# Amerika



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

'Nuff said?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Please tell me that's a mock up  
What's the source


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

As far as I can tell, it's an actual stamp (source; look for "art deco").


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Er... I don't get it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Another slide toward Nazi style attitude and architecture.
This could be pulled right from the Third Reich.

Damn don't these guys realize - the scary thing is they might

New World Order
Homeland Security

Texas homeland security chief David Dewhurst wanted Texans to feel confident in these trying times and — as a Republican candidate for lieutenant governor — wanted Texans to know he was taking his new anti-terrorism job seriously.


So he purchased a full-color, four-page advertisement in Texas Monthly magazine a few days ago.
The ad layout has received far more comment than any similar effort in recent history — but perhaps for all the wrong reasons.
In the ad, a military officer is depicted standing in front of an unfurled American flag, with the caption, "As chairman of the Governor's Task Force on Homeland Security, David Dewhurst encourages you to support President Bush and the brave men and woman of our Armed Forces as they fight to eliminate terrorism and work to restore confidence in our economy."
Within hours of the magazine's hitting the streets last week, the Dewhurst campaign became inundated with calls — some angry, some joking — informing the state land commissioner that the officer in the photograph was not an American general, but was clearly a German Luftwaffe officer — complete with military decorations, insignias and a name tag bearing the German flag.
••••••
http://www.geocities.com/celestiallight7/homeland.html 

••
http://www.rfmnews.com/nm/publish/news_58.html 

••••
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=43&ItemID=2799 

The US has flirted with Facism and Nazism nd it IS a racist society.
The last article is good in that it shows how the very low risk of terrorism has been used to put in place policies that are simply odius.

Ths Power Culture, Art Deco symbols are so familiar from the mindset of Germany and Italy prior to WWII.
The language......threats from foreigners, security of the Homeland, the pride in "armour" and weapons, the attitude of superiority of American culture.
Europe is shuddering at the American stance - the culture is there - stuff like the stamp just shows it.
Germany "liberated" small countries.

".Today the world faces a single man armed with weapons of mass destruction, manifesting an aggressive, bullying attitude, who may well plunge the world into chaos and bloodshed if he miscalculates.   This person, belligerent, arrogant, and sure of himself, truly is the most dangerous person on Earth. 

The problem is that his name is George W. Bush, and he is our president." 

- Jack MM. Balkin, Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment at Yale Law School"

Get it now


----------



## sputnik (Jan 6, 2003)

One big chemical test.Thats all I have to say.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macdoc,

I wouldn't consider art deco to be an example of Nazi architecture, since it was popular throughout North American and Europe in the 1920s and 1930s. Heck, it was around before the Nazis gained any sort of notoriety.

The stamp itself was released in early 2001 (source), so if an administration directly influenced its production, it would have to be the Clinton administration, not the Bush administration (given the lead time for most stamps).

The whole thing strikes me as a conspiracy theory; if the US was embracing the tenants of Nazism, wouldn't they start rounding up all of the homosexuals and Jews? Wouldn't they withdraw their support for Israel?


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Dewhurst FAQ

 http://www.daviddewhurst.com/about/default.htm

 David Dewhurst is a right-wing extremist who went bankrupt in the early 1980s, leaving his creditors holding $8 million in debt. 

Dewhurst likes to say his business credentials are the reason Texans should support his candidacy. But a look at his record yields a different story. 

As a businessman, Dewhurst was known for his rush to make risky investment decisions. He lost millions, didn't pay his debts, and was forced to declare bankruptcy. 

Like other commandos in the world of corporate greed and corruption, Dewhurst lined his pockets by means of sweetheart deals and insider bank loans, prompting a series of lawsuits from the business partners and former employees he swindled. 

Many of Dewhurst's workers have been injured or even killed on the job. One longtime oil worker who sued Dewhurst testified that the offshore rig he worked on was the most dangerous he had ever been on in his life. 

Dewhurst uses his personal riches to bankroll nearly every ultra-conservative group in the phone book, including FreePAC, whose hate-mongering political fliers were labeled "political pornography" by members of his own party, who also compared the material he paid for to Nazi or terrorist propaganda. 

Dewhurst has paid more than $12 million to self-fund his campaigns for Land Commissioner and Lieutenant Governor. After the September 11 terrorist attacks, Dewhurst rushed to capitalize on the tragedy for his own political gain, running a high-dollar ad in a leading magazine about his homeland security position. Dewhurst was embarrassed when the media discovered that the ad featured a German solider in front of a U.S. flag.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

JFP - you are correct on Art Deco but the "power symbolism" in concert with the other issues like "restrictions on freedoms" especially of "foreign nationals" just has too many echoes.
The minute they announced the term "Homeland Security" it reminded me of Nazi Germany.

I'm not claiming the stamp is a specific piece of symbolism by the administration it's just a bit of the mosaic just as a flower in a rifle barrel is evocative of the 60s.

National Socialism did not necessarily include anti-Semitism but did play upon racial/national sentiments.

Repression comes in many guises - there are too many voices around the world and in the US itself expressing similar fears to just put it down to fringe conspiracy theories.

The real scary issue is not so much that it's deliberate but that the same forces that worked to see the rise of Nazism are at work again........ in the US in a drift from an open and welcoming society to a police state that is closed and suspicious.

Take a good look at this site regarding the American Enterprise Institute

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=4456 

any echoes for you ? - look at the connections to the current regime.

AEI Fellows and scholars
Charles Murray - inherent racial differences 

any echoes??  

It's not just one thing on it's own. There are a lot of very concerned Americans about the exact same issues.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

My first "gut level" impression was that this was a German stamp from Nazi Germany. As well, my first impression about the term "Homeland Security" was similar to the one expressed by Macdoc. When they start wearing special uniforms and wear armbands so that the public will know who they are and what they represent, watch for the influx of immigrants to Canada. 

Every so often I think about whether or not I would want to go back to the US and live, and I don't have the same longing as I once did. Even the lure of New York City, or springtime in Georgia, is not enough to make me leave Canada.


----------



## Mississauga (Oct 27, 2001)

Very similar to the new German Euro coins.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Dr. G that's just it, a "gut level" reaction to an entire "tone" of events.

Interesting thought about American's moving to Canada.

http://www.counterpunch.org/shivani01182003.html

This was in January. Represents perhaps a visible minority viewpoint which is probably where the greatest pressure is felt.
••••
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/living/5429693.htm

Let's hold out a welcome for kind hearted principaled Americans like Dr. G who choose a different social contract  

Maybe we should annex the "liberal Northeast". Sounds like ti belongs to our "demographic" anyway.

Let "Texas" have the rest







....bet Bush would praise the idea.  He'd lose Hilary then too


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

ehMax and others be sure to read Tim Robbins speech posted in another thread.

He paints a grim picture.
I hope his is one of a growing number of voices to stop the pall that has fallen over our southern neighbor.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

I haven't heard anything from Costner on the canning of "Bull Durham" at the Canton, Ohio.

Anyone?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I'm still interested in anyone's comments regarding the fact that this particular stamp design must have originated during the CLINTON administration.

As did al Queda and the rapid rise of Usama bin laden. 

It was during the Clinton presidency that Usama formulated his opinion of the US as a "soft and weak giant that could easily be felled by radical action". This was, in no small part, because of Slick Willy's rapid retreat from Somalia...among other things.

Bill Clinton's foreign policy was never his strong point, after all. He mostly wasn't even interested in the subject of "foreign affairs". He had too many of his own to deal with...if you know what I mean.
















And, let's not forget that 9/11 would have happened on Billy-boy's watch...if it hadn't been for a sharp-eyed border guard in Port Angeles Washington.

What a different world we'd have had then!


Is the US turning to fascism...or is it just a reaction to a massive terrorist attack on home soil in their biggest city? Do they want to subjugate everyone in their own country and in every other country...or are they just reacting in a pro-active and preventative way?

Good questions.

If George Bush jr. declares "no more elections" (like Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il, Muhammar Quaddafi, Saddam, et al) then i will buy the "fascism" argument.

So will about three hundred MILLION other people on this continent.

And I will be among the very first to cry FOUL! 

I bet I won't be alone in this, either

If regular Presidential elections are held in the US every four years from this time on...just as they have been for more than two hundred years...then I will assume all of the people who were screaming "fascism" must have been misled by some group that had a hidden agenda.

Or...quite possibly...they were all a bit challenged in the perception department. Possibly from too much exposure to total bullsh*t generated by some of the more rabid leftist media.

You know...the group that has a nasty reputation for always being _wrong_...about pretty much everything?

So...a challenge here, to anyone who seems to think that the US and the Bush administration is heading toward fascism or Nazi-ism.

It's pretty much the same one I made before the Iraq invasion.

Print this out. I dare you. Then come back and call me a liar two or five years from now. Tell me I was totally wrong. 

Or, be ready to admit that you were.

Because you can be darned sure I am printing out what everyone is saying here. And I aint goin away. 

And I am DAMN sure going to bring this back up...in you're own words...sometime later.

COUNT on it.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

I guess Nixon and Gordon G. Liddy et al bugging the Democratic Convention and bugging, then erasing Nixon's own tapes, was just their way of promoting democracy?

I would much prefer Slick Willy and his getting laid in the White House over the evil doings of Nixon who had to leave the White House in shame BEFORE his term officially ended

But of course macnutt, you think that Nixon was a great leader beacuse he was a Republican.

Sure Slick Willy lied when he said he did not have sexual relations with that woman, but what about Nixon saying; "I am not a liar."

if you really belive that Nixon deserves a stoic place in history and that slick willy deserves to be constatnly reminded for his sexual indiscretions, they you really need to give your head a shake.

When you wake from you coma, I hope you can see the world without the Republican coloured glasses.

Now, of course you are going to tell me how great Reagan was, even though he created one of the biggest deficits in U.S. history. Dubya seems intent on breaking that record.

Please macnutt, no more rehtoric. If you want to debate, there are rules I am sure you are familiar with. If you want to spew rehetoric, there are rules for that too.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Wow, macspectrum...

I'm talking about recent history...as in the current President and his recent predecessor (you know...the one that got IMPEACHED)..

And you have to reach all the way back about..what..THIRTY YEARS or so, in order to find something to point at and say "yeah but-but-but-but!!"

I've really got you scrambling and groping around.







 

Too cool.

BTW...you might think about the fact that there are about thirteen hundred potential readers of every single thing you say.

You're in pretty deep water here. Grope carefully.

Lotsa people watchin and listenin. Know what I mean?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> (you know...the one that got IMPEACHED)..


unlike the getaway Nixon made in Marine 1

explain to me again, how what clinton did was an "high crime and midemeanor" and what nixon did was just an error 
explain how reaganomics helped the majority of americans
explain how bush sr. got tossed out on his ass after he destroyed the economy - "no new taxes, read my lips"
what will dubya's legacy be? the apple doesn't fall far from the tree ya know

enjoy your little "happy time" while bombs drop on innocent civilians

i sure hope that america doesn't become amerika and that true heroes like Tim Robbins are recognized as such.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Lotsa people watchin and listenin. Know what I mean?


i never lock my apt. door
when "they" come, i sure as hell don't want "them" to ruin a perfectly good door.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

macnutt, if, as you say, you would be among those who cry "foul" ("If George Bush jr. declares "no more elections" (like Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il, Muhammar Quaddafi, Saddam, et al) then i will buy the "fascism" argument.
So will about three hundred MILLION other people on this continent.
And I will be among the very first to cry FOUL!"), I fear by then it would be too late. If all those who cried "foul" before you were imprisoned, in a manner similar to the "leaders" you mentioned, there would not be too many people left who might stop this course of action. Waiting for the time when civil liberties are taken away from you personally is not, in my humble opinion, a wise move for anyone to take. This is what I like about Amnesty International. They are oftentimes the first voice of reason and outrage over an injustice against human rights/dignity. 

