Guest guest Report post Posted October 15, 2001 hi peter et al.. i was wondering...when britain signed on to become America's junior partner, did you guys get a good severance package or anything? Stock options? ah..from the days of " rule britainia " to todays follow america's lead where ever it shall lead... this is nuts.... " Peter " <Snowbow wrote: >Hi Jane > >> Oh come on Peter! *sigh*. I've never read such rubbish. You and I know >> perfectly well why the bombing is taking place in Afghanistan, and its got >> nothing to do with financial gain. > >I suggest you read the article I posted earlier today. As you will quite >clearly see, this bombing, as with every other recent war concerning Britain >and America has everything to do with financial gain, and nothing to do with >terrorism or humanitarian reasons. Unless, of course, you believe the stuff >the media spoonfeed us! > >BB >Peter > > >--- >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01 > > > >To send an email to - > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 15, 2001 EBbrewpunx wrote: > > hi peter et al.. > i was wondering...when britain signed on to become America's junior partner, did you guys get a good severance package or anything? Stock options? > ah..from the days of " rule britainia " to todays follow america's lead where ever it shall lead... Personally, I preferred " Jerusalem " . Good old Bill Blake. > this is nuts.... On the one hand, I'm a little fed up US influence as well. Particularly the obsession with the " special relationship " . One week Bush calls the UK " our staunchest friend " , the next he applies the same epithet to Germany! What did we do wrong between weeks? On the other, Blair (not a hero of mine) has done a decent job of meliorating US policy in some things (such as widening the war) and a much better job of talking to Arabs than the US. > " Peter " <Snowbow wrote: > > >Hi Jane > > > >> Oh come on Peter! *sigh*. I've never read such rubbish. You and I know > >> perfectly well why the bombing is taking place in Afghanistan, and its got > >> nothing to do with financial gain. > > > >I suggest you read the article I posted earlier today. As you will quite > >clearly see, this bombing, as with every other recent war concerning Britain > >and America has everything to do with financial gain, and nothing to do with > >terrorism or humanitarian reasons. Unless, of course, you believe the stuff > >the media spoonfeed us! > > > >BB > >Peter > > > > > >--- > >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > >Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01 > > > > > > > >To send an email to - > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 15, 2001 couple things...sorry if they are being repeated(i is a bit behind) but firstly....fair trial huh...*falls into fit of giggles*...unless you can afford it, it's damn hard to get a fair trial is this great land i live in....money talks...trust me..i've been in court a number of times... secondly...where would you think they would build the pipeline thru? i heard the afghanistan pipedream pipeline several years ago..so, they've had some time they could make it go thru russia..but, we over here in the US have always had a grudge against those damn ruskies..it's ingrained after 40 odd years of cold warfare...that leaves iran....we don't trust iran, and haven't since '79.... they want to get the oil out as cheaply as possible and as close to the asian markets as possible(japan)... eh...just me thoughts.. fraggle Dr Ian McDonald <ian.mcdonald wrote: >Peter wrote: >> >> > Hopefully, once the Al-Quaeda network is broken, that's done. >> >> You think it's a good think that somebody should be handed over to a country >> where they stand no chance of a fair trial? > >I think they would get a fair trial in the US. They might have to >struggle for a Jury, but they would still have to present evidence. > >> > > Nope - the reason the coalition is trying to destabilise Taliban is >> exactly >> > > the same reason they always bomb middle eastern countries - that black >> stuff >> > > which, when refined, helps us to run our cars. >> > The whole was is so they can build a pipeline through Afghanistan? >> >> Exactly. > >IMHO, it *must* be easier to build a pipeline through somewhere else >than to get involved in Afghanistan. > >> > And the interest >> > in Afghanistan does, oddly enough, correlate with atrocities against the >> > USA more than oil price fluctuations. >> >> On what evidence do you base this statement? > >The fact that the increased interest in Afghanistan started a few days >after the 11/9/1 atrocities. The big news in the month preceding was to >do with atrocities in Afghanistan, not oil price issues? > >> I could provide more evidence >> implicating the American government in the atrocities than anyone has shown >> me for the Afghanistan government! > >Straw man. No-one is blaming President Rabbani (the internationally >recognised Afghanistan government) for anything. No-one is blaming the >Taliban for the atrocities directly. > >The core public evidence against the Al-Quaeda network is: >1. Who else had the motive and the opportunity? >2. Why else are they warning people off tall buildings and airplanes? >3. Bush & Blair have a lot to lose if