IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Very telling...
You write:
"My point was, they're being saved for the next election cycle. I hope for their sake they can get their tactical nukes into production by then."

My I deduce from that statement that you would like to see Iran nuke the shit out of/defeat the Americans? Perhaps my logic is wrong?
Just a few thoughts,

Screamer


Living is easy with eyes closed
misunderstanding all you see,
it's getting hard to be someone but it all works out
it doesn't matter much to me


J. Lennon - Strawberry Fields Forever
New Your logic is wrong
If Iran can get tactical nukes, then the US may bluster but won't attack.

Just like North Korea today.

Cheers,
Ben
"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]
New Re: Very telling...
M[a]y I deduce from that statement that you would like to see Iran nuke the shit out of/defeat the Americans?

I'm unable to stop you.

Perhaps my logic is wrong?

Logic can take you all sorts of places depending on the premises you depart from. In this instance, logically or not, you assume too much. Let's look at the statement that provoked you: "I hope for their sake [emphasis added] they can get their tactical nukes into production by then."

If Iran has nuclear arms by 2004, Bush will not attack, and the weapons will serve their traditional deterrent function. I have no wish to see Iran "nuke the shit out of" us (unlikely in any event, given a modest production capacity and the absence of a reliable long-range delivery system), nor do I advocate American "defeat"--unless that word is defined as thwarting another US invasion. In that case, count me in general support of anything that obstructs the imperial designs of the cabal of lunatics, plutocrats, demagogues and criminals comprising this administration.

cordially,

"Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist."
New Carrying this a bit further...
What makes you think that the United States wouldn't attack a country that has a few puny nukes, especially on neutral soil, if provoked?

I truly did understand your statement from before and it really has little to do with a desire for nukes for anyone. You want this president out of office in the myopic fantasy that the US would be "loved" if it weren't for the "cowboy". If you'd like to live in that denial, go for it... But recognize, that your denial of what happened on 9/11 does not change the fact that the US is going to continue to lash out at any perceived terrorist threat.

Your wishing for a utopian world does not jibe with history. The World Trade Center bombings were in the planning stages long before your "cowboy" was king. It is not even "enlightened" to think that the "world" would like us if only Bush weren't the president. It's okay, I guess, if that's the kind of denial you'd wish to live in. But it is a state of denial (sort of like - we could have prevented 9-11 denial - blame the CIA, the FBI, the President. They SHOULD have known! It helps the psyche to think that we were somehow in control and just blew it...) You and many of the other posters on this forum sound like the teacher on the playground, "play nice, boys and girls". Walk away. See what happens? Tell me about human nature...

Even hacks like me predicted on these fora on 9-12, that Iraq was next... It doesn't take much grey matter. Or, for that matter, as soon as Iraq is "settled" that we will go after North Korea - with their puny little nuclear threat. This president telegraphed his intentions (no, he fucking flat out stated) towards these countries in his "axis of evil" statement. In fact, this president has done exactly as he's stated he's going to do, dry alcoholic or not. He's not taking on Korea because it's not NEXT on his list. It will be after Iraq.

I'm sorry that I seem a bit "rough" in my posts, but I don't have much time these days to coddle. I'm sure as hell sick and tired of all the utopian "peace, man" fucking nonsense. It was old in the 60's and really old now. I wish we were a different species, really, but we're not. Laws exist to keep people from doing what they otherwise would do naturally. This includes stealing, raping, murdering, lying, and yes, Margaret, warring with other "tribes" - a time to be born, a time to die, a time of peace, a time of war...
Just a few thoughts,

Screamer


Living is easy with eyes closed
misunderstanding all you see,
it's getting hard to be someone but it all works out
it doesn't matter much to me


J. Lennon - Strawberry Fields Forever
New you're assuming *way* too much
You want this president out of office in the myopic fantasy that the US would be "loved" if it weren't for the "cowboy"...Your wishing for a utopian world does not jibe with history...okay, I guess, if that's the kind of denial you'd wish to live in

Pardon me, but have I anywhere expressed the wish for a utopian world? And where, please, have I suggested that I want the country to be "loved" or even that this is possible (If we learned nothing else from the Carter Administration's experience in Iran, for example, it should be remembered that when we raise our boot from the neck of a satrap the populace is not then likely to kiss our hand)? I don't mind in the least your disagreeing with me, and your posts can be as "rough" as suits you, but be good enough not to attribute to me opinons I have never expressed. Hell, I know the war's coming--I just object to a mugging being packaged as a humanitarian mission.