I see your point, and it is good to know that you would cry "foul" if elections were declared "null and void". However, I still feel that if it reached that point then it would nearly be too late. Your voice, and the voices of millions of others, would be a loud echo of the "voices in the wilderness" from those that came before and spoke out against injustice.


----------



## dibenga (Oct 30, 2001)

IN honor of this tread I have created a new Avatar, 
I call it "USA Today"...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

dibenga, while I respect your right to freedom of expression and creativity, I find this somewhat offensive. The many who fought to rid the world of those that stood behind the swastika, and who now fight to rid the world of what it represents, might not be in favor of this depiction. Still, I speak not for Americans, or Jewish people, although I am both, but for myself. Still, I believe I see your point, and to silence you actually "plays" into the hands of those who would silence others for differing ponts of view.

I would be interested to know how macspectrum feels about this symbolic representation of the direction that America might be headed, in that his father suffered terribly at the hands of those for whom this symbol represents.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

umm, Macnutt?

do you realise that when you say that you're saving and printing out these comments to use against us later you sound like a psychopath?

your arguments are mostly incoherent


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Any your name Bloodyface doesn't make you sound psychopathic?









I disagree, I really like Macnutts debates. (Not saying I always agree, but he is a very good debater). He's a Master deBater!  

But the thing about printing out the posts... He he.. I've done similar things. In 1996 I printed out a few articles by "journalists" who said Apple was dead, out of business in months etc... it was fun to send off a polite reminder to these guys a few years later on what they said. 

Regarding "not getting" the stamp. I take it that the design is similar to an emblem that the Nazi's used?


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

I was doing a search for emblems that other countries use and I came across this interesting tidbit on the Canadian Leaf:



> Use of the 11 point maple leaf
> 
> By Order in Council P.C. 1965-1623 (dated September 2, 1965), any person may use a design or trademark incorporating the maple leaf that forms part of the flag of Canada on the condition that:
> 
> ...


Phew!


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

ehMax, maybe the 1996 printouts will be worth something on eBay









BTW, the Nazi party "adopted" many symbols and styles that were otherwise innocuous. It is another aspect of their criminality against humankind that we now associate such symbols with evil. How would you feel if your wonderful ehMax artwork was co-opted by some fringe, extreme right wing Mac nutcases....


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Dr. G.,
Yes, you are correct that my father did suffer at the hands of those that held that skewed iron cross dear to their hearts.

It does remind me of his plight and reminds me of what I saw in him as I matured. That I came to understand what he endured and how it can change a person forever.

When I was still very young, the only wrong my father could do was take away my tv watching priveleges.

While is saddens me to see that skewed iron cross, I am also saddened that someone feels the need to speak out in that manner, using that symbol as it morphs to and from the American flag. That flag once represented freedom around the world.

A mere 19 months after the tragic events of September 11, 2001, at a time when, far and away, the majority of world opinion was supportive of the U.S., and now that opinion has sunk so low, symptomized by the fact that someone feels the need to use that skewed iron cross side by side with the U.S. flag.

In a word; "sad."

I would be equally as sad to see the "hammer and sickle" used in such a manner as it also represents the sufferage of many millions of people.

Perhaps it is our collective duty to speak on the use of that skewed iron cross and other such symobls and remind everyone of what they represent.

Education, as I am sure you would agree my good Dr., is a most powerful weapon against such tyranny that skewed iron cross, and others of its ilk, represent.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Without an object of difference we are all masterbaters.

In the spirit of real debate, macnutt and probably many of us would not get in the door of the forum. 
One needs referenced information which we have not yet seen from macnutt.
One needs principle upon which to argue. Ditto.
That macnutt lacks debating skills such as refraining from personal attack is a no brainer. (note the difference between criticising a post and name-calling.)
He represents quite accurately, albeit without principle the right wing "weltanschauung".

He is passionate with his rhetoric.

He has the occasional lapse of well reasoned and even compassionate comment.

He's a wingnutt with endearing qualities.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

ehMax - Macnutt rarely debates, he reiterates.

His point of view is not backed up just stated and restated.

This is not a debate structure anyway. It's a discussion....weight and respect given to any viewpoint by it's convergence with a vision of how things actually are in the world by the readers of the posts.

As much as I don't ascribe to CubaMark's far left approach I appreciate the time spent in providing links and explanations that help substantiate where he draws his viewpoint from.

I also don't ascribe to Michael's very grim outlook yet again appreciate the effort - things like Tim Robbins speech,the discussion of Michael Moore all give weight to a vision of a US that makes me uncomfortable and adds to my own underlying wariness of the US.

Those are informed discussions that contribute knowledge and lead to further informaton about the topics.

Macnutt has his opinion, he expresses it in sometimes funny, sometimes infuriating ways but rarely in a manner that leads to sharing of his views.

Now Gordguide on the other hand speaks convincingly and backs it up.

Therein lies the difference.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Macello well put , you continually surprise me in your layered language use..









Like a charicaturist who gets it just right with a deft stroke


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

macspectrum, yes, education is the key. "Lest we forget" is an often utilized term, and yet people do forget, and I am not talking about forgetting the facts of the American Revolution of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham. I am talking about forgetting things in the living memory of many people, such as the Nazi death camps for the Jewish people of Europe, or the systematic starvation of millions of Ukranians on the orders of Stalin. We can look for examples of man's inhumanity to man in the lifetime of my son (who was born in 1986). Yes, education, not propaganda or indoctrination, is the key. Students need to learn how to learn and how to think clearly from an objective overview of the history of what took place in the past. It has become trite to say that "those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it", but it's true. 

On a more personal note, how did your father share with you all that he experienced during the war? Where did you learn about the starvation of the Ukranian people during the dictatorship of Stalin? In school, at home, on your own, or a combination of all three?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Dr. G. asked:


> On a more personal note, how did your father share with you all that he experienced during the war? Where did you learn about the starvation of the Ukranian people during the dictatorship of Stalin? In school, at home, on your own, or a combination of all three?


The first memory I had of my father's experiences and how they impacted upon him was when I bought some margarine. Being "so smart" (that's self depricating for those that think i'm being arrogant) I thought we should have margarine in the house as an alternative to butter. My fater without hesitation, nor explanation, took it out of the fridge and tossed it into the garbage. He told me I was to never bring margarine into the house again. I was taken aback. My father was not one to do rash things. I could see he was upset and after asking why, he told me of how they never had butter during the war years and how he was forced to eat margarine. It reminded him, all to painfully, of those times.

This was the first time that I recalled he ever showed effects of his war time experience.

Over the years, more stories were told and I listened intently. As I became older, I realised that I a first hand witness to the horrors of WWII living in my own house. My father was never a demonstrative person and as such I listened intently whenever he recounted his experiences.

Get together with family and friends, be it at a home in Toronto or one of the many cottages where my father's friends have/had cottages, were also an intense short-course in war time experiences. Many suffered the same fate as my father and some of those friends he made during those terrible times.

As for Ukrainian history, of which the "forced famine" was an important part, my parents had the foresight to enroll me in "Ukrainian school", as we called it.

From grades 1-6, it was 2 hours Tuesday, Thursday and Friday. Grades 7-11, akin to high school, were 6 hours on Saturday. Subjects were; literature, religion, history, geography, grammar, history of art and architecture and archaeology. The final exams were a combination of oral questions put for by a board of examiners as well as written exams. Very old school European style.

I also was enrolled in Ukrainian version of scouts.

I also started a Ukrainian students club at the Erindale U of T campus I attended and was involved in the Ukrainian-Canadian Students movement.

I worked in a Ukrainian-Canadian political/humanitarian group, for 2 years, after graduating university. My way of "giving back" to the community before I started my career in ernest.

I own a copy of the Ukrainian encyclopedia, to which I refer often.

My Ukrainian-Canadian friends and I still get together to have a beer and discuss history and politics.

All contributed to my education.

My apologies for what appears to be a most self serving and overly long post. Please excuse my self indulgence.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

macspectrum, thank you so much for sharing that story about your dad with the community here in ehMacLand. I think that it is important for all of us to know where we came from, and what "baggage" we carry from our upbrining.

Did you hear "Ideas" on CBC1 about Russian history and revisionism of the Stalin era? Amazing how issues like the forced famine of millions of Ukranians is now considered part of "dark history" and that Russians today don't want to be told about such periods in their history.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Thanks Michael. Not long or self serving. Electrons are cheap, insight rare and priceless.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

No question that gord's arguments and references are backed up by links. He has my total respect...and all of my attention when he chooses to speak.

We all know that he is one of the very best repositories of knowledge on this forum. No question at all.

Perhaps I've been recalcitrant in backing up my debates here. I shall , from this point on, endeavor to provide more links and references to back up what I say here.

But...understand this. Much of what I have learned over the years is from my own experience. I've seen what works and what doesn't...up close and personal. And NONE of it has anything to do with any preconcieved notions or any sort of blind loyalty to ANY ideology.

This sort of stuff is very difficult to find any sort of "link" to...because it comes from the heart. Not from some article written by anyone, anywhere.

Besides...from what I have seen, the very first thing that any of my opponents would do, once I had posted a link, would be to try their very hardest to discredit that particular source...and therefore render totally useless any sort of real data that was being presented.

Personally...I think that the very best test of who is truly right or wrong, is to print out what everyone says...and then come back and call us on it at a later date. 

I stand behind what I have said. And I am ready to answer for it at any time in the future.

Prove me wrong. I dare you.

Because, I promise you, I am printing out what YOU say...and will be quite ready to skewer you with your very own words, at sometime in the future.

Count on it.

And....when all is said and done...that may be the most important "link" of all.

Trust me on this.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Dr. G. and David and anyone else, your turn. Tell us of your childhood upbringing.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

macnutt, it's too bad that you see this as a "who is right vs. who is wrong" type of issue.

I see discussion and exchange of ideas.

I don't see the need to "keep score", but keep it if you must.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

macspectrum, do you want the "raised by wolves" story, or the "kid from Queens" story?

I was born in NYC in 1948, and grew up in the Forest Hills section of Queens, NY. We were poor, but my parents did not believe in welfare, so I had a happy childhood with little money to spare. My father left when I was 14. In fact, since I was 16, I have only been without some source of income from work for a 5 1/2 month period. Thus, the work ethic is strong within my very being. I had an ultra-liberal mother, and a conservative Archie Bunkerish father. I put myself through university through loans and part-time work.........confronted my draft board when I graduated from university, and won...........came to St.John's in 1977 to teach at Memorial University of Newfoundland....................and have owned four Apple computers in my day.