they turn out to be making up the > " secret evidence " > >> > > You are assuming that there are any " right targets " to hit. Afghanistan, >> > > having faced a military invasion by the Soviet Union for over ten years, >> > > followed by another decade of civil war have nothing left to hit! >> > Rubbish. The Taliban can't run their clumps of Afghanistan without some >> > military infrastructure. >> >> LOL. You obviously don't know the military position of Afghanistan - they >> have been fighting against an army (the United Front) which has a similar >> lack of militray infrastructure. > >So they didn't have any anti-aircraft guns before? > >> The advantage the Taliban have is their >> knowledge of the mountains - as Bin Laden has himself stated " Strategy is >> more important than Strength " . It is virtually impossible to take >> Afghanistan with a ground force unless you know those mountain areas - >> that's why the military might of the USSR failed for over ten years > >I agree with all this. > >> - just a >> handful of decently trained snipers who know the mountains can control >> Afghanistan without a problem. > >How many is a " handful " ? > >> > I'm not sure your facts are right - I thought the US provided much of >> > the funding for Palestinian refugee camps, for example - but I agree in >> > principle. >> >> The fact that Israel gains more funding from the USA than any other state is >> most definitely correct - don't forget that one of the " big guns " in the >> founding of Israel (the Rothschild family) part own the IRS, which means >> they basically control America's financial system! > >I appreciate that power can sometimes work where it shouldn't. > >But the IRS is a government department. How does anyone control it? > >> There may be some small >> funding for Palestinian refugee camps, but it is most definitely negligible. >> >> BB >> Peter >> >> --- >> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >> Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01 >> >> >> To send an email to - >> >> Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 15, 2001 Jane - presumably gullibility is your strong point. Jo > Really Peter? So who was the puppy in the Second World War? Was the > American government the puppy then? You need to throw your fancy Alice in > Wonderland ideas out of the window and face up to reality. We need America > and they need us too and I'm not just talking about war. I gather politics > isn't your strong point Peter. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 15, 2001 > Jo nobody likes war, but sometimes its a necessity. Nobody asked for 11 Sep > to happen but it did. More terrorist threats have been made this weekend. > You're happy for the world to sit back and wait for it to happen? Perhaps I > shouldn't even be discussing this with you guys. I'll let you go back to > the fairies at the bottom of your garden! Thanks Jane - they are much better company! (sarcasm). Jo --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 15, 2001 EBbrewpunx wrote: > > secondly...where would you think they would build the pipeline thru? > i heard the afghanistan pipedream pipeline several years ago..so, they've had some time > they could make it go thru russia..but, we over here in the US have always had a grudge against those damn ruskies..it's ingrained after 40 odd years of cold warfare...that leaves iran....we don't trust iran, and haven't since '79.... You're saying the US would replace the regime in Afghanistan, the graveyard of every Emipre that's tried to conquer it since Alexander the great, rather than run a pipeline through stable countries like Russia or Iran? Self-interest conquers many prejudices. > they want to get the oil out as cheaply as possible and as close to the asian markets as possible(japan)... > eh...just me thoughts.. > fraggle > -- Ian McDonald http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~type40/alternative.html http://travel.to/startrekcolony - Star Trek: Colony site & .mov http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~type40/who-rpg.html - Dr. Who RPGs Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 15, 2001 Cathy Thank you so much for saying exactly what I think, and had been trying unsuccessfully to convey in my previous mails. There is another demonstration in London on Saturday 17 October. I don't have details yet, but have left my enquiry on the answerphone of 'Stop The War Coalition' on 07951 235 915. I will forward details as soon as I hear back. As far as I know, we (me, my husband Colin, and Peter) should be able to attend. The reason we went to last week's demonstration was to 'stand up and be counted'. It is the only way we can make a point - and that point was made alongside a great variety of people. For Jane and Ian's information, London Animal Rights were at last Saturday's march because the weapons used in wars are tested on animals first, so as Vegans, you could be expected to care about the animals. Thanks Cathy. Jo > I don't want to get too heavily involved in this discussion because I don't > have the in-depth knowledge that Ian and Peter obviously do (and I most > certainly don't want to have to quote sources, provide footnotes, or any of > the other tedious " proofs " that seem to be