As to What makes you think that the United States wouldn't attack a country that has a few puny nukes, especially on neutral soil, if provoked?...

It's fascinating to speculate what might constitute "provocation" in this gang's worldview given another couple of years. Recall that Germany went into Poland in 1939 after a series of "intolerable provocations," as their justice minister was tasteless enough to remind us last fall. It may be that the mere possession of "weapons of mass destruction" on Iran's part would constitute a provocation, but if, as you believe, it's a foregone conclusion that Bush will take down the other nodes on the A of E unless they save us the trouble by surrendering before we send in the troops, then it would be irresponsible for Iran not to take steps to make itself as unappetizing a target as possible for this predatory empire. As to North Korea, I'm not really worried about Seattle or, for that matter, Oakland, but you might consider that their "puny little nuclear threat" looms a bit larger from Tokyo or Seoul.

cordially,

"Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist."
New Very fair assessment...
and perhaps some of the vitriol of the last post was directed elsewhere. ;-)

I also do not wish to put words in your mouth so I retract much of the last attributed to you. I assumed from your post (where I joined this thread), that you may be a part of the "Democrat" crowd and were implying that Bush's hidden agenda was to wag the dog indefinately (or at least until the next election cycle). Although this argument is not without precedence, I firmly do not believe that this is the case in this instance (although it is impossible to objectively determine Bush's "motives"). I really think that Bush and the current government are reeling from 9-11 and "winging it" as far as the implications for the security of our country in the new world order. They are completely changing the intelligence community and security of the country. They're also lashing out. They were pissed that Sadam was paying suicide bomber's families in Israel... Let's face it, he is a poster child terrorist - a convenient (and probably justifiable) target.

For much of this past few months, I've been allowing myself to ask, "what if the US is really wrong on this whole thing?". Recently, I had arthroscopic surgery which allowed me the luxury of time off to recoup and watch the UN hearings. My impression - I've allowed myself to ask "who gives a fuck what France thinks?"... The only real governmental archetype for response to terrorism is Israel. I've noticed that they have tried appeasement at various times with varying degrees of success. FWIW, they tend to respond to terrorism with escalated terrorism nowadays as it seems to be more effective in reducing their body count.

I think that the reason I have been so much on the fence and not "flying my flag" so high is that I have been getting caught up in the "justice" argument. If we (the US) attack in a terrorist fashion, are we any better than any other terrorists? This has deeply bothered me. I have come to the conclusion that this question in and of itself is condescending to the people of the Middle East and those organizations lashing out against the West... Of course we are no better than them, nor worse. We are all human beings, first and foremost. We're all capable of extreme compassion and extreme cruelty.

In the grand scheme of things, I believe that Bush et al. are setting the stage for a world government. One that has an "or else" clause attached to it's proclamations (laws). From watching the UN hearings, it was hard to escape the Dilbertesque PHB simile. "Dear Mr. Chairman, I most gratiously congratulate you on your totally meaningless temporary appointment to grand poobah of this superfluous hearing... Ladies and germs, Iraq blah, blah, blah." It was a mockery. A travesty. A mockery of a travesty of a sham... I am not willing to place my security in the hands of these dickheads... sorry. Not the way the UN stands now. No way.

My hope is that we do stay and rebuild what we destroy and offer the people of Iraq hope for a better future and ultimately - independence. It is also my hope that this might send a clear signal to the other dicktators/tyrants that there is no longer any place in the world to hideout and set up shop and there will be a strong "or else" attached to non compliance of terms of surrender (notice that it is not "just" that they have weapons of mass destruction - as do many nations - but they were required by the terms of their surrender in '91 and numerous UN proclamations/ultimatums to disarm). If the UN is meaningless, it is meaningless. Maybe we should form a "League of Nations" instead?

Sorry for the purge, but I've been thinking a bunch and not posting much at all.
Quite a few thoughts,

Screamer


Living is easy with eyes closed
misunderstanding all you see,
it's getting hard to be someone but it all works out
it doesn't matter much to me


J. Lennon - Strawberry Fields Forever
New Eschewing obfuscation, then_____ 'Democrats' indeed!
C'mon Dan - you haven't got the usual excuse (of not having bothered to read much history), tui grosnya Kapitalistichiskaya Svinya..