The "raised by wolves" story is much more colorful, and would make a great movie with all the advances today with special effects. Still, I shall save that for another day.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Dr. G.,
I await the "raised by wolves" story with anticipation or the movie when you make that big deal with Hollywood.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

*Another Pack 'O Lies from those Cheese Eating Monkeys!* 

Originally published in "Le Monde" ; reprint:
http://www.counterpunch.org/guerrin04162003.html 

Laurent Van der Stockt, a photographer working for the Gamma agency and under contract for the New York Times Magazine, followed the advance of the 3/4 Marines (3rd battalion, 4th regiment) for three weeks, up to the taking of Baghdad on April 9. This is his eyewitness account of the Marines' march to Baghdad:

"The Marines were advancing and taking up position, hiding behind mounds of earth. They were still really tense. A small blue van was moving towards the convoy. Three not-very-accurate warning shots were fired. The shots were supposed to make the van stop. The van kept on driving, made a U-turn, took shelter and then returned slowly. The Marines opened fire. All hell broke loose. They were firing all over the place. You could hear 'Stop firing' being shouted. The silence that set in was overwhelming. Two men and a woman had just been riddled with bullets. So this was the enemy, the threat.
A second vehicle drove up. The same scenario was repeated. Its passengers were killed on the spot. A grandfather was walking slowly with a cane on the sidewalk. They killed him too. As with the old man, the Marines fired on a SUV driving along the river bank that was getting too close to them. Riddled with bullets, the vehicle rolled over. Two women and a child got out, miraculously still alive. They sought refuge in the wreckage. A few seconds later, it flew into bits as a tank lobbed a terse shot into it.
Marines are conditioned to reach their target at any cost, by staying alive and facing any type of enemy. They abusively make use of disproportionate firepower. These hardened troops, followed by tons of equipment, supported by extraordinary artillery power, protected by fighter jets and cutting-edge helicopters, were shooting on local inhabitants who understood absolutely nothing of what was going on.
With my own eyes I saw about fifteen civilians killed in two days. I've gone through enough wars to know that it's always dirty, that civilians are always the first victims. But the way it was happening here, it was insane.
At the roughest moment, the most humane of the troops was called Doug. He gave real warning shots. From 800 yards he could hit a tire and, if that wasn't enough, then the motor. He saved ten lives in two hours by driving back civilians who were coming towards us.
Distraught soldiers were saying:* 'I ain't prepared for this, I didn't come here to shoot civilians.' * The colonel countered that the Iraqis were using inhabitants to kill marines, that 'soldiers were being disguised as civilians, and that ambulances were perpetrating terrorist attacks.'
I drove away a girl who had had her humerus pierced by a bullet. Enrico was holding her in his arms. In the rear, the girl's father was protecting his young son, wounded in the torso and losing consciousness. The man spoke in gestures to the doctor at the back of the lines, pleading: "I don't understand, I was walking and holding my children's hands. Why didn't you shoot in the air? *Or at least shoot me?*


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

"You can't make new foreign policy at the business end of an M-21 rifle without killing a few civilians."
Rumsfeld
(note: not a real quote, just me)


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

macnutt: 'because it comes from the heart"

Listenup! All You Heartless Peaceniks!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

macnutt imitating Robert Conrad in an old battery commercial:


> Prove me wrong. I dare you.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

macspectrum, actually the "raised by wolves" story lacks much depth -- Born in Montreal, and lost as a baby on a trip up to the Laurentians. Found by wolves, raised by wolves, and subsequently learned to speak English and French. Thought that I would go in search of the rising sun, so I headed east. Made it as far as Cape Spear here in NL, which is the furthest easterly point in North America. When I could go no further, I went back to St. John's, where I remain today. 

The "Kid from Queens winning the Turring Prize" would make a much better movie.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Dr. G. asked:


> [macspectrum] Did you hear "Ideas" on CBC1 about Russian history and revisionism of the Stalin era? Amazing how issues like the forced famine of millions of Ukranians is now considered part of "dark history" and that Russians today don't want to be told about such periods in their history.


The revisionist history of the Soviet empire has been a long battle.
First, Russians using old Ukrainian history to attach to their own to give legitimacy to their claim that Ukraine is little Russia and that Russia had existed for much longer than history really shows.
Further pushed by people like Kruschev's great neice in her recent peice claiming that there are a Ukrainian people but no Ukraine. That Ukraine, in her words, means "edge" or "frontier" and therefore denotes a region, not a country. Sheer lunacy.

re: famine - i am currrently taking part in a campaign to bring to light that Walter Duranty of the NY Times while living in Moscow wrote many articles of how wonderful things were in Ukraine during the years of the Famine. Mr. Duranty went even further wrote that any claims of a famine were false. Duranty was a real prize for Stalin. Duranty even won a Pulitzer for journalism. The campaign is asking the Pulitzer committee consider Duranty's Pulitzer be taken away posthumously for his blatant and intended (being paid off by Stalin) false reporting, denying the genocide of the Famine.

http://www.brama.com/survey/messages/22470.html


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

macspectrum, a most interesting letter. I recall that in high school the only mention of this famine was that it was caused by the inability of the Stalin government to coordinate the growing and shipping of wheat around the country. This, I later found out in university, was pro-western propaganda in the social studies curriculum, and was intended to demonstrate how much better our system of government was than that of the USSR. As I have said, I went out with a girl who was of Ukranian heritage, and she helped me to "see the light".


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

For those that are wondering what the good Dr. is referring to:

The Ukrainian American community has begun a letter writing campaign to revoke Walter Duranty's Pulitzer Prize. As you are all probably well aware, Walter Duranty received the Pulitzer Prize in 1932 for his dishonest reporting on the Ukrainian Famine-Genocide. Duranty, who at the time was writing for the New York Times, issued a series of reports on Russia and their Five-Year Plan in which he not only downplayed the famine but also denied its existence. At the same time he privately told British embassy personnel that several million people had died of starvation. As a result of his reporting, Mr. Duranty was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in the Correspondence category. With the 70th anniversary of the Famine upon us, the community has begun a letter writing campaign to have the Pulitzer Prize Board revoke Duranty's award for immoral reporting. In an effort to effectively conduct this campaign we are asking that your letters be sent no later than February 28th, as this is the time the board begins to consider nominations for Prizes and therefore, members are in frequent contact with each other. Please pass this email around to as many Ukrainians as you know. The more letters they receive the better chance we have of them revoking Duranty's Pulitzer Prize.

For your convenience, a sample letter you may use
follows:

Mr. Sig Gissler, Administrator
The Pulitzer Prizes
Columbia University
709 Journalism Building
2950 Broadway
New York, NY 10027

Dear Mr. Gissler:

I am writing this letter to you in your capacity as Administrator of the Pulitzer Prizes. At issue is the 1932 winner of the Pulitzer Prize in the Correspondence category, Mr. Walter Duranty of the New York Times. During 1932-1933 the government of the Soviet Union forcibly requisitioned grain from areas of Ukraine and cordoned off the area to prevent food from reaching the population. Over 7 million persons are estimated to have died as a result of this deliberate policy of starvation. These actions were intended to force the peasants into collective farms and to break Ukrainian nationalism. This Soviet policy falls into the category of genocide as defined by the United Nations' Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Mr. Duranty received the Pulitzer Prize "for his series of dispatches on Russia, especially the working out of the Five Year Plan." In his reports, Duranty downplayed the impact of food shortages in Ukraine or simply denied that there was a famine, although he visited areas afflicted by famine in 1933. While other Western reporters reported on the famine conditions as best as they could (due to Soviet censorship and restrictions on visits to famine areas) Duranty acted more like a spokesperson for the Soviet government than an independent reporter for a Western newspaper. As an American of Ukrainian decent, I abhor the 1932 decision and am writing to ask the Board of the Pulitzer Prizes to review their judgement of awarding Walter Duranty this worthy prize. As there is precedent for withdrawing the Pulitzer Prize, I am asking the Board to reconsider its decision and make amends with the Ukrainian American community by revoking Duranty's Pulitzer Prize this year on the 70th anniversary of Ukraine's Famine-Genocide.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

* LEST WE FORGET* (the topic)

*Operation Enduring Freedom*

"*You're free. And freedom is beautiful*. And, you know, it'll take time to restore chaos and order .... order out of chaos. But we will." 
-- George W. Bush 

"*According to the Bush administration, those classified as enemy combatants can be held indefinitely, without being formally charged, without access to attorneys, without the right to remain silent and without the possibility of bail*. Put simply, those the administration deems to be enemy combatants -- on whatever meager, unsupportable evidence -- are stripped of all of their constitutional rights, for as long as the administration considers necessary.

http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorandcivillib/ashcroftshould.html


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Do not pass GO
Do not collect $200
Go directly to "internment camp #14"


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

macspectrum, be careful, for Room 101 awaits. They are watching. All it takes is one person to declare their "fame, fortune and sacred honor" to the cause of Big Brother, and that will set things in motion.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i believe that already has happened


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

macspectrum, I sincerely hope that you are incorrect in your analysis of the current situation in the US. I hear that the Bush administration has submitted a brief to the Supreme Court who have agreed to hear a case which might limit the Miranda statement and the rights of a person initially accused of a crime. 

"You have the right to remain silent...unless we want you to talk. You have the right to an attorney, unless we decide to interogate you in Room 101. Anything you say can and will be held against you in Room 101, where you may be tired and convicted, saving the US taxpayers millions of dollars needlessly. If you don't give up your rights, we have ways to 'help' you change your mind."

Be afraid..........be very afraid.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> [spending] US taxpayers millions of dollars needlessly


two words: "Ken Lay"


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I would be interested in knowing what his IRS tax form looked like for the past year or so. Still, as the saying goes "Death and taxes are the only two constants in this country." Granted, it was a reference to the US situation, but people still pay taxes here and they die here as well, so it could refer to Canada.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

*I thought this might be and interesting time to review this in light of this little gem today even Point 14 sort of bookends the shrubs term in office* 



> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A senior House Democratic lawmaker was skeptical on Sunday of a Bush administration idea to obtain the authority to delay the November presidential election in case of an attack by al Qaeda,
> 
> U.S. counterterrorism officials are looking at an emergency proposal on the legal steps needed to postpone the presidential election in case of such an attack, Newsweek reported on Sunday.
> 
> ...


Read the entire article.


*Anyone care to rate the last three years of the shrub in light of the 14 points???? 
I think it's even clearer a year or so later after the torture, the F9/11 suppression and now election delay amongst other incidents that fit right in with this list. Hard to argue against methinks. ....Amerika indeed *
Here's hoping November sees our neighbour clear of this disease.



> Dr. Britt studied the fascist regimes of: Hitler (Germany),
> Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), Pinochet (Chile).
> He found the regimes had 14 things in common, and he calls these
> the identifying characteristics of fascism.
> ...


Walks like a duck, talks like a duck....by damn it is..........


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *In spite of interruption*
> 
> Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - Page A14
> 
> ...


One wonders is anyone is listening


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Bush seems incapable of recognizing or admitting to his culpability in the invasion of Iraq. He steadfastly maintains there was a connection between Al-Qaeda and Saddam and that there were WMDs. However, he's now gotten onto a different horse. "America is safer from the terrorists". This utter baloney and refusal to acknowledge his errors may well be his downfall. He has no backbone. He uses the backbones of the troops he sends over to the Middle East to prop up his own fantasy. The world is not safer. Americans are not safer. 

I just hope that the terrorists do not strike in the US before the elections because, ironically, that is likely to result in 4 more years of Bush. He'll simply change his tune from "America is safer" to "America must attack". Of course, the terrorists likely want 4 more years of Bush to further fan the flames.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Regarding WMDs in Iraq:

<blockquote>Associated Press, via Yahoo (July 6, 2004)

In a secret operation, the United States last month removed from Iraq (news - web sites) nearly two tons of uranium and hundreds of highly radioactive items that could have been used in a so-called dirty bomb, the Energy Department disclosed Tuesday.

[...]

Uranium is not suitable for making a dirty bomb. But some of the other radioactive material — including cesium-137, colbalt-60 and strontium — could have been valuable to a terrorist seeking to fashion a terror weapon.

[...]

The low-enriched uranium taken from Iraq, if it is of the 3 percent to 5 percent level of enrichment common in fuel for commercial power reactors, could have been of value to a country developing enrichment technology.

"It speeds up the process," Oelrich said, adding that 1.95 tons of low-enriched uranium could be used to produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a single nuclear bomb.</blockquote>

As pointed out by some other sites I've read this is hardly a smoking gun, but consider this:

1) Saddam did indeed have everything he needed to make WMDs
2) Saddam did indeed have have everything a terrorist would want to make small scale WMDs
3) The coalition found these materials last month and it didn't hit the news services until July 6th

But why not publicize that they've found/removed the materials? Maybe because doing so would be tantamount to inviting the terrorists down to attempt to steal/detonate the materials.

Regardless, I bet there is lots of stuff happening in Iraq that we (and the rest of the world) have no idea about.

[edit: clarified some]

[ July 13, 2004, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: PosterBoy ]


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"We must protect our citizens in the Czech Republic'

"We must have the oil fields in Odessa"

We must protect the "Homeland"...........


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

This might be relevant (re: MacDoc's concerns about fascism):<blockquote>

Soon they met Cocky Locky, who said, "I'm going to the woods to hunt for seeds."

"Oh no, don't go!" said Henny Penny. "The sky is falling there! Come with us to tell the king."