demanded). But I do want to make > my voice heard. > > Firstly, the point above. This is EXACTLY the argument given by Iams in > defence of their fatal nutritional experiments on animals. IMO either every > life matters or none do. This point above assumes that theoretical deaths > will be greater that the actual deaths happening now. It also assumes that > the current actions will be successful AND that they are the only effective > way to prevent future international terrorism. I can't agree. > > It seems to me that the voices I hear raised in favour of the current " war " > were totally silent as long as the deaths stayed in the Middle East. As > soon as America got back some of what it has been dishing out for years > (albeit in a more subtle way) we in the west are horrified and start > screaming for revenge. I would like to think that if we well-fed, > adequately clothed, and comfortably-housed people were shown as much of the > death and destruction meted out by the USA, in as much detail and with as > much repetition as we saw the Sept 11th footage, we would be as outraged as > we are by the Pentagon and World Trade Centre incidents. > > But, do you know, I doubt it? > > Jane's early email read: Well what is the answer then? Are we just > supposed to sit back and be the > targets for terrorists? Because that's what will happened if action isn't > taken. > > I would like to ask the same question, but from the point of view of those > who have been suffering for years. What were they supposed to do? > Presumably these terrorists commited suicide for fun? I'm not even going to > bother stating my opposition to their actions - it should be perfectly > obvious from the tone of this mail that the avoidable loss of *any* life is > utterly unacceptable to me. But for Christ's sake. how bloody stupid does > someone have to be to think that they carried out these acts for the buzz of > it? > > I'm going to stop soon before I turn into Edith, because my blood pressure > is rising as I write this. Jack Straw said yesterday that public opinion > was 4-1 in favour of the " war " - I'd love to know how he knows this (he > didn't site a source) because d'you know, nobody's ever asked me what I > want. He also mentioned that there was an anti-war march yestereday, but > that these people were " unrepresentative " . Arrogant bastard. Peter and Jo > - please let me know if there's another protest at a weekend and I'll be > there if I can. The knowledge that there are people who think that America > and Britain bombing the shit out of one of the poorest countries is a good > idea and that they deserved it, sickens me utterly. > > Cathy --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 15, 2001 Ian > Post cold war America's crimes tend to be not doing enough - or doing > the wrong things - about the crimes of Saddam Hussein or Ariel Sharon. > Although I think the suffering in Palestine or Iraq need to be shown - > they involve more than 5,000 (IMHO UNHCR is even more deserving than the > various Sep 11 funds) - there's a difference of intention here. Didn't America have something to do with Saddam Hussein being in power in Iraq, and the Taleban being in power in Afghanistan, and Israel moving into Palestine? I think that you are stating the intention of the American government, without having any idea what it is. You are clearly able to repeat what they say is their intention, but maybe you would like to tell me where you get your inside information which enables you to talk on behalf of the American government. Jo --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 15, 2001 Fraggle You intellectuals will have to phrase your comments a little more simply for me. In other words, I don't understand what you mean - can you rephrase. Jo -- " All truth passes through 3 stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. " - Arthur Schopenhauer - <EBbrewpunx Monday, October 15, 2001 2:38 PM RE: Re: Re: anti-war march > hi peter et al.. > i was wondering...when britain signed on to become America's junior partner, did you guys get a good severance package or anything? Stock options? > ah..from the days of " rule britainia " to todays follow america's lead where ever it shall lead... > > this is nuts.... > > > " Peter " <Snowbow wrote: > > >Hi Jane > > > >> Oh come on Peter! *sigh*. I've never read such rubbish. You and I know > >> perfectly well why the bombing is taking place in Afghanistan, and its got > >> nothing to do with financial gain. > > > >I suggest you read the article I posted earlier today. As you will quite > >clearly see, this bombing, as with every other recent war concerning Britain > >and America has everything to do with financial gain, and nothing to do with > >terrorism or humanitarian reasons. Unless, of course, you believe the stuff > >the media spoonfeed us! > > > >BB > >Peter > > > > > >--- > >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > >Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01 > > > > > > > >To send an email to - > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 15, 2001 Ian I have been reading all your mails regarding the anti-war protest, and have a question...... What point are you trying to make? Jo -- " All truth passes through 3 stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. " - Arthur Schopenhauer --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 15, 2001 Jo wrote: > > Ian > > I have been reading all your mails regarding the anti-war protest, and have > a question...... > > What point are you trying to make? Various points. I have lots of points. Depending on what I'm replying to, and which errors of reason they make. Much of the time my point is: * You are wrong on this specific point. This is why. Occasionally my point was: * You were right about this. Here is the BBC report on it. As I'm broadly supporting the same line wrt to Al Queda's guilt as HMG, my point could be said to be: * HMG really are probably right about bin Laden. This is why. I haven't really spelt that out, because it was pretty self-evident. And saying " I agree with the government " seems sort of superfluous. Sometimes my point is: * I'm not sure what you really mean. Please answer my questions This is because lots of arguments happen online because people misquote each other and misinterpret each other. I don't want to do that. There isn't much of a subtext when I do that. As I've said, I think there's a danger of the pain from the air strikes outweighing the benefits, particularly if they go on much longer. But that's barely a " point " . Does that answer your question? > Jo > > -- > " All truth passes through 3 stages. > First, it is ridiculed. > Second, it is violently opposed. > Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. " > - Arthur Schopenhauer > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01 > > To send an email to - > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 15, 2001 Hrm. To precis, you believe what Stan Goff says. Jane doesn't, because one of the first things he says fails a basic reality check. To Jo, this makes Jane gullible. To me, this makes Jo gullible ... but only to media from the " protest " community. Jo wrote: > > Jane - presumably gullibility is your strong point. > > Jo > > > Really Peter? So who was the puppy in the Second World War? Was the > > American government the puppy then? You need to throw your fancy Alice > in > > Wonderland ideas out of the window and face up to reality. We need > America > > and they need us too and I'm not just talking about war. I gather > politics > > isn't your strong point Peter. > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01 > > > To send an email to - > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 15, 2001 russia....stable???? they have different shows on the BBC then on nbc don't they *shrugs* as far as i know(and i certainly don't know everything), russia is far from stable....unemployment sky rocketing, war in chechnya, grumbles in siberia, organized crime, ruble collapsed, hunger, etc... not what i would call stable.... as for iran...who knows...money does certainly talk...but, if they get to replace the regime in afghanistan with a " friendlier " one, hey, kill two carrots with one stick... fraggle Dr Ian McDonald <ian.mcdonald wrote: > > >EBbrewpunx wrote: >> >> secondly...where would you think they would build the pipeline thru? >> i heard the afghanistan pipedream pipeline several years ago..so, they've had some time >> they could make it go thru russia..but, we over here in the US have always had a grudge against those damn ruskies..it's ingrained after 40 odd years of cold warfare...that leaves iran....we don't trust iran, and haven't since '79.... > >You're saying the US would replace the regime in Afghanistan, the >graveyard of every Emipre that's tried to conquer it since Alexander the >great, rather than run a pipeline through stable countries like Russia >or Iran? Self-interest conquers many prejudices. > >> they want to get the oil out as cheaply as possible and as close to the asian markets as possible(japan)... >> eh...just me thoughts.. >> fraggle >> >-- >Ian McDonald > >http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~type40/alternative.html >http://travel.to/startrekcolony - Star Trek: Colony site & .mov >http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~type40/who-rpg.html - Dr. Who RPGs > > >To send an email to - > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 15, 2001 Cathy In my previous mail I said there was a demonstration on 17 October, but it is actually on 17 November. Sorry to mislead. Jo --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 15, 2001 EBbrewpunx wrote: > > russia....stable???? > they have different shows on the BBC then on nbc don't they > *shrugs* > > as far as i know(and i certainly don't know everything), russia is far from stable....unemployment sky rocketing, war in chechnya, grumbles in siberia, organized crime, ruble collapsed, hunger, etc... > not what i would call stable.... It is compared to Afghanistan. > as for iran...who knows...money does certainly talk...but, if they get to replace the regime in afghanistan with a " friendlier " one, hey, kill two carrots with one stick... Do you know anything about Iranian politics? There already is a friendly government in Iran. Trouble is, there's a deepy unfriendly judiciary and theocracy runing in parralel, with their power entrenched in the constitution. > fraggle > > Dr Ian McDonald <ian.mcdonald wrote: > > > > > > >EBbrewpunx wrote: > >> > >> secondly...where would you think they would build the pipeline thru? > >> i heard the afghanistan pipedream pipeline several years ago..so, they've had some time > >> they could make it go thru russia..but, we over here in the US have always had a grudge against those damn ruskies..it's ingrained after 40 odd years of cold warfare...that leaves iran....we don't trust iran, and haven't since '79.... > > > >You're saying the US would replace the regime in Afghanistan, the > >graveyard of every Emipre that's tried to conquer it since Alexander the > >great, rather than run a pipeline through stable countries like Russia > >or Iran? Self-interest conquers many prejudices. > > > >> they want to get the oil out as cheaply as possible and as close to the asian markets as possible(japan)... > >> eh...just me thoughts.. > >> fraggle > >> > >-- > >Ian McDonald > > > >http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~type40/alternative.html > >http://travel.to/startrekcolony - Star Trek: Colony site & .mov > >http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~type40/who-rpg.html - Dr. Who RPGs > > > > > >To send an email to - > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 15, 2001 sorry..once again... trying desperately to catch up here.....356 e-mails to go...just shoot me... anyways as for the terrorists threats this weekend..i said it on friday, and i'll say it again...it's a climate of fear.... was there terrorists threats..maybe....will they do anything..maybe.... every weekend since the planes went ka-boom into the wtc and pentagaon, america has screamed " beware " ... why.....to keep people safe? or to keep a climate of fear going? didn't orwell warn us of that one? will this happen again...probably....we have a lot of enemies over here in the good ol us of a... when will it happen...who knows..... but, until we do something to stop it...and something meaningful, not just dropping bombs, it will continue to happen... if you lived in afghanistan and some person gave you food and taught you, and incidently said " the west is bad..booga booga " , and then bombs stop dropping from the sky..who are you gonna believe? bush won't even open negotiations fer crying out loud....the taliban(not that i'm a big fan of their fundamentalist bull pucky)has offered to talk, hand offer bin laden to a 3 rd country, etc...but we say, " umm..no, you do it our way, or not at all " what a way to run the world... fraggle " Peter " <Snowbow wrote: >> Jo nobody likes war, but sometimes its a necessity. Nobody asked for 11 >Sep >> to happen but it did. More terrorist threats have been made this weekend. >> You're happy for the world to sit back and wait for it to happen? Perhaps >I >> shouldn't even be discussing this with you guys. I'll let you go back to >> the fairies at the bottom of your garden! > >Thanks Jane - they are much better company! (sarcasm). > >Jo > > > >--- >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01 > > > >To send an email to - > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 15, 2001 Ian > Does that answer your question? Possibly - your point being that you support the war - my point being that I don't support the war. Jo --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 15, 2001 umm hey.. *raises paw* got an idea..its wacky...nutty.... but..i live way over here , so you have to excuse me... how about we just listen to each other's opinions, and keep it open, ok? if you don't agree with someone's point...fine...yer opinion..please, retort... but, can we stay away from the name calling and bickering...gets us nowhere, and i'm tooo damn old to play on the monkey bars, well, not that old, but, i'm afraid of heights... ian, only have had time to read some of yer posts...if someone could please give me a damn synopsis of what has been said lately...clif notes anyone?? oh, and well said cathy.. cheers fraggle *dons tin foil hat to keep aliens away* " Peter " <Snowbow wrote: >Cathy > >Thank you so much for saying exactly what I think, and had been trying >unsuccessfully to convey in my previous mails. > >There is another demonstration in London on Saturday 17 October. I don't >have details yet, but have left my enquiry on the answerphone of 'Stop The >War Coalition' on 07951 235 915. I will forward details as soon as I hear >back. As far as I know, we (me, my husband Colin, and Peter) should be able >to attend. > >The reason we went to last week's demonstration was to 'stand up and be >counted'. It is the only way we can make a point - and that point was made >alongside a great variety of people. > >For Jane and Ian's information, London Animal Rights were at last Saturday's >march because the weapons used in wars are tested on animals first, so as >Vegans, you could be expected to care about the animals. > >Thanks Cathy. > >Jo > >> I don't want to get too heavily involved in this discussion because I >don't >> have the in-depth knowledge that Ian and Peter obviously do (and I most >> certainly don't want to have to quote sources, provide footnotes, or any >of >> the other tedious " proofs " that seem to be demanded). But I do want to >make >> my voice heard. >> >> Firstly, the point above. This is EXACTLY the argument given by Iams in >> defence of their fatal