36:53 PM
7/15/02 10:40:30 PM
|
Re: Other reasons for war
Some fundamental questions - easy to answer - no tricks in them
Do you believe that US UK & Germany were covertly supplying Iraq to fight Iran ?
Do you believe that US Govt had a covert operation to counter supply Iran against Iraq ? (perhaps led by a Marine named Col North)
Do you believe that Kuwait was ever part of Iraq ?
Do you believe the Kuwaitis would ever stoop to slant drilling into Iraq oil ?
Do you believe that west wanted to take away the very weapons they helped Saddam build, once the war had ended ?
Do you believe that the published letter from April Galaspie to the Iraqi Govt was forged, (the one she publicly admitted to writing) ?
If you were Hussien and had recieved that letter after asking US for its position on Iraq using military means to resolve the dispute, what might you conclude ?
No real need to answer them, just worth thinking about.
Cheers
Doug
Edited by dmarker2
July 15, 2002, 10:40:30 PM EDT
|
Post #45,731
7/16/02 1:02:51 AM
|
Re: Other reasons for war
Do you believe that US UK & Germany were covertly supplying Iraq to fight Iran ?
Yep, and there wasn't much covert about it. At the time Saddam was seen as a useful foil to Iran, which was making a lot of noise about exporting the revolution.
Do you believe that US Govt had a covert operation to counter supply Iran against Iraq ? (perhaps led by a Marine named Col North)
Not really. Iran-Contra was a specific deal, trading arms for hostages. But it doesn't appear to have been part of a wide spread policy. Most of the weapons bought as part of Iran-Contra where funneled back in Nicaragua, not sent to Iran.
Iran at the time was desperate for supplies and willing to deal with anybody because black market supplies where the only ones available. Iran actually bought supplies from Isreal during the war.
Do you believe that Kuwait was ever part of Iraq ?
Sure. And I fully agree that the methods used to seperate Kuwait from Iran where both dirty and purely political. But I also think they had been seperate for too long for them to be easily rejoined, even if both countries wanted to.
Do you believe the Kuwaitis would ever stoop to slant drilling into Iraq oil ?
Would? Yes. Did? Harder to say. Kuwait has little reason to do so after all. It's not like they have a shortage of oil. And note that in the transcript below, Saddam doesn't actually complain about slant drilling but does complain about the price of oil.
Do you believe that west wanted to take away the very weapons they helped Saddam build, once the war had ended ?
Probably, it would have been the wise course of action considering that he had one of the largest armies in the world and had proved willing to use it.
Do you believe that the published letter from April Galaspie to the Iraqi Govt was forged, (the one she publicly admitted to writing) ?
I'm not sure what you are talking about here. But if you are talking about this [link|http://www.psych.upenn.edu/~fjgil/transcript.html|Transcript of meeting] then no I don't think it's forged. It reads rather like a poor attempt to judge Saddam's intentions then an attempt to send him a message.
If you were Hussien and had recieved that letter after asking US for its position on Iraq using military means to resolve the dispute, what might you conclude ?
If the message is the one I think it is, then I think Saddam would have taken it correctly. That the US would take no side in the border dispute but was concerned with Iraq's military movements.
I think the State Department sorely misjudged Saddam here, thinking he wouldn't start a new war so soon after the last one had ground into a statemate. Remember that the Iran/Iraq war didn't really end, negotiations over that where still going at the time.
For his part, I think Saddam got exactly the response he wanted. I think Saddam had already decided to go to war, and only the most dire of threats from the US envoy had a chance of stopping it. Instead he got a response that said the US considered his talk of retaking Kuwait was posturing and that the US expected him to continue negotiations through Egypt or some other middle eastern power.
Jay
|
Post #45,742
7/16/02 7:33:12 AM
|
Re: Nice response - well researched
"Do you believe that US Govt had a covert operation to counter supply Iran against Iraq ? (perhaps led by a Marine named Col North)"
>>Not really. Iran-Contra was a specific deal, trading arms for hostages. But it doesn't appear to have been part of a wide spread policy. Most of the weapons bought as part of Iran-Contra where funneled back in Nicaragua, not sent to Iran. Iran at the time was desperate for supplies and willing to deal with anybody because black market supplies where the only ones available. Iran actually bought supplies from Isreal during the war.
Yup I too understood that Ollie North was doing a secret hostages for weapons deal. I also believe Ollie was managing the financing & arming of the contras in Nicaragua at about the same time - a fact the Reagan later denied he knew about (that was when Reagan began to be known as the teflon president). Your points are good.
***************
Do you believe the Kuwaitis would ever stoop to slant drilling into Iraq oil ?
>>Would? Yes. Did? Harder to say. Kuwait has little reason to do so after all. It's not like they have a shortage of oil. And note that in the transcript below, Saddam doesn't actually complain about slant drilling but does complain about the price of oil.
On balance, I believe they did do so but it is now a moot point.
***************
RE your link to the Hussien Glaspie meeting - that was a very good read. I have never read the full transcript before. I had thought it was a letter from Glaspie to Hussien. I saw photocopies but I now think they were of a transcript of Glaspie's replies.
Thanks for adding to my knowledge of the events - I really found that transcript interesting
Cheers
Doug
|
Post #45,762
7/16/02 10:14:25 AM
|
Yet another reason...
although it's not been widely discussed, was that Iraq was developing a space program.
An expert in ballistics had proposed to the US the development of a super-artillery - one that could fire small (20lb approx) projectiles into space. The project was eventually shutdown (HARM?) and he went to where his services were needed.
The place - Iraq. Where he was developing same said super-artillery for Saddam Hussein. (In addition, he was help SH tie together SCUD missile to get longer ranges out of them.)
