OT: reaction to Iraqi elections

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 17:20:02 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:

Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 04:17:28 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

I wonder if there's any significance to Dirk Bruere's use of the term
"National Socialist" - Isn't that the one that, in German, translates
to "Nazi?"

Yes, when applied to the German system under the NSDAP. However,
National Socialism as an ideological and economic entity is not
restricted to Germany. Hence the distinction.

OK, fair enough.

So, does it have any redeeming qualities at all? For example, is it
based on the overriding or overpowering of free will? I guess the
conventional term would be "coercion." Is your system based on
coercion?

All political systems are based on coercion. As for redeeming qualities,
consider life in Singapore.

I don't know anything about "life in Singapore". I suppose I could look
it up, but you're presumably holding it up as an example of something.

Probably either they're free and starving, or they're all well-fed and
slaves, since those are the two extremes I can think of.

For myself, I'd rather have to scratch my living out of the dirt than
live under the iron fist of some benevolent master. It's true, Freedom
doesn't necessarily mean "comfort", but I can walk out the door when I
feel like it.

And, of course, for those of you who are just tuning in, I'm in favor of
freedom, and opposed to coercion. Freedom is our worship word. ;-)

<one ohnosecond before hitting send> I looked up "Life in Singapore",
with the quotes. Here's one little excerpt from one link:
"In Singapore, the word "kiasu" is a widely-used term that both describes
and laughs at the competitive nature of Singaporean culture. ..."
- http://www.selectbooks.com.sg/titles/36516.htm
- http://www.google.com/search?q=%22life+in+singapore%22

So, you're saying it's dog-eat-dog? Bring it on! I love it!

Life is Chaos.
Order is Death. >:->

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 19:10:42 GMT, the renowned Richard the Dreaded
Libertarian <eatmyshorts@doubleclick.net> wrote:

I don't know anything about "life in Singapore". I suppose I could look
it up, but you're presumably holding it up as an example of something.

Probably either they're free and starving, or they're all well-fed and
slaves, since those are the two extremes I can think of.

Singapore is an affluent, boring, strict, modern, paternalistic,
boring, law-and-order, boring city-state. They'd fine you 500 clams
for not flushing the john or cane your butt enthusiastically for
writing graffiti.

Little girl said Chinese dumplings taste so good
And the tourists take pictures of
The phoenix all around the town
Singapore, Ah, Singapore
Many tall skyscrapers standing all in a row
In this Asian country just north of the equator
Singapore, Ah, Singapore

You can't buy chewing gum anywhere in Singapore
But you can buy peppermint candy
Cause you eat it til it's gone
Singapore, Ah, Singapore

-- Shonen Knife



Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 01:36:49 +0000 (UTC),
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:

In article <fjaq11t7joclc6lu3191j88569ajisorv0@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandPLEASEtechnology.XXX> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:32:08 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
dirk@neopax.com> wrote:


Hitler attacked Russia when he couldn't defeat the RAF and invade
England. England survived by a tiny margin, certainly a small enough

Eh? Hitler didn't attack Russia because he couldn't defeat Britain. He'd
planned that from the very beginning.

He in fact planned to conquer the world, so Russia was included. But
if Britain had fallen, and Japan had not attacked the US, Hitler
*would* have conquered Russia.

John

 

[richard mullens]

John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:32:08 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
dirk@neopax.com> wrote:

Or is that WW2 where the US sat on the sidelines and made money out of Britain's
predicament until given a formal invitation to join by the Japanese? Also, when
it comes to beating Hitler we need to thank the Russians for that, not the US.


Hitler attacked Russia when he couldn't defeat the RAF and invade
England. England survived by a tiny margin, certainly a small enough
margin that US aid tipped the balance. An interesting differential was
that refineries were set up in Texas to make the high-octane fuel for
the Merlin engines used in the Spits and Hurricanes; the US never sold
that fuel to the Germans, and their fighters ran at lower compression
ratios.

The US didn't enter the war until Pearl Harbor because the US was
seriously isolationist; the popular and political attitude was that
the europeans were killing each other yet again, and we should stay
out. It was Pearl Harbor that forced (or, rather, allowed) the US to
formally take sides, and it was the Cold War (still defending Europe)
that kept the US from disarming as it had after WWI. The US didn't
become the world's cop by choice.