So Cocky Locky joined Henny Penny and Chicken Little, and they went along and went along as fast as they could.</blockquote>

Maybe we should start a collection and get MacDoc an umbrella.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

jfp, when they come to take you away, there shall be none of the free-thinking liberals to cry out at the injustice of the taking away of civil liberties. Keep the faith, brother, and remember "Death before dishonor". Paix.


----------



## iGeeK (Jan 27, 2003)

jfpoole is worried about the sky over MacDoc:

*"Maybe we should start a collection and get MacDoc an umbrella."*

Nah, let's start a collection to get you a pair of specs.

 

iG/<


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Questions (for everyone):

Do you believe that Iraq is ready to have the US pull out, em masse?

Is it better to have removed Saddam before he had nukes (remember, he had the material to make them) or would it have been better to wait until he had them and could wield some real power*?

Do you think Saddam could have been removed sans-war?

Do you honestly believe that Bush is going to start pushing for leibenstraum at some point?

Would the war have been acceptable if it wasn't the US behind it?

Do you think it that anyone besides the US could actually get it done?

*for lack of a better word.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Is it better to have removed Saddam before he had nukes (remember, he had the material to make them) or would it have been better to wait until he had them and could wield some real power*?


with that logic, all nations on Earth should band together to attack the only nation in our history to have actually USED nuclear weapons against another
- see Nagasaki and Hiroshima

shoulda, coulda, woulda doesn't justify killing people on a massive scale


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

*"But the ultimate step in avoiding periodic wars, which are inevitable in a system of international lawlessness, is to make statesmen responsible to law. And let me make clear that while this law is first applied against German aggressors, the law includes, and if it is to serve a useful purpose it must condemn, aggression by any other nations, including those which sit here now in judgement. We are able to do away with domestic tyranny and violence and aggression by those in power against the rights of their own people only when we make all men answerable to the law. This trial represents mankind's desperate effort to apply the discipline of the law to statesmen who have used their powers of state to attack the foundations of the world's peace and to commit aggressions against the rights of their neighbors."*-Robert H Jackson, 1945, part of opening statement for the Nuremberg Trials.

I think that Bush should be held on trial along with Saddam for war crimes, he initiated a war without concrete evidence that Iraq had WMD's and all along to this day he holds to this like those Nazis on the stand at Nuremberg stood up and admitted to doing nothing wrong while millions of Jews were led to there deaths.


----------



## iGeeK (Jan 27, 2003)

PB wrote:

*Do you honestly believe that Bush is going to start pushing for leibenstraum at some point?*

If you mean "lebensraum", Bush does not have to push for it, Polk already did.

Lebensraum = Texas, California, New Mexico

Colonies = Hawaii, "American" Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, "US" Virgin Islands.

iG/<


----------



## iGeeK (Jan 27, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM wrote:

*"attack the only nation in our history to have actually USED nuclear weapons against another
- see Nagasaki and Hiroshima"*

Not too mention other weapons of mass destruction and mass distraction. 

US feels extremely justified in the use of the atomic bomb in Japan, because it "saved countless American lives". 

However, there are other instances where the US used the bomb without the need to save American lives, while messing up the lives of innocent bystanders...

Bikini Atoll comes to mind, and that's just one, rather famous, instance.

"Hey, you guys, do you mind very much if we use your island? Ahem, actually... Pretty please, with sugar on top... MOVE."

Hower, I think that all nations on earth that have not detonated any nukes and have no intention of doing so (surprising as that may be) should hold not only the US, but Russia, China and France for these crimes against humanity. Every nuke detonated, doesn't matter on _whose_ territory, is a crime against the *entire* planet.

Some recommended reading: 

http://rex.nci.nih.gov/massmedia/Fallout/Chapter2.pdf 

http://www.okgeosurvey1.gov/level2/nuke.cat.index.html 

*INSANITY.*

iG/<

P.S. Canada is not without culpability in Hiroshima/Nagasaki:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/canada/index.html 

More WMD:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/index.html

[ July 14, 2004, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: iGeeK ]


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*with that logic, all nations on Earth should band together to attack the only nation in our history to have actually USED nuclear weapons against another*

I am not sure you understood the point of the question. Regardless of whether the war is right or wrong, would you rather it was carried out when it was (before Saddam could strike back on any kind of big scale) or later on (perhaps after he'd developed nuclear capacity)?

Oh, and while the use of nuclear weapons in WW2 is certainly debatable, how come no one ever mentions that Japan organized one of the single biggest surprise attacks in history to kick off that war? Was Pearl harbour somehow "ok" because they didn't use nukes? Or is it just because the US did?

*If you mean "lebensraum"*

Yes. The way I spelled it came up in a search. Silly internet, tricks are for kids!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"the single biggest surprise attacks in history to kick off that war?"

Umm what would you do if your supply of oil was cut off by a rival imperial power???

http://www.randomhouse.com/randomhouse/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=0-8129-6858-1 
It's an informative read, worthy of the Pulitzer prize it won.

The US was hardly the innocent bystander in that affair which really should never have occurred on the scale it did.

as ever.....oil plays a huge role.



> Japan had been our ally. But when she tried to collect her share of the booty at Versailles, she ran into an obdurate Woodrow Wilson.
> 
> Wilson rejected Japan's claim to German concessions in Shantung, home of Confucius, which Japan had captured at a price in blood. Tokyo threatened a walkout if denied what she had been promised by the British. "They are not bluffing," warned Wilson, as he capitulated. "We gave them what they should not have."
> 
> ...


Events like 9/11. Pearl Harbour etc don't happen in isolation and can be hundreds of years in the making.

The Kurds by all rights need a homeland - they've been there for centuries in the Tikrit and S Turkey area. They are showing very good self government and are the only stable area in Iraq.

The US/British European follies in the area ( Iraq is a manufactured state like Yugoslavia ) are coming home to roost.

Meddling costs.

Like all imperial powers the US has both it's good and bad aspects. With the clowns in power there now the world is a far far more disrupted and dangerous place.  

The US admin wants to be a "white hat".......it's not. Texan mythology has no place in the current world.

Michener's *Texas* is a very enlightening read as well.
The shrub is a classic Texan.......and that's not a particularly good thing for the rest of the world.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

*Umm what would you do if your supply of oil was cut off by a rival imperial power??*

So, starting a war because of oil is okay? Interesting.


----------



## iGeeK (Jan 27, 2003)

PB wrote:

"If you mean "lebensraum"
*Yes. The way I spelled it came up in a search. Silly internet, tricks are for kids!"*

"Lebenstraum" is "Life dream" (as in "the American Dream"), so the net isn't so silly. It's just a different phrase. One could say that "Lebensraum" was III Reich's "Lebenstraum".

Manifest Destiny was America's fulfilled dream.


iG/<


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

> I am not sure you understood the point of the question. Regardless of whether the war is right or wrong, would you rather it was carried out when it was (before Saddam could strike back on any kind of big scale) or later on (perhaps after he'd developed nuclear capacity)?


For my personal taste I wish the US would've waited untill it had concrete evidence that Iraq had WMD's and then the vote before the UN security councill would probably have gone along with an invasion of Iraq, but the US did not wait and along with it's allies it decided based on false information and rumours that Iraq had in fact in it's possession WMD's and followed on it's threat to invade Iraq without a mandate from the UN  , along with his VP Bush should stand in front of a world tribunal for war crimes along the lines of the one that Milosevic is facing now in The Hague for the criminal acts that have lead to the killing of innocent Iraqi's and the detention of countless person's around the globe that are being held without charge or access to legal counsel. 



> Oh, and while the use of nuclear weapons in WW2 is certainly debatable, how come no one ever mentions that Japan organized one of the single biggest surprise attacks in history to kick off that war? Was Pearl harbour somehow "ok" because they didn't use nukes? Or is it just because the US did?


I can some this up quickly Japan hit Pearl Harbour to start the Pacific war but I believe that they hit a military target but in the end the US in turn dropped 2 atomic weapons on Japan killing *105000* Japanese innocent civillians along with some military personell in so doing the US carried out the largest terrorist act in the history of mankind.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"Starting a war....."
Where in that did you read a moral judgement?

Perhaps a bit more reading about world affairs would be in order. You seem about as American tunnel visioned as the clowns in the Whitehouse.
 

Another example of exemplary one liner content by JFP.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Hey Macdoc,

I have to call you on this as well.

Case 1:
-A Fascist, militarist dictatorship launches a sneak attack on a democracy, arguably to safeguard their oil.

Case 2:
-A small collection of democratic nations launch an attack on a murderous, brutal dictatorship, arguably to safeguard their oil.

Where do your sympathies lie? I think you hold the US to a far higher standard than the rest of the world.


----------



## iGeeK (Jan 27, 2003)

PB wrote:

*"Was Pearl harbour somehow "ok" because they didn't use nukes? Or is it just because the US did?"*

Mentioning Hiroshima/Nagasaki in one breath with Pearl Harbour is just a wee bit silly, isn't it?

No act of agression is ever OK. However, just how many civilians died at Pearl Harbour, eh? (PH = 48. H/N = 140000)

What did the Japanese bomb in that raid? A city? Two of them?

When the Americans decided to nuke Hiroshima/Nagasaki, there was not much point to do so in that war. Japan was defeated. Although the A-bomb's apologists will argue until blue in the face that the nuking saved lives, one major *military* target would have been quite sufficient to demonstrate to the Japanese the new might of the US.

However, the message of these two bombs was not being sent to the Japanese.

"Hey Stalin, look what we can do!"

People who had these things built were rather interested in using them on a civilian population. I had the chance to peruse the multivolume US military reports on the effects of these weapons. Data carefully tabulated and many, many colour photos shot with great attention to detail.

"The atom bomb was no “great decision.”... It was merely another powerful weapon in the arsenal of righteousness." - Harry S. Truman, April 28, 1959

Atom bomb AND righteousness, now that's a scary combination!

"Japan was already defeated and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary ... I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives." - Dwight Eisenhower

"Japan was finished long before either one of the two atomic bombs were dropped.” - Admiral E. King


"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons." 

"War is not to be waged on women and children” 

"in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages"- Admiral W. Leahy

And lastly, from an *interview * with General Tibbets (flew Enola Gay):

"ST: One last thing, when you hear people say, "Let's nuke 'em," "Let's nuke these people," what do you think? 

PT: Oh, I wouldn't hesitate if I had the choice. I'd wipe 'em out. You're gonna kill innocent people at the same time, but we've never fought a damn war anywhere in the world where they didn't kill innocent people. If the newspapers would just cut out the ****: "You've killed so many civilians." *That's their tough luck for being there. *"


iG/<

[ July 14, 2004, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: iGeeK ]


----------



## iGeeK (Jan 27, 2003)

Fink-Nottle wrote:

*A small collection of democratic nations launch an attack on a murderous, brutal dictatorship, arguably to safeguard their oil.*

You mean the world's only de facto superpower, and the yapping poodles on its leash?

If we can accept that the US is actually a "democratic" nation. Or that "democracy" unequivocally equals "good guys".

If murderous and brutal dictatorships are a problem for "democratic" nations, then why the hell haven't they ever done anything about Idi Amin?

Who had lived rather comfortably in Saudi Arabia, after being ousted.

Oh, yeah... Howzabout Sudan? NOT on UN's peacekeeping list? Oooops!

http://www.christian-aid.org.uk/indepth/0103suda/sudanoi2.htm#CHAP1

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/quiz.html 

iG/<

[ July 14, 2004, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: iGeeK ]


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*Mentioning Hiroshima/Nagasaki in one breath with Pearl Harbour is just a wee bit silly, isn't it?*

No, not really, you pretty much repeat my point with this sentence: _"No act of agression is ever OK"_

One thing that I notice when talking about WW2 Japan is that everyone seems to forget that the Japanese started the war with a surprise attack, or if they don't forget it they seem to think it doesn't matter because Japan ended up getting nuked. That seems silly to me, as I fail to see how one terrible act of aggression can excuse another.