What's with this 'Democrats' label - as if one would want to associate oneself with such a gutless and opportunistic small branch of the One Party With Two Right Wings: the Republicrats ?? Utterly mind-numbingly silent during the pupa stage of this cabal's grubby mindfuck-theories of domination.
[while we are manufacturing straw polarities here]

I infer from your ~ defense of the imminent rush towards a 50-mile-diameter Tar Baby, that even you [!] have just elided the Fact of what Iraq is: a Western cobbled-together Yugoslavia, containing irreconcilably-hostile groups of True Believers. Whatever variety of asshole Saddam surely is:

It is *you* and *here* demonstrating your naivete re the possibility of a mindless-fuck like Dubya ever grokking the hornet's nest / Tar Baby he's rushing for, full speed. (Never mind for the moment - the pseudo-'morality' whereby we blackmail the world with our own massive WMDs while piously preaching 'disarmament' to our "partners" [1]) as we coldly proceed with -

>> "A first-strike on an entity which has not threatened us but might someday be able to and then You Know It Will because ... CHA CHA CHA" <<

I'm afraid that Network theory is dulling your reason, dumbing-ya down to simple logic - the kind whispered into Dubya's shell-likes. Why.. you even forget this cabal's irreversible opposition to even the idea of a World Court! - unless the US is perpetually exempt and absolved in advance of any charges of War Crimes etc. [cha cha cha].
(Of course, when it's convenient for propaganda purposes, we're All [theoretically] For Something sorta-like It.)

And without a fully-supported World Court -?- ONLY the Nuke-backed-up U.S. shall henceforth decide When, Where and How to attack.. whatever next.. we think *might someday* oppose us.

Are you really an Apologist for this regime and its aims? or just a dupe of the same class as you tar us TroubleMakers ?? If you cannot see how much the actions of next few days shall exponentially expand the ranks of wannabe US-killers, thus measure the danger this fuckwit is throwing us into precipitately -- I doubt I can explain it at this late date. I expected better from thee, Dan. Get thee to a Nunnery.


Ashton


[1] As with the Gold Standard for anti-social vulture capitalism, Microsoft: a partner is simply a victim we haven't gotten around to assimilating yet. Our God is the $$ and Ashcroft is Our Pope. These folks are all a-Theists: they worship only their combined-Egos and the aforementioned $$.
New Mou droog, I respectfully disagree...
With a number of your stated positions. Primarily the assumption that we will be hated more or less no matter what happens with Iraq.
I was in Germany in the early 80's (France too) for just shy of 3 years, with many German friends and acquaintances. They "hated" our government then (probably rightfully so). What is happening now is a shameless exhibition of we aren't joining this bandwagon 'cause we can't afford the reconstruction. We don't want you there because of the oil. Mind numbing hypocrisy on all sides.

As far as the Democrat thing, it was alluding to his original premise of wagging the dog, a purely political innuendo. Opportunistic too!

I truly have grepped many of the headlines, parsed them and piped them to my own conclusions, and, unfortunately for our current discourse, humbly agree with the US position. If that makes me an apologist for the current crop, so be it.

I highly respect you and many of the others who post on this board, but wonder if maybe you aren't being a tad reactionary and joining the counter-cabal yourselves. A possibillity?
Just a few thoughts,

Screamer


Living is easy with eyes closed
misunderstanding all you see,
it's getting hard to be someone but it all works out
it doesn't matter much to me


J. Lennon - Strawberry Fields Forever
New In simplest terms then - bringing this 'off'
would require a degree of genuine ability + wisdom.. of the calibre of a Gandhi or at least a Disraeli; it would require going to the root of the Problem, simultaneously with fdisking Iraq and installing mental s/ware from scratch:

Giving sufficient teeth to the World Court to intercede, create a territory for the Palestinians and discipline both sides while they get used to the fact that Neither shall force the other into the sea.

Yes, this last would require more than just 'US Will' - but it would require that First and backed by serious and competent intent.. and then the suasion which diplomacy means: that for which we have substituted harangues and naked threat to 'allies'.

Absent both the will and the intellect to accomplish the latter (Isr/Pal), the former (Iraq) shall IMhO next.. remind a whole new US generation of The Uncle Remus Stories, in partiicular The Tar Baby.

May your faith not be misplaced; we witness a Dubya never before seen or deemed possible + beneficent Wonderfulness transforming people who have never *seen* 'democratic representation' -- mostly converting to Charismatic Christianity and building Corporations. Well franchises, maybe. and shopping. shopping A Lot.

It Could Happen.


