BS: Where are the WMDs?

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 10:02 PM

L.H.

Bush don't know any real Christains so who ever he's sending youn can bet are nothing more that wolves.........

Speaking of which, I'd give anything to witness Bush's plaedings at the Pearly Gate. "Ahhh, Pete, I killed all them folks for you, and Jesus and God and the Holy Spirit! I swear I did!".

One thing nice about knowing that in this life and beyond my spirit will not have have to share any space with the likes of George Bush. This man is spiritually bankrupt. And so are *all* those who follow him.

This ain't negotiable.

You're either for mankind or against it. Ain't no middle ground here!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Mr Happy
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 03:31 AM

'Teribus asked:
Mr Happy,

Why would stuff have to be planted?

Because Mr. Happy wants to believe in conspiracy theory.

Dave Oesterreich'

dave,

from perusal of many of the foregoing post, it seems like i'm not alone in my 'delusion' of   'conspiracy theory', or of the cynical means that powerful groups will employ to gain their means to an end.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 09:10 AM

Surely the real "conspiracy theory" was that Saddam Hussein had all these weapons he was holding in reserve and planning to pass out to terrorists around the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: mg
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 04:11 PM

Bobert...you come across as downright mean. You have no way of knowing who is going to make it through the pearly gates and who isn't. You are not the final answer on religion, morality, etc. You are one of many people, probably each of whom thinks they are totally right. You're no more totally right than I am or George Bush. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Walking Eagle
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 05:29 PM

Over 200 posts here folks. Keep in mind that, for us, almost everything posted is pure SPECULATION on our part. A newspapaer wrote this or a reporter said that. So, our opinions are worth exactly the same as any others.

What matters to me in this whole mess is trust. I feel my govt. lied to me in saying that Weapons of MAss Distrucion was one of the reasons we needed to go to war. Now, this reason seems to have fallen by the wayside. It matters to me that I was lied to and that our Representatives and Senators voted for this war on mostly false premisses.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: TIA
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 06:00 PM

Bingo Walking Eagle! The best argument for the war (in my opinion) is that we MAY have improved the lot of many Iraqis -- and despite the right wings proclamations of success and calls for apologies from anti-war folks, I believe the jury will be out on that for months if not years. All the other reasons we've been given for the war seem to be pure fabricated hooey. Even IF it turns out in months or years that we did in fact do some good, are we comfortable having been tricked into it? Should we be happy to live in a country where our leaders intentionally mislead us so that we can be led like cattle?

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: GUEST,comical ali
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 08:38 PM

hey did you see those huge swords at the entrance to baghdad
bet you could take a few heads off with those wmds.
-that saddam had attempted to acquire wmds is no secret, The Nuclear Reactor in baghdad -
I find it very hard to believe that he would give up seeking to acquire them.)
Khadir Hamza , a former head of the Iraqi Nuclear Weapons program
(who had defected to the west in 91) said he is absolutely certain they will be found. why else did they give UNscom the runaround, and refuse to interview
scientist outside Iraq.?

its funny how some people want to have it both ways, stating that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction, while arguing against the war in case they be used.

by the way the Japanese used bio weapons in China, in WWII - and
the Americans used them against the Indians - in the French Indian wars
by giving the Indians small silver jars to take back to their villages - and open them when they get back.
(they contained small cuttings of small pox infected blankets, put together by soldiers who had recovered from smallpox- and were immune)

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 10:44 PM

Possible Final Ree-Port on Pepe:

Wal, we hev completely dee-molished Pepe's former residence, the adobe hut, and kilt a fair number of wetbacks who most likely was in his gang or were sympathizers of his'n. We ain't found the danged rifle, but who cares? The important thing is, all them Mexicans now understand whut it means ta git in the way of Ranch Dee-velopment and the Winnin' of thuh Middle East. We are gonna improve the lot of the survivin' Mex's by employin' them to keep an eye on each other, and work as house servants and thet sort of thing. They are good at thet, and you kin pay 'em next to nuthin' fer doin' it too.

Pepe has disappeared like frost on a hot summer day. Vamoosed. Skeedaddled. We figger thet maybe the Arapahoes up on thuh Syrian Reserve done took him in, so we figgers to git t'gether a real big buncha cowboys and teach them Injuns a lesson they won't fergit...real soon! That's if'n they don't fall inta line fast, and cooperate fully with our lee-jitimate dee-mands, which hev been itemized on a 50-page document which Ah will not bore you with the dee-tails.

If'n we do find Pepe Ah will be sure ta let y'all know, but hell, he ain't no more important now than a flea on a donkey's ass. He is yesterday's news. Ah'm kinda goin' ta miss ol' Pepe...