I wont deny that lots and lots of people died in Hiroshima (according to research that I did earlier this year, as many as 75000 people died in the blast, and a further 60000 died as a result of it by the end of 1945), but I'm not sure there was a better target. 

What military site could you suggest that wouldn't have resulted in a crap load civilian casualties?

Hiroshima had military installations that had previously not been hit, and was also pretty good as a test site. Yes, a test site. Hiroshima was chosen, at least in part and according to popular thought, because topographically it was a good test site. I don't know exactly what to make of that, but there it is.

But as you point out, Hiroshima (and Nagasaki) was as much about Russia as it was Japan. I wonder how long the US thought it would take Stalin to develop nukes of his own? Longer, or shorter than the 4 years it ended up taking. Interesting thought.

Tibbets does have one point though, that civilians are killed in basically every war. It's a hard fact to deal with, for some, but it's one that isn't going to go away. Previous bombings in Japan killed more people than both nukes combined, the main difference is that the nukes did it all at once.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*You seem about as American tunnel visioned as the clowns in the Whitehouse.*

<blockquote>
[Living room interior, Night. The master of the house is watching a hockey game.]

The phone rings. The away team has the puck, the master of the house gets up to answer.

KETTLE: Hello?
POT: Hello Kettle.

In the background, he can hear the home team steal the puck and break away.

KETTLE: Who is this?
POT: It's the Pot. I think you know why I'm calling.
KETTLE: You bastard.

He can hear the home team has scored the game winning goal.

POT: Maybe so, but you're still black. *click*

KETTLE walks back to his easy chair and sits down to watch the replay of the undoubtedly amazing goal he just missed.

KETTLE: I should really look into getting that jerks number blocked.
</blockquote>


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

iGeek,

Weak rhetoric... the UK, Australia, Spain and Japan are hardly US poodles. If proof be needed, Spain is now changing its policy after an election... democracy in action.

Democracy is not like pregnancy though... it is a relative term. And democracies don't always get it right. However, the governments of the US, UK etc are more democratic and therefore, carry a greater legitimacy in my eyes than the government of Saddam Hussein. You disagree?

With regards to Idi Amin I'm not sure what your argument is. Are you saying that America and the allies should have been more interventionist? Or would you prefer them to be consistently isolationist?


----------



## iGeeK (Jan 27, 2003)

PB wrote:

*"What military site could you suggest that wouldn't have resulted in a crap load civilian casualties?*

>I< would not ever advocate the use of nukes anywhere, under any circumstances, but if you do want a Japanese military target they could have nuked while minimizing civilian deaths: the Special {Coast} Guard Fleet. Plenty of destroyers, a few battleships. Sank by conventional means off Kure island in July 1945. Had they nuked a Naval battle Group, the civillian loss of life would have been minimal.

*"Tibbets does have one point though, that civilians are killed in basically every war. It's a hard fact to deal with, for some, but it's one that isn't going to go away"*


As long as there are people who think (and think up such terms) that "collateral damage" is OK, we have not left the Dark Ages at all, and the hard facts of war will indeed not go away.

"It's war, deal with it"

Uh, many people would rather not have to deal with war. Period. Less war apologetics, less war.

iG/<


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Posterboy asked:

>Do you believe that Iraq is ready to have the US pull out, em masse?

Nope, not now. But nor is the US ready to pull out. Too much "invested". The US is paying for this investment in servicemens lives. 

>Is it better to have removed Saddam before he had nukes (remember, he had the material to make them) or would it have been better to wait until he had them and could wield some real power*?

Errr..... the material to make nukes? Where exactly? The earlier report you cited is convenient in its lack of clarity. Alberta has the materials for making nukes..... Removing Saddam was good. How it was done was appalling given the loss of innnocent life.

>Do you think Saddam could have been removed sans-war?

Yes - he was already severely contained. His regime would have toppled if pushed from a variety of directions. For all of its so-called surgical precision and technical superiority, don't you think the US couldn't have removed his sorry carcass fromthe world without dumping half a million tons of munitions?

>Do you honestly believe that Bush is going to start pushing for leibenstraum at some point?

Only if he is truly mad. I don't think he'd get away with it since there are enough people in the Pentagon who think he's an idiot. Besides that's a three syllable word.

>Would the war have been acceptable if it wasn't the US behind it?

Yes, if there had been a true coalition (even led by the US) with UN support and all diplomatic options had been exhausted and it was justified with real threat assessments. But probably not as an invasion. Too costly and non-selective.

>Do you think it that anyone besides the US could actually get it done?

Assuming someone thinks that the US has actually gotten anything "done" in Iraq apart from amass 10,000 bodies that are "well done". Not without the US but the US also made a pigs ear by themselves and have been genuinely embarrassed at home and abroad for their blunders, deceptions and erroneous justifications.

No one is arguing that Hussein had to go. He was an evil despot. But the means of his removal was so massively over the top that the Iraqi people have been dealt a double blow. They must wonder what on earth they ever did to deserve a murderous dictator and to be at the end of a shock and awe campaign. The US showed a total lack of respect for the Iraqi people, even as they claimed to act in their interest.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"A Fascist, militarist dictatorship launches a sneak attack on a democracy"

Your bias is built into the nature of your portrayal of the two in conflict. As if somehow the mantle of "democracy" was something sacred and good in and of itself. It's not - it's a form of government.

US was as much an aggressive empire builder as Japan ever was.

How about phrasing it 
"one Imperial power in the Pacific launched a sneak attack on another Imperial Power in the Pacific to *"pre-empt" loss of resources vital to national security.*
Any of that language sound familiar?

Observation is not approbation.


----------



## iGeeK (Jan 27, 2003)

Fink-Nootle wrote:

*Weak rhetoric...*

If you so say, then it certainly must be.









*the UK, Australia, Spain and Japan are hardly US poodles.*

Forgive me for some sarcastic hyperbole. Nuke me, if you must.

*If proof be needed, Spain is now changing its policy after an election... democracy in action.*

Fear in action. Do you think that there would be a change of policy, if not for the terrorist attacks?

*Democracy is not like pregnancy though...*

Are you quite sure of that?  

*It is a relative term.*

Yeah, to be bandied about at the convenience of demagogues everywhere. When the term "democracy" is at all inconvenient at any given moment, the US quickly says "we are not a democracy, we are a Republic".

*And democracies don't always get it right. However, the governments of the US, UK etc are more democratic and therefore, carry a greater legitimacy in my eyes than the government of Saddam Hussein. You disagree?*

Crimes against the entire mankind are not excused because a nation's government is "more democratic" and thus "more legitimate". Since you have chosen UK and US as the champions of democracy, let us look at their crimes and weigh them against Saddam's crimes. The quantity (if evil can be quantified) of evil rather seriously tips the balance towards our champions.

*With regards to Idi Amin I'm not sure what your argument is. Are you saying that America and the allies should have been more interventionist? Or would you prefer them to be consistently isolationist?*

What I'm saying is that their (possibly strong) rhetoric about attacking "a murderous, brutal dictatorship" falls flat on its face when they attack one and let others be.

When it is in the purview of their interest, they are attacking brutal dictators. When it is not in their interest, the brutal dictators just might be... allies.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2177











iG/<


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

iGeek,

I hardly nuked your hyperbole but I did call you on it... you use it a lot.

Anyway, with regard to your questions:

1. The motives of Spanish voters have noting to do with this argument. The crucial point is that they have democraticaly decided to alter their policy and leave the coalition... hardly something a true "US poodle" could do.

2. I'll be surprised if you can provide an example of a time when the US has "quickly said, "We are not a democracy, we are a Republic"".

3. Claiming I chose the US and UK as 'champions of democracy" is another example of hyperbole. I actually said they were more democratic than Iraq.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

PB you should know by now I respond in kind. Nothing new there and nothing requiring you to be "third man in".

If jfp wants to make an ass out himself he's a big boy and doesn't need a defender.
He even got Dr. G miffed - 

Close friends and families of friends have died or had their lives destroyed by American disregard for foreign citizens in service to the US and rampant foreign adventurism by the US
I speak from a personal interest and hearbreak and Dr. G does as well.
Tread lightly..........it's personal.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*As long as there are people who think (and think up such terms) that "collateral damage" is OK, we have not left the Dark Ages at all, and the hard facts of war will indeed not go away.*

The problem these days is that it is harder to distinguish civilians from non-civilians. How do you define a civilian? Is a non-combatant a civilian? What about the people working in factories that get bombed? They are civilians, right? If some enemy soldiers take up residence in residential areas, what are you supposed to do? Come back and deal with it later?

Back in the dark ages, armies were created by rounding up civilians, handing them some armour and a weapon, and marching them onto a battlefield. I'd say we're well ahead in that regards to civilian death these days.

One thought, doesn't saying that the death of civilians in a war zone is somehow more bad than killing soldiers in a war zone devalue the lives of the soldiers? Why can't it just be that people dying is bad, full stop?


----------



## iGeeK (Jan 27, 2003)

PB wrote:

*"One thought, doesn't saying that the death of civilians in a war zone is somehow more bad than killing soldiers in a war zone devalue the lives of the soldiers? Why can't it just be that people dying is bad, full stop?"*

No argument from me. No argument from anyone other than the military establishment. For them dead soldiers are an unfortunate hard fact of war, and the civilian deaths are "collateral damage".

That's their language, and their philosophy.

I'm no fan of any kind of war... Other than perhaps war of words, but neither civilians nor miltary personel have been hurt here.  

iG/<


----------



## iGeeK (Jan 27, 2003)

PB asks:

*How do you define a civilian?*

The traditional definition has always been:

"One whose pursuits are those of civil life, not military."

No hairsplitting needed here.

iG/<


----------



## iGeeK (Jan 27, 2003)

Fink-Nottle wrote:

*I hardly nuked your hyperbole but I did call you on it... you use it a lot.*

And is that a problem? 

Is there a commandment somewhere that says "Thou shall not use hyperbole, or else?"

Actually, please do count the number of times I used hyperbole here on ehMac so that I can see if I'm indeed guilty. How many times in 407 posts is "a lot"?

Uh... No, never mind. I can count myself.

*The motives of Spanish voters have noting to do with this argument. *

They don't? Why?

*The crucial point is that they have democraticaly decided to alter their policy and leave the coalition... hardly something a true "US poodle" could do.*

I have conceded that Spain is not an "US poodle".
Spain is an US sled dog which got severely bitten, and wants off the team now. {OK, I'm just yanking the chain here}  

*I'll be surprised if you can provide an example of a time when the US has "quickly said, "We are not a democracy, we are a Republic"".*

Perhaps not the White House, in so many words, however this is an ever present sentiment in US {and in those exact words} whenever plain ol' "democracy" is not good for the spin.

http://www.google.ca/search?q=%22We+are+not+a+democracy%2C+we+are+a+Republic%22&ie=ISO-8859-1&hl=en&meta= 

*Claiming I chose the US and UK as 'champions of democracy" is another example of hyperbole. I actually said they were more democratic than Iraq.*

Bully for them. So what? They are more democratic and they also have been and continue to be a greater threat to world's peace than Saddam ever was.

As for hyperbole and sarcasm, I will immediately decomission these Weapons of Mass Discussion. At once. From now on, just amplification and mordancy. I promise.  

iG/<

[ July 14, 2004, 07:28 PM: Message edited by: iGeeK ]


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The questions that keep getting lost.

*"Sovereignity"?? What is it and when can it be breached i a "lawful" manner??*

*Under what terms and conditions may a multilateral group of nations attack a sovereign nation and in aid of what???*

*Under what terms under may single or small group of nations in disregard of the larger group act unilaterally??*

The world is still working those issues out as groups, tribes, villages, city states, fiefdoms, kingdoms, nations, federations and supraNational bodies ( NATO, UN, Euro ) have been attempting to do for the last few thousand years.