Ashton
New Been down this slippery track with this person before
Just accept that there are people here who can clearly read what you are saying/stating and can clearly see what Screamer is adding/introducing.

This slope (screamer debates) gets very slippery and will become very convoluted as more unrelated topics get introduced as if you had initiated them and you find yourself debating a growing front of previously unintended topics and dimensions.

So far you are handling it well - now I will continue to read & see the outcome

<very big grin>

Doug


Spectres from our past: Beware the future when your children & theirs come after you for what you may have been willing to condone today - dsm 2003


Motivational: When performing activities, ask yourself if the person you most want to be would do, or say, it - dsm 2003
Expand Edited by dmarker March 18, 2003, 04:43:23 PM EST
New Add one more thing, Dougie...
There are people who can clearly read between the lines of what people are "stating" and understand bullshit, propaganda, and loaded statements when they read them... Just 'cause I don't follow your particular brand of bullshit makes me a bit of a pain, I understand. Wonderful debate technique. If you can't debate the argument, smear the poster.

Just exactly what did I need to add to the statement:

"My point was, they're being saved for the next election cycle. I hope for their sake they can get their tactical nukes into production by then."

I wrote initially, that it is very telling (the loaded statement) of what his "agenda" is. Motive, I'm unsure of. Self-hatred, etc...?
Contextually, the assumption is that Iran had better get their tactical nukes into production by then (next presidential election) or ??? What fucking conclusion is obvious? "I hope". I asked him point blank why he "hoped" Iran would possess nuclear weapons before 2004. It's a decent question, I think.

We cleared up that I knew he clearly didn't "hope" Iran had tactical nukes, so what is to be made of such a loaded sentence? A political agenda perhaps? Let's assume for the sake of argument that he really is a man of "peace" and is against all war. Why would a man of peace want a foreign country that has been hostile to ours in the past wish that they possessed nuclear weapons (tactical nukes at that)? As a deterrent against us? That's the only reasonable conclusion I can come to. Okay, then I guess this is reasonable - but only if you assume we would be deterred, which is highly speculative at best...

Either I don't understand your position or I do and simply disagree. What is your position? Do we appease tyrants and terrorist as policy or do we depose them? It's really quite simple... Intelligent people can disagree...
Just a few thoughts,

Screamer


Living is easy with eyes closed
misunderstanding all you see,
it's getting hard to be someone but it all works out
it doesn't matter much to me


J. Lennon - Strawberry Fields Forever
New He HAD answered that, even BEFORE you asked!
Some rabid Marlowe-type Screams:
Contextually, the assumption is that Iran had better get their tactical nukes into production by then (next presidential election) or ??? What fucking conclusion is obvious? "I hope". I asked him point blank why he "hoped" Iran would possess nuclear weapons before 2004. It's a decent question, I think.
He HAD ALREADY SAID, he hoped it *for their sake*. The Iranians, that is.

Because otherwise they'd be attacked by rabid American morons, *that* is the fucking conclusion that is obvious.

Fuck, some of you people are just totally out of your fucking minds, nowadays... I thought it was only Marlowe, of the ones I've seen here; thanks for correcting *that* misapprehension on my part.

Too bad the rabies seems to go directly to your brains, as evidenced by your inability to see that the answer you were looking for was already there -- otherwise, maybe some of you could have been cured, somehow.


   [link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
Your lies are of Microsoftian Scale and boring to boot. Your 'depression' may be the closest you ever come to recognizing truth: you have no 'inferiority complex', you are inferior - and something inside you recognizes this. - [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=71575|Ashton Brown]
New Avoiding the flames forum...
and trying to take the high ground, your point about my non-complete context is well taken.

As for the rest, I would like to cut out the usual flame road and ask you, a German native, why you find this Iraq conflict offensive, if you do. This is not a bait either. I'm genuinely interested in what the German/Scandinavian perspective is on this.

I think, all insults aside (put a target on my id), we have a lot of common ground. There just seems to be this notion that current American foreign policy is somehow "worse" than it was 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 years ago? I actually think that this administration is doing the right thing and believe their stated reasons. Does that make me "not smart"?

Fucking enlighten me, then insult me.
Just a few thoughts,

Screamer


Living is easy with eyes closed
misunderstanding all you see,
it's getting hard to be someone but it all works out
it doesn't matter much to me


J. Lennon - Strawberry Fields Forever
New Re: Add one more thing, Dougie...
OK, let's try again.

There are people who can clearly read between the lines of what people are "stating" and understand bullshit, propaganda, and loaded statements when they read them...