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Apr 03 - 08:35 AM

A fitting expression I came across in an article today, which sums it up rather well: "If the Iraqis got freedom and if they end up pleased with it, that was only accidental collateral good, alongside the collateral damage."

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Troll
Date: 16 Apr 03 - 02:35 PM

All the anti-war crowd were screaming at the Administration to give the inspectors a few more months; that the inspectors hadn't had enough time to do their job.
We have been in Iraq less than a month, our army has spent most of that time fighting, but all we hear from the anti-war bunch is, "Why haven't they found the WMD'S yet? Because there aren't any!" or "Now they'll say they've been moved to Syria." and on and on and on.
What a bunch of hypocrits!
" Give the inspectors more time." We know they won't find anything.
"OK, you're there. Where are they?" Oh G-d. What if they find something.
I know. We can claim they were planted.
Yeah. I think 'hypocrits' is the right term.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Gareth
Date: 16 Apr 03 - 03:05 PM

I don't know why your surprised Troll, this "anti-war" protest seems to have been driven more by hatred of Bush and Blair than any concern for peace, or the rights and justices of the Iraqui people.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Apr 03 - 03:57 PM

troll, I have asserted all along that any country which is being menaced and attacked on a regular basis by certain larger countries has every right to build and have ANY weapons of mass destruction...just not the right to pre-emptively use them on others.

And I regard the WMD issue to be a complete red herring, which has taken various people in, you included. It didn't matter whether or not Iraq had such weapons, they were effectively almost helpless against their opposition.

Therefore, I hardly care whether they find any WMD's or not. It makes no friggin' difference.

Pakistan & India obviously feel they have a right to have weapons of mass destruction. So does Israel (but they have them secretly...or unofficially, you might say). So does anyone out there.

This is a case of a big criminal gang with oh, 500 tommy guns and hit men complaining about one little guy across the street (whom they intend to kill at the first good opportunity) maybe having a pistol hidden somewhere in his house!

It's so fucking outrageous that it's almost beyond belief.

Therefore, I assert that the hypocrisy being displayed around this issue has its larger share on your side of the argument, though it's not all there, of course.

You're just enjoying yourself scoring petty points, that's all. That's what people do when their ego is engaged. You do it, I do it, everybody does it.

Sober up and get real. WMD's were never the real reason for this war.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 16 Apr 03 - 04:50 PM

The beat goes on -

There are two problems with accepting hypochrisy, platitudes and demagoguery when they can score your side a debating point. 1.The debate quickly degenerates and 2.You inevitably end up getting bit on the rhetorical ass. There can never be common ground if neither side is willing to enter honestly into a dialogue over real issues, presenting cogent arguments supported by verifiable facts.

Just throw a bunch of blather up against the same wall to see what sticks. It's all a bunch of talk. It solves nothing and it means nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Apr 03 - 05:13 PM

True enough, Bartholomew...but it's so irresistible to the lively and fully engaged ego.

Oooo! Got 'im with that zinger! Oooo! Betcha he crawls off and licks his wounds now! Man, I am SOOOO right, and he is SOOO lame.

Great fun for idle and opinionated minds.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: TIA
Date: 16 Apr 03 - 05:20 PM

I may be dense, but I don't see the hypocrisy. Asking to give the inspectors more time doesn't necessarily imply a belief either that they are there or not. It advocates a particular method of finding out.

Invading with the stated purpose of getting rid of them certainly does imply a belief in their existence, so whether they are found or not is important in evaluating on of the justifications for the invasion.

They haven't been found yet. They might still be found. It's all speculation now, but (with all due respect to those who feel it's a meaningless issue), I think the ultimate result is very improtant.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Apr 03 - 05:43 PM

My opposition to this war was not "driven more by hatred of Bush and Blair than any concern for peace, or the rights and justices of the Iraqi people", and nor is that true of anyone I know. And I do not believe that we are untypical.

I suppose saying we were "driven more by hatred of Bush and Blair than any concern for peace, or the rights and justices of the Iraqi people" makes a change from saying that we were "useful idiots" (a charge which can be laid against anyone who is taken in by the lies of people they would wish to admire, and if the cap fits...)

And Troll the difference between now and when the inspections were being carried out, is that there is a crucial bit of fresh evidence. We know that Iraqis invaded and Saddam's reguime destroyed, and there was not a single example of any of these Weapons of Mass Destruction being used. That cannot easily be dismissed.

The reason we were given for this war being necessary was to get rif of these weapons, not to get rid if Saddam's regime - we were told that if that happened, it would be a lucky by-product.

In Polly Toynbee's words in today's Guardian which I quoted earlier in this thread: ""If the Iraqis got freedom and if they end up pleased with it, that was only accidental collateral good, alongside the collateral damage."

Yes, it's good that Saddam isn't there any more. But that isn't the only thing that this war has achieved, and some of the results already are not at all pleasant.