Just taking the case of Iraq and that photo up above showing Saddam the Good shaking hands with Rumsfeld versus now Saddam the Evil shows how fickle and erratic policies of nationstates can be.

Balance of power was and will be an important check on national ambitions until such time as the world can come to method of dealing with the questions above as a world body with the power to enforce the terms.

The US and British action seriously weakened the effort of the world nations as a group to develop methods and rules. On top of that the history of both nations in the Middle East made them the worst possible choice. The Crusades are a reality to many in the middle east. Memories of peoples are long.

The case was easier with Kuwait as a weaker sovereign nation, was invaded by a stronger neighbor and large multilateral group drove the invading force out but then stopped.
That coalition and the action to Bush Sr to both put it together and then stop was a huge milestone in cooperative action that could have and should have been built on.

It wasn't, in part becasue there is no balance of power on the planet right now tho Greater Europe and China may be emerging.

Like minority governments instead of majority governments, sometimes it's better all around when compromise MUST be attended to.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

MacDoc,

*The questions that keep getting lost.*

Like, "So, starting a war because of oil is okay?". I'm still awaiting an answer to that. A simple yes or no will suffice. 

If the answer is yes, then if the Iraq war was waged for oil then the US was justified in invading Iraq. If the answer is no, then just because the US cut off Japan's oil supplies doesn't mean Japan was justified in attacking Pearl Harbor.

Of course, if you don't want to answer the question, just say so.


----------



## iGeeK (Jan 27, 2003)

PB wrote:

*Back in the dark ages, armies were created by rounding up civilians, handing them some armour and a weapon, and marching them onto a battlefield. I'd say we're well ahead in that regards to civilian death these days.*

Hmmm... "Draft", "Draft-dodger"... I heard these fairly recently. Vietnam. Afghanistan... 

Now armies are created by deluding/rounding up some civilians, handing them a weapon (armour optional) and flying them to the battlefield.

We are not out of the Dark Ages. Yet.

iG/<


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

jfp - learn to read.
Observation is not approbation.  
••••

iGeek - you bet the demographics for Vietnam deaths were horrendous. Lopsided to minorities and the poor and don't get me started on what they did to foreign citizens and foreign minorities especially highly trained ones promised 
no front line duty.
Cannon fodder.

At least in the "Dark Ages" there was some thought of booty and plunder for their efforts and they generally went home the next day or got buried. No great life but part of the "duty to the laird" and they generally knew what they were fighting about.

Many exMilitary that see battle don't do too well these days in civilian life. Gen Romeo Dallaird being one.  
Rwanda was a horror and the world did nothing.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

"Duty to the Laird" is not exactly what is going on here.

And...I should point out that "Fealty to the Clan" is a far more prevalent force...and far more IMPORTANT amongst the Highland Scots that still make up the hard core root of the Canadian people, than any other.

We are talking about once or twice or thrice-removed Highland Scots here. Displaced warriors (fierce warriors) who have been forced out of their ancestral homeland and who have adopted a brand new land and made it their (OUR) very own.

You know...the very same people who drive this diverse land to excel and perform better than any other country of it's size on the planet. (The very same tiny group of people who have invented practically EVERY single modern device that we now take for granted as a part of our current reality, by the way.)

No matter WHAT station in life that they occupy.

Lowly wage slave...mid-level manager...or top flight Chief Executive. Millionaire and thrall. And everything in between. They are all Scots...or driven by the Scots among them.

The Scots are running the show in Canada (and in most other modern countries) . At all levels. 

Just check the names of those involved, if you don't believe me.   

"Duty to the Laird"...perhaps.

"Fealty to the Clan"...DEFINITELY.

Check and see for yourself. It's all there...chapter and verse.  









[ July 15, 2004, 02:25 AM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



## iGeeK (Jan 27, 2003)

Wow! What impressive hallucinations you have!

Are any of these brave loyal Scots also by any chance members of the Masonic Lodge?

Some? All?

You ARE being facetious. Right?

Go lagai Dia do chuid infheistiochtai!

"Mc"iG/<


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Hi all,

iGeek,

Interesting examples of "democracy vs republic" but the views of radical right wing think tanks are not synonomous with US policy... even now. 

Macdoc,

*Your bias is built into the nature of your portrayal of the two in conflict. As if somehow the mantle of "democracy" was something sacred and good in and of itself. It's not - it's a form of government.* 

I'm guilty as charged. To my mind democracy is sacred, and is good in and of itself. That doesn't mean that I believe democracies always make the best decisions... but when working properly they accurately reflect the will of the majority of the people. Not a perfect system but there is no better one... the alternative is always rule by the minority, or rule by the few, or rule by the one.

*US was as much an aggressive empire builder as Japan ever was.* 

If you can find any action on the part of the US that was a fraction as aggresive and brutal as the Japanese attack on mainland China, I'll stand corrected.

I do think that you have identified the heart of the issue though in asking when the use of multilateral (or even unilateral) force is justified. There are substantial problems with the UN institutions which make it an ineffective body to make such decisions. The actions of the US and UK have not weakened efforts to develop a mechanism though... if anything they have highlighted the problems with what we have now.

Poster Boy:

As Macdoc says, war has in many ways become less civilized since the Dark ages. For much of European history, wars were decided on the battleground between small armies of clearly identified soldiers. While there were some nasty notable exceptions, this method resulted in minimal casualities, minimal damages to property and minimal civilian loss of life. The first major war to break that pattern was the American Revolution, when the revolutionaries used guerilla tactics... which were considered highly immoral and dangerous at the time. Things have gone downhill ever since and probably hit rock bottom in WWII where both the Germans and the allies specifically targetted civillians.

Wouldn't Iraq be in better shape if the allies and Saddam had agreed to having a fight in the desert with winner taking all?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"If you can find any action on the part of the US that was a fraction as aggresive and brutal as the Japanese attack on mainland China, I'll stand corrected."

Genocide in the American West and the take over of the Mexican lands along the Rio Grande and west. 
Reading *Texas* is an eye opener and it's pretty clear to see the roots of the current "attitude" on Pennsylvania Ave.
Empires tend to get "holier than thou" AFTER they've done the blood work.

As to democracy etc. There are aggressive cultures and peoples and passive ones. The roots of those "identities" are often hard to define.
Germanic people's were up until the end of WWII "militaristic" and proud of that, Japan too.
There appears to be a wide spread revulsion, a cultural and deep "sea change" that occurred in both peoples that made war like attitudes an anathema to the bulk of the population. This was reinforced by progressive provisions in their constitutions.

The Zulu in Africa under Shaka turned from a rather placid people to martial and aggressive - he literally changed their cultural and embedded new "memes" and created an empire.
It's a fascinating story and there are interesting reprises from earlier European history - like sending sons to other families to be trained.

The US has a very bloody history and the culture and attitude reeks of it still.
Vietnam almost was a watershed. It certainly was for the US military who changed their fundamental culture as a result. ( the Air War in the Gulf written by the guy who commanded it is a terrific read and traces the changes Vietnam engendered ). It was painful and took 30 years.

There is still a cowboy/frontier mentality that when applied in interest of the world as a whole can be inspiring - the space program for instance but when it disengages multilateralism and puts vigilante attitudes in play in the world then it's a road to ruin.  

The US needs in it's next report card.

"Plays well with others"


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> If you can find any action on the part of the US that was a fraction as aggresive and brutal as the Japanese attack on mainland China, I'll stand corrected.


ummmm, Hiroshima and Nagasaki
ummmm, American Indians
ummmm, African American slaves

that enough?


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Hi Macspectrum,

We were discussing the two sides at the time of Pearl Harbour which obviously was before Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Macdoc and Macspectrum,

I take your point about the extermination of the Native American people. I don't see it an act of imperialism so much as an act of aggressive expansion... which is just as bad or worse, but I don't think it necessarily supports your view that the US was an aggressive imperial power in 1941. After all, the story wasn't that different in Canada and no one has ever accused us of being an aggressive imperial power.

American imperialism at this time consisted primarily of acting as the self proclaimed policeman in South America, buying Alaska from the Russians and grabbing the Phillipines from Spain. The war with Mexico occured a century before Pearl Harbour and to my knowledge (and please correct me here if I am wrong) had nothing that could compare to the 'Rape of Nanking' for example.


----------



## iGeeK (Jan 27, 2003)

MacDoc wrote:

*No great life but part of the "duty to the laird" and they generally knew what they were fighting about.*

My point being that fighting for the laird, vs. fighting for the <del>corporations</del>, oops... I meant to say _democracy_, is not such a great (if any) improvement. 

We could use another Jacquerie.
In 1358, the French peasants said "Screw the lords. And screw their mercenaries". A little before its time, so it ended badly... We really should say "Screw the corporations. And screw the mercenary states they ride on." The time is now. We could start with Accenture.  

It is likely that some of the Middle Age lairds would be quite appaled with our modern atrocities. Whereas Vlad the Impaler would feel quite at home.


iG/<

[ July 15, 2004, 12:18 AM: Message edited by: iGeeK ]


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

MacDoc, 

So you're not going to answer my simple question? Why's that?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

FN
Empires go through life cycles. Expansion then consolidation and finally decline.
China currently is at a different phase of becoming a Superpower having been one from time to time over thepast several millenia.
Russia is in decline as an Empire, Britain and the Europeans are long past as individual nations, tho Europe as a whole coud easily be viewed as an emerging imperial power based on its economic union.

One could view some of the US activity in the world as a 'prevention" against the rise of another super power.

Just because the activities are shifted in time in no way removes the horror or the "bloody history" associated with expansion and consolidation of "spheres of influence". Sometimes direct acquisition gives way to "puppet state" creation and destabilization programs that are more covert than overt.
This was prevalent in the Cold War and I find it interesting now that without the modifying pressure of an offsetting super power the US has reverted to more overt "self interest" policies.
It's noticeably absent near China tho.
Japan, S Korea and Taiwan ( amongst others ) are buffer states for the US hegemony and the US walks softly for a number of reasons.

MacSpectrum and I disagree as to whether Russia has undergone the "sea change" away from a "militaristic" approach.

We agree the US has not.  

No easy answers but in my mind, and I think in the mind of many in the US and billions world wide, the current US approach is very dangerous and retrograde to world stability and peace.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

iGeek,

My point about civilians in the dark ages was that people were just rounder up, often by force, and thrown onto a battlefield. Even if conscription is enacted these days at least there is some training involved these days (in the US, anyway).

The problem arises from that long period of time (roughly from the 30 years war to roughly WW2, with a few exceptions) when wars were fought in fields, times and places agreed to, that sort of thing. It was easy to identify who was a viable target or not then; now it isn't.

If munitions factories are viable targets, even if the workers therein are civilians, what does that mean? It means that it's hard to decide who's a civilian, really. 

War is as much (possibly more) about logistics in this day and age as it is strategy, and it's a lot easier to take out supply lines and let a battalion go hungry than it is to attack the battalion itself.

If Germany had as many subs in 1940 as they did in 1942, they just might have won the war, or at least forced Britain to concede. They spent the entire time sinking military and supply ships, they just didn't have enough subs to carry it through.

Who's a civilian? The guy shooting the guns, or the guy delivering the guns, or the guy making them? What about the guy bringing food and equipment to the lines? why is killing and one of them less bad than killing any another?

Fink-Nottle,

What I said above pretty much answers your points, too. Would Iraq be better off is the US and Iraqi's met in the middle of the desert? Probably. It would have been over sooner, wouldn't it? But war hasn't worked like that for most of recorded history (with that ~300 year period being the main exception).

Macdoc,

I was interested in hearing the answer to jfpoole's question. Is starting a war over oil okay, or not? You don't have to approve, just answer.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

War does not determine who is right, merely who is left standing at the end.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

PB 
Obviously okay with the attacker
Unlikely okay with the one being attacked.
Completely vague and pointless question as phrased ....consider the source/context/intent.......same old puerile approach









Instead pose the phrase
*Is war likely to occur over natural resources and under what conditions might it be justifiable.*
and start a new thread about it. 
It does have some relevance here as the next 50 years may just see that scenario develop between the US and Canada.