I take this to be a modest self-portrait. It is also a very convenient stance, is it not, to adopt in these discussions--a sort of dimestore deconstructionism--since it allows you to tease out the "real" meaning (vouchsafed you, I presume, by sheer intellect) and address the "bullshit, propaganda, and loaded statements" buried within your interlocutors' posts (or perhaps I should say "texts") whether or not these meanings are explicitly borne by the sentences you parse. Lesser men might be tempted to ascribe to posts just such hidden meanings as might lend themselves to crushing ripostes.

I see that we're still mining my earlier statement "My point was, they're being saved for the next election cycle. I hope for their sake [emphasis added--again] [Iran] can get their tactical nukes into production by then." The sentences seemed straightforward enough to me when I wrote them, but now I learn that they signal an "agenda" and a "motive," coyly suggested to be "self hatred." Wheels within wheels, forsooth! Since you mentioned debate techniques, let me congratulate you on yours, which appears to be to define the other party's terms on his behalf.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that he really is a man of "peace" and is against all war

I don't know why you should. Again, I've made no blanket statements about war or peace. I happen to think that the war we're about to launch is a piece of unmitigated thuggery, not significantly ameliorated by the fact that it's directed against the land of a smaller thug.

Why would a man of peace want a foreign country that has been hostile to ours in the past wish that they possessed nuclear weapons?

I take it you would prefer that the United Kingdom surrendered its atomic arsenal then? (The blue light indicates that a jest is intended and response is not expected--although come to think of it, Iran never burnt the White House.)

As a deterrent against us? That's the only reasonable conclusion I can come to. Okay, then I guess this is reasonable - but only if you assume we would be deterred, which is highly speculative at best

If Iran believes that this country has hostile designs on it--a perception this administration has been at some pains to convey--it is the only conceivable practical deterrent (unless you count submitting to American fiat as a palatable alternative for them), and Iran's leadership would be criminally negligent not to pursue it.

Do we appease tyrants and terrorist as policy or do we depose them? It's really quite simple

1) It really isn't.

2) (if I may be permitted my own little bit of deconstruction) Note how we (here rather loosely defined as the Bush junta) get to define these terms. Return with us to the sunny days of the Reagan administration, when political philosopher Jeanne Kirkpatrick was on hand to help us out here: a regime that tortured its subject populace was "authoritarian" if we liked the generals, "totalitarian" if we didn't; insurgents who blew up school buses were "terrorists" if they read from "Das Kapital" and "freedom fighters" if they had the CIA playbook tucked into their fatigues. On second thought, we're already there.

Living is easy with eyes closed
misunderstanding all you see


Apparently.

cordially,

PS--Why, thank you, CRC. It can be useful now and again in these dust-ups to have a seasoned brawler at one's elbow.
"Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist."
Expand Edited by rcareaga March 18, 2003, 08:26:03 PM EST
New he's not a "seasoned brawler" Thor God of Flaming thunder!
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]</br>

To a lot of people in California hunting anything but the wild tofualope was equivelent to sacarificing babies to satan. S.M. Stirling
New Let's start again then.
Where do you stand?

The war... are you for it or against it and why?

Are you a pacifist?

Are you a Democrat?

Do you think Bush has the mental capacity for the job of President?

Do you think that 12 years is ample time for a country to comply with terms of surrender?

Let's just start there and see how many blanks I've already filled in for you...
Just a few thoughts,

Screamer


Living is easy with eyes closed
misunderstanding all you see,
it's getting hard to be someone but it all works out
it doesn't matter much to me


J. Lennon - Strawberry Fields Forever
New P.S. Dimestore words like interlocutors...
that are even correctly spelled may impress some people... :-)

Here.

Not me.

I don't feel a twinge of guilt because I state my positions, especially unpopular ones, in my own style. I look for function not form. Aristotellian (sp?) logic (logos) is great for deconstructing a debate, but rarely an effective way to pursuade. The ethos, bathos, mythos, et al. tend to get in the way of logos. I couldn't care less about "style points". The really fucking hilarious part of it all is that we are quite illogical characters anyway. It's in the DNA. Even the erect ones who "try". The concept of an intellectual factual debate is hubrus anyway.