Let me try to put my point succinctly. After WW2, the US took
Werner Von Braun, and rather than prosecuting him for raining death on the UK,
they gave him a job. This is an example of the tawdry facts of life -
nations act in their own self interest rather than take on noble causes.
What people object to on this group is others claiming that the US is
"trying to bring democracy" when in fact baser objectives are at stake.
I don't claim that other countries are "better" than the US in this respect,
we just don't like the preaching that goes on. Is that fair ?

 

But dual citizenship IS a strange concept,like being married to TWO
women.

Some cultures consider marriage to two women to be
perfectly acceptable. It's just different from what
you've been raised to view as being the norm.

I'm sure if a person could travel 300 years into the
future, then many of the things that would be considered
normal to the people of that era, would be things that are considered
"strange", or "wrong", or "immoral", or
just plain "different" from what many people hold to
be normal today.

 

[richard mullens]

Jim Yanik wrote:

Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote in
news:hfgq11tu4m06p9fe5c4fo2t4a52to9qunb@4ax.com:


On 24 Feb 2005 02:11:06 GMT, the renowned Jim Yanik
jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote:


Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote in

You were talking about HONG KONG citizens emigrating from Communist
China to UK or elsewhere,and the ChiComs would not and do not allow
that.

What? Utter nonsense. They come and go as they please every day! HKG
is one of the busiest airports in the world and HK residents are avid
and cosmopolitan travellers. It's quite common to take a long weekend
in Thailand, Vietnam or on a Philippine beach. There are no "exit
visas", they just leave if they want to.



Yeah,but can their entire family also leave,with their possessions,or do
they have to leave everything they own,and emigrate penniless?

This is akin to the USA. You can leave, but you can't come back unless
you are prepared to be taxed on all your world income - or so I have been
lead to believe. No doubt someone will supply any correction needed.

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 05:20:52 +0000, richard mullens wrote:

If we accept that Bush wanted to give democracy to Iraq, then we must
conclude that the attempt has been so marred by incompetence that the US
should be barred from ever attempting it again.

Problem is, who bells the 800-pound gorilla?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that richard mullens <mullensdeletethis
@ntlworld.com> wrote (in <UAyTd.9$905.6@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net&gt about
'OT: reaction to Iraqi elections', on Fri, 25 Feb 2005:

No, it's just that I don't like hypocrisy in political leaders - and I
find
it strange when seemingly intelligent people parrot what most seem to
regard as falsehoods. When your leaders lie about the reason for going
to
war (to remove Saddam's WMDs), one is naturally suspicious about their
new
explanation.

You rest your case on the assumption that Bush and Blair LIED. You have
no evidence for that, AFAIK. The intelligence reports were wrong, but
not only the US and British reports, those of other countries as well.

Whatever you think about Bush having a legacy score to settle, Blair had
no such inducement to lie, and I am quite sure that he wouldn't have
been able to commit British forces without the General Staff also being
convinced that it was justified.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Paul Burke]

richard mullens wrote:

Let me try to put my point succinctly. After WW2, the US took
Werner Von Braun, and rather than prosecuting him for raining death on
the UK,
they gave him a job.

Or as Tom Lehrer put it:

I'll sing you a song about Werner von Braun
A man whose allegiance is ruled by expedience,
Call him a Nazi, he won't even frown.
"Nazi, schmazi," says Werner von Braun.

Paul Burke

 

[Paul Burke]

John Woodgate wrote:

richard mullens wrote:
the
only reasonable choice at the next election is Lib Dem

UKIP? Kilroy for King? Green? BNP? SWP?

You forgot Respect (The Politician Formerly Known As God) and the
Monster Raving Loony Party.

Paul Burke

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Paul Burke <paul@scazon.com> wrote
(in <388rnnF5j0b1nU1@individual.net&gt about 'OT: reaction to Iraqi
elections', on Fri, 25 Feb 2005:

John Woodgate wrote:
richard mullens wrote:
the
only reasonable choice at the next election is Lib Dem

UKIP? Kilroy for King? Green? BNP? SWP?

You forgot Respect (The Politician Formerly Known As God)

That's 'Kilroy for King'.

and the
Monster Raving Loony Party.

Politeness forbad me.....

--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Paul Burke]

John Woodgate wrote:

You forgot Respect (The Politician Formerly Known As God)

That's 'Kilroy for King'.

No, it's Arthur Scargill Walks On Water Here We Go Here We Go Here We Go.