nutritional experiments on animals. IMO either >every >> life matters or none do. This point above assumes that theoretical deaths >> will be greater that the actual deaths happening now. It also assumes >that >> the current actions will be successful AND that they are the only >effective >> way to prevent future international terrorism. I can't agree. >> >> It seems to me that the voices I hear raised in favour of the current > " war " >> were totally silent as long as the deaths stayed in the Middle East. As >> soon as America got back some of what it has been dishing out for years >> (albeit in a more subtle way) we in the west are horrified and start >> screaming for revenge. I would like to think that if we well-fed, >> adequately clothed, and comfortably-housed people were shown as much of >the >> death and destruction meted out by the USA, in as much detail and with as >> much repetition as we saw the Sept 11th footage, we would be as outraged >as >> we are by the Pentagon and World Trade Centre incidents. >> >> But, do you know, I doubt it? >> >> Jane's early email read: Well what is the answer then? Are we just >> supposed to sit back and be the >> targets for terrorists? Because that's what will happened if action isn't >> taken. >> >> I would like to ask the same question, but from the point of view of those >> who have been suffering for years. What were they supposed to do? >> Presumably these terrorists commited suicide for fun? I'm not even going >to >> bother stating my opposition to their actions - it should be perfectly >> obvious from the tone of this mail that the avoidable loss of *any* life >is >> utterly unacceptable to me. But for Christ's sake. how bloody stupid does >> someone have to be to think that they carried out these acts for the buzz >of >> it? >> >> I'm going to stop soon before I turn into Edith, because my blood pressure >> is rising as I write this. Jack Straw said yesterday that public opinion >> was 4-1 in favour of the " war " - I'd love to know how he knows this (he >> didn't site a source) because d'you know, nobody's ever asked me what I >> want. He also mentioned that there was an anti-war march yestereday, but >> that these people were " unrepresentative " . Arrogant bastard. Peter and >Jo >> - please let me know if there's another protest at a weekend and I'll be >> there if I can. The knowledge that there are people who think that >America >> and Britain bombing the shit out of one of the poorest countries is a good >> idea and that they deserved it, sickens me utterly. >> >> Cathy > > > >--- >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01 > > >To send an email to - > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 15, 2001 Sorry Ian - this was my attempt at being rude in reply to Jane's comments (Alice in Wonderland etc.) As I'm not usually rude I'm not very good at it. Jo > To me, this makes Jo gullible ... but only to media from the " protest " > community. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 15, 2001 more friendly government in iran, yes, other elements still entrenched..also yes... i think my governemt(well, i paid for it, it must be mine) has a knee jerk reaction to iran still...we have lotsa the same folks in power who were around during reagan, bush the first, et al...we haven't forgotten the toss out of the shah, who we placed there, we haven't forgotten the whole hostage thing... since most of you aren't from the US..it was a strong subliminal...iran is bad..... everyone had yellow ribbons around their trees. and when the hostages came back, they got a parade...sorta like when the us intelligence plane collided with the chinese jet fighter,... we seem to like to make heroes of folks who get,...caught...umm.... Dr Ian McDonald <ian.mcdonald wrote: > > >EBbrewpunx wrote: >> >> russia....stable???? >> they have different shows on the BBC then on nbc don't they >> *shrugs* >> >> as far as i know(and i certainly don't know everything), russia is far from stable....unemployment sky rocketing, war in chechnya, grumbles in siberia, organized crime, ruble collapsed, hunger, etc... >> not what i would call stable.... > >It is compared to Afghanistan. > >> as for iran...who knows...money does certainly talk...but, if they get to replace the regime in afghanistan with a " friendlier " one, hey, kill two carrots with one stick... > >Do you know anything about Iranian politics? There already is a friendly >government in Iran. Trouble is, there's a deepy unfriendly judiciary and >theocracy runing in parralel, with their power entrenched in the >constitution. > >> fraggle >> >> Dr Ian McDonald <ian.mcdonald wrote: >> >> > >> > >> >EBbrewpunx wrote: >> >> >> >> secondly...where would you think they would build the pipeline thru? >> >> i heard the afghanistan pipedream pipeline several years ago..so, they've had some time >> >> they could make it go thru russia..but, we over here in the US have always had a grudge against those damn ruskies..it's ingrained after 40 odd years of cold warfare...that leaves iran....we don't trust iran, and haven't since '79.... >> > >> >You're saying the US would replace the regime in Afghanistan, the >> >graveyard of every Emipre that's tried to conquer it since Alexander the >> >great, rather than run a