Long live the hubrus. Long live IWETHEY!
Just a few thoughts,

Screamer


Living is easy with eyes closed
misunderstanding all you see,
it's getting hard to be someone but it all works out
it doesn't matter much to me


J. Lennon - Strawberry Fields Forever
New Well, when correctly spelled, then -
Hubris works better. But then, real hubris doesn't care if it spells itself correctly because - it just Feels Right-ist (or is that Rightest?)

As to the matter of your take on the authenticity of this Admin and its [Real !?] motives du jour: maybe in 3? 5 years enough material will have been leaked about the Rove-Wolfowitz-Dubya Axis of Goodness, about Armageddon and Rapturin Out (ie the role of Fundamentalist Charismatic dogma and doggerel amidst the balance of this little Cabal of ideologues) --

To have some idea of the private mindsets VS the execrably simplistic *public* slogans we've heard since 9/11. Maybe by then: we all will find out who was snookered and who wasn't.. There may be other clues sooner though:

Watch for Dominoes.. (remember those?)

Can Iran be far behind? Is there any limit to how many of these little wars For Just Plain Goodness.. we shall be able to sustain unilaterally? How many before a formal coalition begins to spend Big Bucks/Euros/Rubles to counter the New Empire? (Not to mention the h\ufffdmorrhage of deficit spending, now looking exponential - PLUS that give-back to the top 3% in Gift/Rebate! still a mighty gleam in the Repo eye)

No $$ left for the next wars? Take it outta Soc Sec, Pension funds yada yada. Let the great-grandkids pay Tomorrow for the delusionals running the asylum Today. That's why Econ is called the Dismal Science; neither science nor art.. it's about obfuscation of the transfer of wealth to the very-few. And ours is an Innumerate society, along with the general dumbth.

Do you happen to recall that, in total numbers of Wonderfully Destructive Objects:

The USSR arsenal was the Largest. Pu, U have loooong half-lives and there have been >1000 *TONS* of higrade collected.

Hubris . . .

>>Don't Fuck Up Your Home Planet Without It<<





Just a few Motes in God's Eye \ufffd
You don't need a Weatherman
To tell which way the wind blows

New Why the US won't attack countries with nukes
It is too easy for the country that is going to be attacked to smuggle nukes out to deliver them to a target that the US cares about. If they think that the US is going to attack them immanently, there is no reason for them not to do this.

In the case of North Korea it may be possible for the country to drop bombs directly on a convenient target (Tokyo or Seattle).

Basically the modern version of Mutual Assured Destruction, where the amount of destruction needed by the smaller player is just enough pain that the superpower doesn't want to risk it.

If you think that this reasoning is wrong, then please explain why we aren't attacking North Korea.

Cheers,
Ben
"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]
New Re: Why the US won't attack countries with nukes
Why isn't China blustering behind their longtime proxy?

Because they don't need to. They're going to kill us economically, as Khrushchev once promised.
-drl
New Conventional Western Wisdom holds...
that by the time China is in a position to kill us economically, they will be us. At which point they won't bother because it would be bad for their own business.

I am not stating a position on this policy. Just that it is the policy assumption.

Cheers,
Ben
"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]
New US current global strategy has China already contained ...


China Russia & Europe in order to grow or boom economically need two natural items - Water and Oil. Water to irrigate & grow food, Oil as the lifeblood of industry.

Water is not a problem for these countries (China gets too much in short bursts).

Oil: US has just engineered a stranglehold on 'Stans' oil (Oil rich region is the nth Stans, piping the oil thru Afghani-Stan avoids it having to pass into Russian controlled areas. US has a stranglehold on oil from the 'Americas' (ie Venezuela, etc:). US is withing weeks of securing a stranglehold on M.E. oil.

So in terms of superpower supremacy, any other budding superpower will really have to wrest control of a major source of oil, from the US. If super powers were to go to war, the one controlling the flow of oil has the best chance to choke of the industry & military of the challenger.

Economic WW2 (with US as incumbent & Europe led by France as challenger) looks like a hands down open mezzaire win to US.

As for China, as long as Taiwan is not integrated & Nth & Sth Korea split & Japan remains unmilitarized, US has many cards up her sleeve to use to destabilize China should that ever become neccesary. Also for China's boom to continue for any time, she *must* consume growing amounts of oil & like US does not have the needed reserves withing her own borders. With US having got control of the vast majority of oil, US can effectively control China's destinty to some significant degree (Hey China, you can grow but on our terms & only as long as you never try to usurp our world leadership).

As said once before, just watch National Geographic channel to see how we animals (ie Dog packs for QAD comparison), establish leadership and maintain it <g>.