More interesting to discuss in a question framed that way
*Canada versus Alberta* as that scenario is what Saddam claimed he was operating under.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*Obviously okay with the attacker
Unlikely okay with the one being attacked.*

Nice dodge.

*consider the source/context/intent.......same old puerile approach*

I guess if you're uncomfortable answering it might seem a little puerile.

*Completely vague and pointless question as phrased*

Really? Let's read it again.

<blockquote>"So, starting a war because of oil is okay?". I'm still awaiting an answer to that. A simple yes or no will suffice. 

If the answer is yes, then if the Iraq war was waged for oil then the US was justified in invading Iraq. If the answer is no, then just because the US cut off Japan's oil supplies doesn't mean Japan was justified in attacking Pearl Harbor.</blockquote>

Seems fairly specific, and pointed to me.

*Instead pose the phrase
Is war likely to occur over natural resources and under what conditions might it be justifiable.*

That's a completely different question. Easier to discuss? Maybe, but it still doesn't answer the question put to you right now.

*Canada versus Alberta as that scenario is what Saddam claimed he was operating under.*

Sorry, can you clarify what you mean by that?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The question is totally vague

"It's okay..........." OKAY WITH WHO!!!???? 
I thought you got out of that nonsense.
Talk about something meaningful.  
•••••

Canada versus Alberta.....Saddam.
Think about it for a minute....what did he claim he was doing in attacking Kuwait?

•••

Base discussions/questions like these on moral or ethical issues not inane attempts to "score points".









The world is not black and white, yes and no. It's confusing and illusory. What YOU see may NOT be what others percieve. Some things, most things need careful contemplation and examination from a variety of angles.










[ July 16, 2004, 10:19 PM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]


----------



## iGeeK (Jan 27, 2003)

PB wrote:

*Who's a civilian? The guy shooting the guns, or the guy delivering the guns, or the guy making them? What about the guy bringing food and equipment to the lines? why is killing and one of them less bad than killing any another?*

"Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset" 

"Kill them all. God will know His own." 

Kill them all, sorting out the civilians is just too dang complicated. And it *is* their hard luck being there.

OK, let's go with this. Why stop at the guy delivering the food? Why not just nuke the guy who is making the pizza, or the mother of the guy who is delivering the pizza. Pre-emptively? Then he won't be able to deliver the pizza and the troops will starve. It's all about logistics, right?

Why not just nuke the whole planet, eh? Wars are fought by the living. Once the living are not - no more wars, and no more complicated fussing about who is and who is not a civilian. 

Anyway, what are we arguing about here? Are you trying to get me to say that killing soldiers is equally as bad as killing the civilians (however we define them)?

Yes, it is. From a purely ethical standpoint, absolutely.

However, from the perspective of common sense, shooting at fully grown males in an Abrams tank, versus a teenager delivering Pizza to the Army in his Gremlin is just a teensy weensy little bit less evil.  

iG/<


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset
Kill them all. God will know His own."

I knew I heard that recently. The extermination of the Catars in Southern France   
on Ideas I think.

The concept of the "Perfects" was very interesting.

Anyways mostly off topic tho the toleration or lack there of of other viewpoints and cultures could be considered on point. I mean the US did assassinate it's first Catholic President.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

iGeek,

The merchant marine is hardly a pizza service, but it is put in combat zones running supplies, and it is a civilian service. Are they fair game, or not? Were german factory workers in WW2 fair game, or not?

I'm not taking about guys in tanks vs. kids on bikes, I'm talking about soldiers with guns vs. the guys who bring make them/bring them ammunition.

Macdoc,

When it was pointed out that Japan started the war in the Pacific with a sneak attack, you pointed out that America had cut off Japan's oil supply as if to prove the attack on Pearl Harbour was justified.

When speaking of the war in Iraq, it is often pointed out by some that America invaded Iraq to ensure a continuing supply of Oil as if to prove that the invasion was not justified.

Is oil a justifiable reason to start a war, or not? It's a simple question.

Regarding your Canada vs. Alberta comparison to Iraq vs. Kuwait, what are you talking about? Iraq invading Kuwait for a number of reasons, including but not limited to:

-Anger at Kuwait for raising oil production, which decreased prices, after the Iraq-Iran War (Iraq had cut production to drive up prices to attempt to pay off their war debt).
-Control of Kuwait oil fields/cancel one of their bigger war debts.
-Alleged Kuwait military build up on the Iraq border.
-Anger that other Arab nations wouldn't cancel their war debts.

How exactly does this fit into a Canada vs. Alberta paradigm? And what Canada vs. Alberta paradigm for that matter?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

PB
Will someone else please explain to PB why it's NOT a "simple question".
Stupid question, meaningless question. NOT a "simple question".

Canada - Alberta



> BACKGROUND KUWAIT: * Ottoman maps from the late 1800s showed Kuwait as part of the province of Basra in southern Iraq. * Kuwait had been ruled since 1756 by the al-Sabah tribe. That year, several tribes belonging to the Bani Utub confederation proclaimed the autonomous sheikhdom of "Kuwait" and appointed the head of the al-Sabah tribe as their chief. These peoples had migrated out of the central Arabian peninsula a century earlier to escape famine, settling along the shore of the Gulf and forming an alliance known as the "Unayza Confederation."
> 
> In 1899, Great Britain, seeking to protect her trade routes with India, signed a pact with Kuwait that established a British protectorate over the sheikhdom. In 1913, the border between Kuwait and Iraq was fixed in a treaty between the Ottoman Turks and the British, who, as "protectors" of Kuwait, signed the document on behalf of the al-Sabah sheikhs.
> 
> ...


http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/gulf_war.htm

Memories are long. Perceived "wrongs" from previous "meddling" seek to be righted.
Today's "friends, are tomorrow's villains.

Does Alberta have a "right to secede"? It's sitting on 40 Trillion dollars worth of oil after all.
Does Canada have a "right" to intervene even to the point of full nationalization.

The world is complex, not "simple".
No easy answers.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Posterboy wrote:
*Is oil a justifiable reason to start a war, or not? It's a simple question.* 

Macdoc wrote:
*Will someone else please explain to PB why it's NOT a "simple question".
Stupid question, meaningless question. NOT a "simple question". * 

I agree it's not a simple question... but nor is it a stupid or a meaningless one. For countries with modern economies oil is as necessary as blood to a human... if we suddenly lost our oil our society would grind to a halt. No transport, less electricity, no food delivered etc. For that reason, I suggest a similar question would be "Is it justifiable to steal food?'. If you are starving, then most people would probably say yes... otherwise no.

Looking at Japan, the oil embargo certainly threatened their empire and their military buildup but it is less clear that their survival was at threat. Indeed their economy at this time was shifting to one based on military needs at the expense of the rest of the population. The sneak attack on Pear Harbour was to ensure an oil supply for their military so they could keep and expand their empire. Justifiable for them... but not really morally justifiable, and that is what we're talking about here.

Likewise, the allies did not need to invade Iraq to ensure their oil supply, nor did they claim this as their rationale. The stated aims were to prevent use of a "weapon of mass destruction" and to overthrow an evil regime. The WMD's were never found in mass but I would argue that it was rational fear... Saddam had used chemical weapons, he had radio active material, and he had continually blocked the efforts of the inspectors. And no one can reasonably argue that this wasn't a very evil regime. My opinion then, is that the invasion was justified... although as I've detailed in previous threads, some terrible mistakes were made which have resulted in the current mess, and which will probably deservedly cost Bush, Rumsfeld and co. the election.

Cheers!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

As phrased.... it WAS stupid and meaningless especially asking for a yes/no answer.

You've put context around it which is exactly the point.
It's not simple.
It's complex and requires qualifiers and context.
It doesn't lend to a yes no/answer.
You get it.  

BTW what was in the image


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> The sneak attack on Pear Harbour was to ensure an oil supply for their military so they could keep and expand their empire. Justifiable for them... but not really morally justifiable, and that is what we're talking about here.


one small detail
the japanese ambassador was to serve a formal declaration of war to the U.S., but a technical decoding glitch prented him from doing so

even so, the declaration of war was timed to give the u.s. very little time to prepare


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"but not really morally justifiable"
ARE we talking about that??? 
Where was that introduced??
Or are we observing the dynamics of empires?
Whose morality? The Japanese Emperor was a divinity.
Who is the arbiter of it??
Was Japan making the "world safer for THEIR citizens"???  

No easy answers EVEN WHEN context is considered.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Excellent article in the Globe that points out the wide range of a "sense of morality and what actions it brings forth".

Interesting twist here with McVeigh. I really admire Gore Vidal.



> *Gore Vidal, 'Contrarian-in-Chief' *
> 
> At 79, his writing is more outrageous than ever, especially about the ruling 'junta' in the White House. Ever since the events of Sept. 11, CHRISTOPHER DREHER reports, the patrician man of letters has become a rock star among dissidents -- and a contemptible fool in the eyes of his critics
> 
> ...


more 

Orwell could easily have written that last line.  

Vidal has an amazing sense of historical forces. 
Interesting that he writes often from Italy as if being away from the US gives him perspective and perhaps viewing daily the "glory that WAS Rome" gives him a sense of the cycle of empire and where the US resides in that cycle.

At one time citizens cheered conquest over other peoples. Now ALMOST enough cry.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*Stupid question, meaningless question. NOT a "simple question". *

If you taken the time to think and answer as FN did, maybe you'd see that it is a simple question, though not really one with simple answers.

Is your reluctance to answer based on the question, or who it came from?

*Does Alberta have a "right to secede"? It's sitting on 40 Trillion dollars worth of oil after all.
Does Canada have a "right" to intervene even to the point of full nationalization.*

...

Do you honestly think that Alberta would secede?
Do you honestly think that Canada might nationalize everything in Alberta?
Do you honestly think that Canada/Alberta is a fair comparison to Iraq/Kuwait?

Where exactly are you trying to go with this?

*the allies did not need to invade Iraq to ensure their oil supply, nor did they claim this as their rationale*

No, but as soon as the war started (and indeed still) there were lots of people yelling "Georgie -boy went to Iraq for the OOOOOOIIIIIIILLLLL!!!!!", hence the question.

[ July 17, 2004, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: PosterBoy ]


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

*"but not really morally justifiable"
ARE we talking about that??? 
Where was that introduced??* 

I think that has been part of this thread from the beginning. I don't think we're commenting on American actions from the point of view of what they should be doing to increase and prolong their hegemony. Rather we are asking if their actions are justified morally... are they doing the right thing. 

*Who is the arbiter of it (morality)??* 
Us! Obviously it's highly subjective as our concepts of 'the right thing' all vary... but that also make the discussion interesting and rewarding. As you say, there are no easy answers, or as Oscar Wilde inimitably put it, "The truth is rarely pure, and never simple."

I continue to learn things here; I did not know that Japan had planned to formally declare war, as MACSPECTRUM wrote - interesting!


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*I did not know that Japan had planned to formally declare war*

They were also making what many consider to be overtures for surrender just before the A-Bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

FN You made a remark early I meant to quiz you on.

•• "but when working properly they accurately reflect the will of the majority of the people" ••

You made that in the context of interaction of soveriegn nations or imperial powers implying that a democratic "decision somehow is "better" than one made say by Japan ( which BTW was not a dictatorship in any manner )

Your comment would imply that if it's the "will of the people" then somehow acts of aggression or extra-territorial adventurism are more justifiable than if a dictator undertakes them.

I would suggest that Britain and many other "imperial" powers had strong support and even democratic support of their "people" - does that make the acts of empire building against peoples unable to resist any less reprehensible?

These questions all devolve back to the nature of sovereignity and the enormous need for a World level - Charter of Rights and Freedoms - that has an arbitor body to interpret conflicts between nations/peoples.

In my mind the unwillingness of the current US government to join in the World Court and other multi-lateral initiatives to bring about some sort of "rule of law" for the planet is the broad policy most dangerous to the rest of the world.