He was in Britain when Israel Intelligence meet with him. Hours later, he was shot and killed by unknown assailents. No one saw a thing, no one heard a thing.
Also - British force intercepted a shipment of parts for the super-artillery. (Unknown who tipped them.)
During Desert Storm, the UN forces did seize the super-artillery and blew it up.
My opinion --
Saddam Hussein probably never cared much for the super-artillery - he seemed more interested in the SCUDs. However the super-artillery was the life-long dream of the expert.
However, a gun that can fire a projectile into space can also fire a projectile into Israel...or even the US. The US (and others) could not allow that to happen.
Could we allow Kuwait to be attacked merely to get an excuse to go into Iraq and destroy a potential weapon against the US?
|
Post #45,815
7/16/02 6:28:42 PM
|
Canadian astrophysicist Gerald Bull
In this [link|http://www.rense.com/general18/dep.htm|Blast] from the past, which indicates some other factors in all those machinations, spin and Flag-waving.
Ashton
|
Post #45,838
7/16/02 10:29:15 PM
7/17/02 10:16:16 AM
|
Re: Gerald Bull - theories on who shot him
The best one I heard was that he had fallen out with Iraqi leaders & because he knew so much they decided to bump him off. IIRC it happened in Belgium (not Paris).
Bull was said to be a not nice type - a whore who would sell his organ (brain) to the highest bidder just as long as he he 'get it off' on his dreams.
He was also involved with super guns in Sth Africa.
What he was believed to have designed was a massive cannon that could put a sattelite into low orbit but it could also put a nuke in the same place. There were theories that the 1st firing would be a nuke into Israel.
The cannon was supposedly very long.
The segments for it were being built in UK etc: as agricultural piping.
UK intercepted some of them & this I think ended the plan.
Cheers
Doug
Edited by dmarker2
July 17, 2002, 10:16:16 AM EDT
|
Post #45,848
7/16/02 11:39:11 PM
|
I prefer this link myself...
Oddly enough, Bull himself was not particularly militarist. He never saw military service or even owned a handgun. He was said to be generous and thoughtful. He just found something that he really loved doing.
He consulted for everyone, but ran into trouble when he worked for the South Africans. The South Africans were having trouble in Angola at the time (the mid-Seventies). The communist government, aided by Cuban troops and Soviet artillery, was pounding their proxy soldiers to bits. Bull, with the implicit encouragment of the CIA, helped them design a new 155-mm howitzer with 50% more range than anything else at the time. He sold them gun barrels for it and thousands of shells. With the new guns, the South Africans were able to stop the Angolans cold.
Then Carter was elected, and South Africa was no longer in favor. Bull was brought up on charges of illegal arms dealing. On the advice of his lawyer, he pleaded guilty and served six months in prison in 1980.
[link|http://world.std.com/~jlr/doom/bull.htm| Source ]
|
Post #45,857
7/17/02 2:46:29 AM
|
Then how about this - with a neat M$ jibe too:
The Real pioneer of (critical pieces of) [link|http://world.std.com/~jlr/doom/armstrng.htm|Radio]
This web host is an ordinary (?) non-IT engineer but he groks to fullness the essence of Corporate mindset and of Andy's epitaph..
Microsoft is a true reflection of Bill Gates' personality - the sleaziest, most unethical, ugliest little rat's ass the world has seen unto this time. -- Andrew Grygus
(When you've achieved infamy early - your epitaph gets written early too)
|
Post #45,944
7/17/02 10:29:05 PM
|
Re: Thanks Ashton. I remember reading...
some of this story many years ago in an IEEE periodical and hadn't thought of it since.
Alex
"Television: chewing gum for the eyes." -- Frank Lloyd Wright
|
Post #45,954
7/18/02 5:15:23 AM
|
PBS did a piece on Armstrong
a few years back. Maybe American Masters ? That photo with the first "portable" superhet beach radio was in it. May be available at the PBS video outlet; it was a nicely done bio of an irascible but honest prodigy. I think this article captures the sense of Armstrong's actually grokking FM, where the equations led to no sense of how you could Do that, practically.
No question what kind of bastard he was dealing with in 'General' David Sarnoff - perhaps the epitome of vanity and a prequel to The Billy. Ditto Lee de Forest: the vanity without the talent to even understand how his 'audion' worked, nor the guts to thank Armstrong for explaining it! Creep.
I recall seeing a film of a This Is Your Life smarmy tribute to de Forest... prolly in the '50s from appearances of the players. It was exactly like a M/Sloth "innovation" press conference; almost nothing said about deF was accurate.. but he ate it all up.
My intro to big science electronics was via my boss and I (on a weekend) assembling a super-regen FM receiver with a simple slope-detector ... out of junk lab parts (and a box of Really old resistors from his junk box!).
Bloody thing worked.. just like A. said it should. Amazing (to me then) to take circuits right out of textbooks and see them work! Getting local KPFA after switching it on - goosebumps. I began to think there might be something long-term to this 'lectronics stuff (but I was wrong again).
Seems to have been lots of techno-rotters.. you can drive by the site of the first actual Tee Vee - Philo Farnsworth's lab in SF (ironically now housing a TV ads production company!) He too was screwed out of his clearly 'prior art' - by those famous 'Market Forces' which measure our hallowed succession of truly nasty bastards in expensive suits.
Cheers,
Ashton Helmholtz Tesla
(with either a slope- or ratio detector: I detect little that is honest in most any Captain of Industry.. it's the Opposite of science or even 'science' -- success IS only about lying with a certain consistency.)
|