Cheers Doug Marker




Spectres from our past: Beware the future when your children & theirs come after you for what you may have been willing to condone today - dsm 2003


Motivational: When performing activities, ask yourself if the person you most want to be would do, or say, it - dsm 2003
New Digression -- Khrushchev
They're going to kill us economically, as Khrushchev once promised.

You would appear to be alluding to Khrushchev's famous "We will bury you" remark. This was widely reported in the American press at the time (1959) as though the Sovs had brigades of Stakhonovite shock troops, shovels at ready, poised to heap earth upon our helpless living forms. The truth, as you probably know, was tamer: Khrushchev in fact employed a Russian aphorism, considerably older than Marxism itself, the sense of which was "we will be there for your funeral," i.e., we will outlive you. It was rather a prediction of the outcome of the ideological pissing match in which his empire and ours were then engaged, and not a threat to entomb us before our time. As it turned out, of course, he got it bass-ackwards: the USSR was, to its vast surprise, the guest of honor rather than a satisfied onlooker when it came time to hold the obsequies, and a new era of American triumphalism was launched. (He said "Your grandchildren will live under communism." In fact, his son Sergei is now an American citizen. Then again, Eisenhower's granddaughter is married to one of the old USSR's senior rocket scientists. We may assume that both statesmen, forty years ago, would have found this state of affairs difficult to credit.)

Actually the Sovs were outproducing us late in their history in many of the indices (steel, concrete, traditional smokestack industries) K had in mind. Alas for Khrushchev and communism, the USA was already running in a different race by 1980.

As to China...they have lots of still-untapped potential there, and one of the few economies in the world presently firing on all cylinders. Of course, they also have a massive disenfranchised peasant population to whom the "New China" looks an awful lot like both the old ones. I suspect, though, that China will be a few decades addressing their internal issues before they undertake to eat our lunch.

cordially,

"Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist."
New Using same logic, what about bio/chem weapons?
Yet we are about to attack a country with those... Even easier (at least equally) to sneak out of the country and inflict damage. Inquiring minds want to know. ;-)
Just a few thoughts,

Screamer


Living is easy with eyes closed
misunderstanding all you see,
it's getting hard to be someone but it all works out
it doesn't matter much to me


J. Lennon - Strawberry Fields Forever
New I'd dispute that getting bio/chem weapons are easier to get
out. Bio weapons maybe, chem weapons no way. You need a lot of chem stuff to make an effective WMD; a few cups aren't going to do it, and handling it is always dangerous. Bio weapons can be small, but if you really want to go large you need quite a bit (anthraxing New York would require hundreds of pounds of the stuff if you wanted to really Get It Right). A nuke can be very small, and with adequate shielding very difficult to detect. Also, you can use a nuke as a football (well, only if you like broken toes maybe;) when it's not armed with no fear that you're going to bake yourself into the earth. That's definitely not true for chem/bio weapons.

It's even easier if you can infiltrate a medical equipment company that deals with radiology; they're allowed to transport radioactive material.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton                            jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca]                   [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada               [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
New Bio/Chem won't have the same impact as nukes.
Really, chem is hard to disperse over a large area and still be effective. You might get a subway car or two with chemical weapons, or maybe a block or two of people on their way home.

Bio's a little bit more insidous, but it's still counterable at some level via antibiotics, vaccines, and isolation of the infected populations.

Nukes, OTOH, leave a crater about a half-mile across, and one in a major city, well, let's just say the insurance underwriters wouldn't be too happy about that.

Not to mention the 1+ million people that got incinerated inside of 5 seconds. Nope, none of them are going to be much of anything any more, other than dust.
"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music." -- Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989
New Basically agree with you and Jake except
our water supplies are extremely vulnerable to chem/bio. Wide dispersion, etc... and no need to transport arsenic and other "homegrown" chems. Just need to find an entry point a few hundred feet "south" of the water main coming from the water works...

OTOH, the premise that I was getting at, that countries with small nuclear arsenals would deter us, I believe speculative at best. My thinking is that we would want to go after countries with small arsenals before they developed large arsenals. :-) Of course, I'm sure I'm wrong...
Just a few thoughts,

Screamer


Living is easy with eyes closed
misunderstanding all you see,
it's getting hard to be someone but it all works out
it doesn't matter much to me


J. Lennon - Strawberry Fields Forever
New Re: Basically agree with you and Jake except
our water supplies are extremely vulnerable to chem/bio. Wide dispersion, etc... and no need to transport arsenic and other "homegrown" chems. Just need to find an entry point a few hundred feet "south" of the water main coming from the water works...
\r\n\r\n

Well, homegrown chems would exclude the need to export the chemical weapons in question. Homegrown bio weapons (you can get anthrax from almost anywhere by going out and digging it up; you just need some knowledge) excludes the need to export biological agents too.