Paul Burke

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Paul Burke <paul@scazon.com> wrote
(in <3894hhF5jk12dU2@individual.net&gt about 'OT: reaction to Iraqi
elections', on Fri, 25 Feb 2005:

John Woodgate wrote:

You forgot Respect (The Politician Formerly Known As God)

That's 'Kilroy for King'.


No, it's Arthur Scargill Walks On Water Here We Go Here We Go Here We Go.

What's K's new party called, then?

--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 05:20:52 GMT, richard mullens
<mullensdeletethis@ntlworld.com> wrote:

If we accept that Bush wanted to give democracy to Iraq, then we must
conclude that the attempt has been so marred by incompetence that the US
should be barred from ever attempting it again.

Oh, could you please explain "should be barred"? By whom? How?

But more importantly, you are saying that...

1. All nations are greedy, selfish, and cynical.

2. If any nation should act in a manner that is *not* greedy, selfish,
and cynical, and they don't do a good enough job of trying to help,
they should be barred (somehow) from trying ever again.

If 1) is true, why does 2) matter?


What's wonderful is that W is rubbing a moral imperative into the face
of an indifferent world, and the world must explain this 1) 2)
dilemma. This is *very* interesting.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4296543.stm

"Elsewhere, French daily Liberation contends that the most important
thing about President Bush's trip was "doubtless that it took place".

While Europeans do not share "Bush's zeal for a democratic crusade",
it is in their interests to applaud the democratic reminders Bush gave
Putin, the paper says."

"Liberation" should consider changing its name to "Occasional Tepid
Concern." Zeal is so very un-French.


John

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:08:36 +0000, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin <jjlarkin@highSNIPland
THIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote (in <tbou11tt2ot4jp7okpegqjjnglbjub3o56@
4ax.com&gt about 'OT: reaction to Iraqi elections', on Fri, 25 Feb 2005:

1. All nations are greedy, selfish, and cynical.

Only sometimes, and often when it's obvious that it isn't actually in
their best interest.

2. If any nation should act in a manner that is *not* greedy, selfish,
and cynical, and they don't do a good enough job of trying to help, they
should be barred (somehow) from trying ever again.

If 1) is true, why does 2) matter?

Because, vikki verki, sometimes when condition 2 occurs, it would have
been better if condition 1 had occurred.

Better for whom? I assume you mean better for the complaining (type 1)
party. But then, screw'em, it's every man for himself; see 1).

And don't call me Vikki.

John

 

[Jim Yanik]

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote in
news:tbou11tt2ot4jp7okpegqjjnglbjub3o56@4ax.com:

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 05:20:52 GMT, richard mullens
mullensdeletethis@ntlworld.com> wrote:


If we accept that Bush wanted to give democracy to Iraq, then we must
conclude that the attempt has been so marred by incompetence that the US
should be barred from ever attempting it again.

Oh, could you please explain "should be barred"? By whom? How?

What he means is that other nations should band together to counter the
US,like the EU/China is doing.Or Syria/Iran.
Or maybe use the UN to somehow control us.(ha-ha)



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

[Jim Yanik]

John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in
news:kl7MPREkm2HCFwtu@jmwa.demon.co.uk:

But I agree with your 'somehow'. No country can 'bar' US from doing
anything, but China might be persuasive if it suited.

Would that be a reason why the EU is selling weaponry and dual-use
materials to Communist China?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 01:18:27 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:

John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in
news:kl7MPREkm2HCFwtu@jmwa.demon.co.uk:


But I agree with your 'somehow'. No country can 'bar' US from doing
anything, but China might be persuasive if it suited.

Would that be a reason why the EU is selling weaponry and dual-use
materials to Communist China?

Sounds like the world is arming up, since they don't know when
or where the behemoth is going to invade next.

Thanks
Rich

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 01:59:03 GMT, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
<eatmyshorts@doubleclick.net> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 01:18:27 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:

John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in
news:kl7MPREkm2HCFwtu@jmwa.demon.co.uk:


But I agree with your 'somehow'. No country can 'bar' US from doing
anything, but China might be persuasive if it suited.

Would that be a reason why the EU is selling weaponry and dual-use
materials to Communist China?

Sounds like the world is arming up, since they don't know when
or where the behemoth is going to invade next.

The Chinese are comfortable with us, because they understand us. It's
the Islamists that concern them more.

John