pipeline through stable countries like Russia >> >or Iran? Self-interest conquers many prejudices. >> > >> >> they want to get the oil out as cheaply as possible and as close to the asian markets as possible(japan)... >> >> eh...just me thoughts.. >> >> fraggle >> >> >> >-- >> >Ian McDonald >> > >> >http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~type40/alternative.html >> >http://travel.to/startrekcolony - Star Trek: Colony site & .mov >> >http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~type40/who-rpg.html - Dr. Who RPGs >> > >> > >> >To send an email to - >> > >> > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 15, 2001 Ian > Sometimes, a cigar really is a cigar. (Not that I'm a big fan of lethal > narcotics, but there you go.) If there's a big ulterior motive, such as > with Kuwait, some commentators will point it out. And I'm not a big fan of Freud! Wasn't that his comment when his theories were used to refer to him and he had no logical answer? > > Saddam Hussain was supported as a bulwark against Iran. (Hitler was > tolerated in an earlier age as a bulwark against the Soviets). The > pre-Taliban Muja'hadeen were supported as a guerilla ... oh heck, you > know all this, it's public record and none of it is terribly flattering > to the US anyway. So if it's a cover story, it's not a very good one. > But as truth, I find it fairly realpolitic and hence realistic. The points you have made support my point that the government of America cannot be trusted to act in purely ethical/moral ways, and should be treated with suspicion at all times. Jo --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 15, 2001 Jo wrote: > > > Saddam Hussain was supported as a bulwark against Iran. (Hitler was > > tolerated in an earlier age as a bulwark against the Soviets). The > > pre-Taliban Muja'hadeen were supported as a guerilla ... oh heck, you > > know all this, it's public record and none of it is terribly flattering > > to the US anyway. So if it's a cover story, it's not a very good one. > > But as truth, I find it fairly realpolitic and hence realistic. > > The points you have made support my point that the government of America > cannot be trusted to act in purely ethical/moral ways, and should be treated > with suspicion at all times. I'd agree. But they don't support your other view that the motives of the US government are completely inscrutable, eeven to an informed observer. > > Jo > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01 > > > To send an email to - > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 15, 2001 Jo wrote: > > Ian > > > Does that answer your question? > > Possibly - your point being that you support the war - my point being that I > don't support the war. I don't accept the nomenclature of a " war against terrorism " . For example, NI terrorists aren't being shot as spies, so it's obviously not what it says on the tin. I support what's really a war against Al-Queda, up to a point. You oppose it in its entirely. > > Jo > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01 > > > To send an email to - > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 15, 2001 Hi Jane > Peter you are being incredibly naive. You must remember that these people > *use* the media. The injured people shown could have been injured before > the air strikes began - it wouldn't be the first time that false footage has > been shown. Who can prove that these people were injured as a result of the > air strikes? Don't fall for that one Peter. LOL! Do you really think that if the Taliban were making this up, they would keep the figure as low as 200? I don't think it's me that's being naive. BB Peter --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted October 15, 2001 Hi Jane > Really Peter? So who was the puppy in the Second World War? I didn't think we were talking about the second world war. > Was the > American government the puppy then? The American government tried desperately to join in for most of the war, but could never convince it's people - so it engineered a situation where Japan had no real option but to attack. Read some of the material from the then US secretary of state for foreign affairs - the one that is particularly telling is his letter to Roosevelt in which he states " we must make it appear that Japan are the agressors " . > You need to throw your fancy Alice in > Wonderland ideas out of the window and face up to reality. Which reality - the one presented by the media? I think I'll stick to the real world. You are welcome to continue living in the fantasy world of television and newspapers - I can understand that this is far more comfortable than striving for truth. > We need America > and they need us too and I'm not just talking about war. I gather politics > isn't your strong point Peter. I seem to know a fair bit more about the reality of politics than you do - all you've done is regurgitate stuff fed to you my the media. We don't " need " America at all - we are just told that. If the whole of Europe were to ignore America, you'd soon find that it would be America who needs us! BB Peter --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.281 / Virus Database: 149 - Release 18/09/01 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