\r\n\r\n

In short, the real problem for the US is a domestic one, not an overseas one.

\r\n\r\n
OTOH, the premise that I was getting at, that countries with small nuclear arsenals would deter us, I believe speculative at best. My thinking is that we would want to go after countries with small arsenals before they developed large arsenals. :-) Of course, I'm sure I'm wrong...
\r\n\r\n

I'm not. However, Iran need not target the US to make the US think twice, they need only target the oil ports, pipelines, and capitals of allies... it's the destruction of Japan and S. Korea that N. Korea is holding over the US, not the destruction of the US itself. NB- their ICBM capability is as yet untested; they don't really have it yet.

\r\n
--\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n* Jack Troughton                            jake at consultron.ca *\r\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca]                   [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\r\n* Kingston Ontario Canada               [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
New 'Immanent' - a Jungian typo ? ;-)
Of course you meant imminent
But immanent == inherent, operating within - we could run with. I believe it is immanent in the cabal of Fundamentalist crazies to indeed bring back The Domino Theory [see: Vietnam].

And 'Fundamentalist' may connote more than the usual One-True-God (Mine!) scenario, what with Wolfowitz, Rove and the other academics surrounding this dunce. These silver-tongued orators are easily capable of whispering sweet Power-filled encouragements into a Clean Mind (it's never been used much).

I 'trust' Woodward's assessment (on Charlie Rose, some months back) of the Crusader-mindset We All are now a part of. Dubya imagines he can fix the (world) starting with M.E., ignorant as he is of the Yugoslavia-style standoff of mutually despising tribes he is about to invade. Saddam's iron hand may have been the only termporary remedy for running this Euro-designed patchwork country.

Tar Baby just waiting for the suckers.


Balloon Going ^UP^
     interesting "Fresh Air" today - (rcareaga) - (32)
         Um... - (ben_tilly) - (31)
             Re: Um... - (rcareaga) - (29)
                 Very telling... - (screamer) - (28)
                     Your logic is wrong - (ben_tilly)
                     Re: Very telling... - (rcareaga) - (26)
                         Carrying this a bit further... - (screamer) - (25)
                             you're assuming *way* too much - (rcareaga) - (13)
                                 Very fair assessment... - (screamer) - (3)
                                     Eschewing obfuscation, then_____ 'Democrats' indeed! - (Ashton) - (2)
                                         Mou droog, I respectfully disagree... - (screamer) - (1)
                                             In simplest terms then - bringing this 'off' - (Ashton)
                                 Been down this slippery track with this person before - (dmarker) - (8)
                                     Add one more thing, Dougie... - (screamer) - (7)
                                         He HAD answered that, even BEFORE you asked! - (CRConrad) - (1)
                                             Avoiding the flames forum... - (screamer)
                                         Re: Add one more thing, Dougie... - (rcareaga) - (4)
                                             he's not a "seasoned brawler" Thor God of Flaming thunder! -NT - (boxley)
                                             Let's start again then. - (screamer)
                                             P.S. Dimestore words like interlocutors... - (screamer) - (1)
                                                 Well, when correctly spelled, then - - (Ashton)
                             Why the US won't attack countries with nukes - (ben_tilly) - (10)
                                 Re: Why the US won't attack countries with nukes - (deSitter) - (3)
                                     Conventional Western Wisdom holds... - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                                         US current global strategy has China already contained ... - (dmarker)
                                     Digression -- Khrushchev - (rcareaga)
                                 Using same logic, what about bio/chem weapons? - (screamer) - (4)
                                     I'd dispute that getting bio/chem weapons are easier to get - (jake123)
                                     Bio/Chem won't have the same impact as nukes. - (inthane-chan) - (2)
                                         Basically agree with you and Jake except - (screamer) - (1)
                                             Re: Basically agree with you and Jake except - (jake123)
                                 'Immanent' - a Jungian typo ? ;-) - (Ashton)
             There was a piece on BBC World Service a day or two ago - (jake123)

Let's ask the Magic Conch Shell!
101 ms