Even within Canada the boundaries of the Federation agreement between our regions, that in other parts of the world could easily be independent nation states, are far from clear.

When National interests - in particular vital ones - conflict with regional desires to what level and under what rules will the conflict be resolved.

The NEP was perhaps an early glimmer of what may come in the next 50 years within Canada, within North America, and world wide as resources dwindle and demand rises.

Fisheries is another "world fault line" that might suddenly create an earthqake as ocean resources are strained.

Does the "will of the people" of one sovereign nation override planetary long term interests??
Who's to decide??

The world needs a strong mulit-lateral body but that requires the full support of the major nation states.

I think the last 3 years have seen a most unfortunate step back from progress towards that goal.

Only Europe has really made progress with the EU and we'll see how that plays now there are more peoples involved. Cracks are showing there as well.
Scary time especially with a possible energy crunch in the making. We all need the guidelines and rules worked out beforehand.

Getting it right at home is a start


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Hi Macdoc,

Your post raises a number of big issues.

*Your comment would imply that if it's the "will of the people" then somehow acts of aggression or extra-territorial adventurism are more justifiable than if a dictator undertakes them.* 

I believe that democracy ensures (or should ensure) that actions of a country are authorized by its people and legitimate... not that they are necessarily the best actions. Certainly their are countless examples where democracies have got it wrong... the joyful rush into WWI being a good example.

As a side issue here, I'm very wary about using our own standards to judge past actions, such as empire building. I cling to an unfashionable Whiggish interpretation of history; I do believe that very broadly, we continue to advance and improve. I wonder how we may look to future generations; they may be shocked at how we treat our planet, how we waste resources, how we eat animals, how we kill unborn babies, how we put our children in front of television screens for hours on end etc. Who knows what we will learn and how that will change us.

*These questions all devolve back to the nature of sovereignity and the enormous need for a World level - Charter of Rights and Freedoms - that has an arbitor body to interpret conflicts between nations/peoples.* 

I actually hold the idealistic view that one day, not in my lifetime but perhaps in a century or two, we will have a global, democratic, government. I don't discount nationalism as a force (indeed I feel strong attachents personally to Canada and to England where I was born), or the many groups (multinationals etc. who benefit from the divisions) who would fight the move toward such a system. However, it only took the UK a century to move from a very limited suffrage to full suffrage and I see the planet as being in a similar state. American voters have the most power as their decisions affect the world; Canadians live in a wealthy nation so their vote counts for something, while people in much of Africa or parts of Asia don't really have a say at all on a global level. My moral judgment is that's not right, and first world paternalism will only salve the worst symptoms without curing the problem. To borrow a phrase, "One person, one vote!".

I'm less optimistic about Europe than you... as they come together they seem to be losing rather than gaining democracy. As for Canada, we seem to be stuck in an endless constitutional quagmire... which is a real pity as we are a dynamic, multicultural, post-modern nation (according to Richard Gwynn) which could be a great example for the rest of the planet.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I'm not 100% sure on "improved".
The blocks of activity get larger so what was an agglomeration of warring tribes and principalities in Germany and elsewhere solves most of their local differences and the scale becomes larger tho the issues much the same.

The world has shrunk - the blocks got huge in the Cold War now have fragmented a bit and the world still has not dealt with sovereignity and world judiciary except in a limited manner if a treaty nation is attacked.

I think it could go two ways, a world parliament/governance/judiciary with teeth or the growth of offsetting power blocs.
Quite frankly there are times when I think local governance works more efficiently for the greater number of people as those governed need to relate for values and culture to a high degree to trust their governing institutions.
I think Europe may be running into that - how relevant is the European parliament to day to day lives.

It's even an issue here in Canada.
That said the Charter gives Canada a strong foundation to build on and lets face it, country building and making a nation "better" and more responsive to it's citizens is a never ending process.

That's one concern I have that hard won progress in the US is being badly eroded. That is affecting other institutions and relations around the world.
Instead of a more open world, the barriers go up even internally.

I don't believe the larger part of the nations on the planet have the mechanisms of governance in place to hold a peaceful course in the resource crunch that is to come in the next few decades.

Even in Canada it will strain relations both east west and north south withour neighbors.
Not an easy time.
Good will and a strong sense of "spaceship earth" will be needed to get humanity through the population peak coming. I'm hoping most of our major fellow planet dwellers like the tigers and gorilla's amongst many others habitat threatened species also transit the human flood before it ebbs.
It looks better than it did 20 years ago, there IS a peak in sight after which the pressure will ease but that will be no easy journey.

Canada of all nations has the resources and perhaps the manner of governing in a multi-cultural manner to be a model and great help. We DO have our own issues but they seem so minor compared to the stress facing other parts of the globe.
It seems ludicrous some of the squabbles we find so important.

Can you imagine what it must be like in India - one province alone has 5 x the number of people as Canada in a space the size of Colorado  

Understanding and accommodating multiple and often conflicting priorities by the people's of the planet will be perhaps the most important task in the next few decades human civilization will EVER face.

If the population/resource peak gets transited with minimal damage then at least there is some breathing room and perhaps time and space to repair.

I am encouraged by some projects like cleaning up the Great Lakes, the rivers in Britain, the whales are less threatened, many populations are falling.
But we all need to think about and discuss the mechanisms by which we share resources that ARE limited and resolve disputes that ARE inevitable.

Taking cues from times when there were few humans is limited in value in dealing with the current situation.
I think Canada HAS shown the way. But it for sure ain't perfect and many inequities still exist here.
If WE can't resolve them or at least ameliorate them with all our space and wealth then pity the planet  

Should we for instance dam up Hudsons Bay so that a century from now North America is assured of adequate fresh water??

That's the kind of planetary engineering issues that ARE going to have to be discussed, answered and perhaps undertaken.
China already has one in place with the 3 Gorges dam. How many millions did that displace and what are teh long term consequences??
And that's just beginning phases of the kind of projects the world will have to consider.

No easy answers but perhaps we can get mechanisms established to make rational if hard choices with a minimum of violent conflict.
Kyoto is one.
Many many more to come.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Hi Macdoc,

Are we the only ones still here? 

I agree that local governments are generally more responsive to people... the trick is balancing that against the many issues (some of which you have raised) that can only be dealt with on a global level. Plus of course no problem can ever be addressed in isolation... it's easy for the first world to tell Brazil not to chop down the Amazon, after having already deforrested it's own patch of space.

I do see areas of hope too though. The level of recycling in Europe and even the UK seems to be quite ahead of us here, and certainly fuel prices there mean less is wasted. Serious money is also being spent in Europe on renewable energy... perhaps Dalton will follow suit here. And perhaps the Canadian Green party will one day vie to be in government... with fiscally responsible, environmentally sustainable and pragmatic policies. I might even vote for them myself.

Cheers!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> I do see areas of hope too though. The level of recycling in Europe and even the UK seems to be quite ahead of us here, and certainly fuel prices there mean less is wasted. Serious money is also being spent in Europe on renewable energy


as long as gasoline prices in north america are "reasonable" enough that consumers don't start migrating en masse to vehicles that give better gas mileage, the auto makers and petro corps have no reason to change
and now that Iraq (and its huge oil reserves) have been "liberated," why should anything change?

monster SUVs and Hummers are still selling well

Canada and the U.S. have been blessed with large land masses and therefore garbage can still be dumped somewhere

North American culture does not lend itself well to conserving, but rather to consuming


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Mississauga diverts just under 50% of it's waste to recycle - visitors from other areas are always surprised at what gets recycled in this area.

I do think Europe is ahead in many "socially responsible" areas - while I dislike the "dim corridors" of it's hotels etc I understand why. I am getting far more used to low light levels at home.

MacS is correct that energy prices being so low does not encourage conservation.
If Europe and China bcome more "efficient" societies making greater use of dwindling or scarce resources then NA loses out in a world perspective in the long term as we won't have the skills or structures to deal with shortages effectively and our "large spaces" work against us.
Already the cost of transport is often a higher cost han the margin obtainable on an item. It plays a huge role in determining price levels and viability.

We HAVE a reasonable safety net for our citizens when shocks arise - there is little of that to the south of us - the gap is much wider there and the consumption levels much higher.
It's a looming crisis that I'm afraid the methods and the will ( in the US ) to deal with peaceably are lacking.
Even now the US often refutes WTO rulings and other multi-lateral initiatives.
What happens when things get more critical than "soft wood" arguments.

That's one reason I admire Canada's approach and support for world wide, mulitlateral organizations. Ultimately its our only safeguard.
Just as we have transfer payments within our Canadian federation the world is working towards a better balance of have and have not to avoid the conflict and violence that so often arises out great disparity in wealth or resource.

I find it interesting that Japan has gained by trade and aid and commerce what it could not by force of arms.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Regarding resource conflict. This is exactly the kind of rational structure for sharing that the world will need to model over the coming years. From today's Globe.



> Stemming the flow from the Great Lakes
> 
> *Ontario, Quebec and eight U.S. states develop pact to restrict water exports*
> 
> ...


If it's tight now with 20% of ALL THE WORLD's FRESH WATER  what will the next 50 years bring as resource demand goes up.

The sky might not be falling........yet. But even in the most generous of areas the threat of shortages is very real and mechanisms are being developed to deal with increasing stress on them.

this was 10 years ago in Central Asia - the situation is far worse today

Central Asia Syr Darya River Basin 



> Thee Farghona Valley includes the densely populated oblasts of Osh and DjalalAbad in Kyrgyzstan, which specialize in small?scale horticultural products, and in fruit and tobacco crops. In addition, the valley encompasses the even more densely populated eastern portion of Uzbekistan, which primarily specializes in the production of cotton. As a result, the Farghona Valley represents an important agricultural region for both Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. Its dense population also makes the valley a focal point of concern for national leaders as political or social unrest in this region could result in serious consequences.* In 1989, a number of violent conflicts broke out in the Farghona Valley, which were blamed on interethnic competition over scarce resources. *These conflicts erupted in Osh, between Kyrgyz and Uzbeks; in the Farghona region of Uzbekistan, between ethnic Uzbeks and Meskhetian Turks, and in a small Tajik enclave in Kyrgyzstan, between Kyrgyz and Tajiks. In each case, the result was widespread loss of life, damage to property, and whole?scale migration of peoples


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3077422.stm 



> Kazakhstan's glaciers 'melting fast'
> By Alex Kirby
> BBC News Online environment correspondent
> 
> ...


hmmm a chunk of sky hitting perhaps. ....naaaah it's a whole world away, nothing to be concerned about.








50% more people, dwindling resources and a an elephant down south with an insatiable apetite.

Cue Disney's "Song of the South"

Zip-a-dee-doo-dah, zip-a-dee-ay








My, oh my what a wonderful day!
Plenty of sunshine heading my way
Zip-a-dee-doo-dah, zip-a-dee-ay

Mister Bluebird on my shoulder
*It's the truth, it's actch'll
Ev'rything is satisfactch'll
Zip-a-dee-doo-dah, zip-a-dee-ay
Wonderful feeling, wonderful day!*


----------



## LGBaker (Apr 15, 2002)

Macdoc - 'tis great to read that the Great Lakes have protection. I hope this will not increase the pressure to grab BC rivers.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Hey LGB glad to see you around.

You bring up a good point as shared resources in the BC/Washington area is a real knotty issue as it is with Mexico/US on the Southern border.

Then there's the Ogallala aquifer brawl that's been going on for a a century or two.
This article is hilarious on a number of levels even tho the subject is dire.


> *High noon at the Ogallala aquifer *
> 
> How a water-grabbing scheme concocted by T. Boone Pickens is turning conservative Texans into a bunch of regulation-loving liberals.


http://dir.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/02/01/water_texas/index.html

The wrestling over resources is not new but the scale is. 

I've actually considered buying a small lake in the north somewhere. Sort of like betting on a quarter section in Texas a few centuries back. 'Course they were giving it away then.


----------