However one thing it has not achieved so far is the one thing it ostensibly set out to achieve.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Apr 03 - 06:04 PM

Yes, because that was not the real reason for the war. Dead simple.

Lies are believed if they are repeated often enough. Half the people in the USA seem to believe Saddam was somehow responsible for 9/11, for example. You want a lie to be believed? Just imply it, suggest it, and keep suggesting it until it is believed by people who are too busy or lazy to bother actually informing themselves about much.

Some Arabs were happy when the WTC towers were hit. Yeah...so? Some Americans are happy whenever the US Air Force bombs hell out of an Arab city, and destroys its palaces and government buildings, etc...

Tell me what the difference is?

Does the happiness of some people at the discomfort of their supposed enemy justify launching a retaliatory war on those people and devastating a whole country? No, it does not.

It just leads to further trouble farther on down the road.

And Saddam? He could never have become what he did without massive American assistance...when they thought they needed him as a bulwark against Islamic fundamentalist, Shiites, and Iran. He became a "made-in-America" dictator, like so many others...and then he fell out of favor...like a good many others.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Walking Eagle
Date: 16 Apr 03 - 07:40 PM

---Ahem---(clearing her throat). Just a gentle reminder, folks, that all we are doing is speculating. No sense in getting all 'het' up over speculation. Save that for things that are proven, like the need for medical assistance in Iraq. So with that in mind, I intend to make a small monetary contribution to legitimate aid agencies. Just a gentle suggestion (@:->) that you kind folks think about doing likewise.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Apr 03 - 09:19 PM

"In the long run, the greatest weapon of mass destruction is stupidity."

Thomas Sowell

No shortage of that ""weapon on this forum. They have discovered a bio-chemical lab (portable) buried near an amunition storage area.
Dozens of locations have not even been investigated yet, and you people are waffling about not finding them? When they are found, you will start accusing the CIA of planting them in country too!

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Troll
Date: 16 Apr 03 - 11:14 PM

My point exactly. It's easy to dismiss someones argument by saying that he is only trying to make petty points to satisfy his ego. So much easier than addressing the question.
So I'll try again.
Why is it NOT OK that the Military has not found any WMDs yet, having been in country for a month, when it WAS ok to give the Inspectors "several months more" to try to find the said WMDs.
L.H. all the flummery about your feelings on the possession of WMDs is irrelevant to the question at hand. If you weren't going to address it, why did you get involved?
Kevin, you said,"And Troll the difference between now and when the inspections were being carried out, is that there is a crucial bit of fresh
evidence. We know that Iraqis invaded and Saddam's reguime destroyed, and there was not a single example of any of
these Weapons of Mass Destruction being used. That cannot easily be dismissed."
It is the 4easiest thing in the world to dismiss. Saddam Hussein was caught between a rock and a hard place. If on the one hand, he used WMDs to oppose the Coalition, he would be admitting to the world that the war was justified.
If on the other hand, he did >I?not he would be throwing away his only chance for a possible victory or at least a truce.
I think, personally, that his plan was to use them only as a last resort and then he was either killed or put out of commission in some way so that the necessary commands could not be given.
L.H., I assume that you can furnish definitive proof of this statement."Yes, because that was not the real reason for the war. Dead simple."
If you cannot, then it is idle speculation on your part and should be labeled as such.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 12:16 AM

We are all indulging in idle speculation, troll. That is what the general public does when they discuss politics. The information we look up and quote can easily be dismissed and discounted by people of a different opinion for a variety of reasons...if they want to dismiss it. They can either deny it, question it, or say it's not relevant to the point.

We are all unable to provide what you term "definitive proof", because the very sources we get the info from may themselves be tainted, and may be lying either directly or be omission.

What it comes down to is simple: You happen to trust Big Brother (in the USA), and I don't. I am a philosophical revolutionary, and you're a loyalist of the SySStem...which you believe in, and which I don't.

In 1776 that would probably have made me an American revolutionary and you a British Empire loyalist, and you would have lost out. Maybe you will win out this time. We'll see.

One thing, though. I am never afraid to point out and even laugh at my own ego when I see it influencing what I say. I point out other's weaknesses in this respect, and I do not deny my own weaknesses in this respect. I think it's quite funny, in fact, how we all twist around like eels trying to score points on our opponents.

You oughta try some self-observation too. It's an eye-opener.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: stevetheORC
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 10:21 AM

Pst wanna buy a second hand nuke?? 1 carefull owner!!!

De Orc

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 10:28 AM

No...but I would be interested in a Nigel Tufnel poster if you can find one for me.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 10:46 AM

The reason people will tend not to trust anything the US and the UK find or report in this is because they have a strong interest in finding this stuff in order to justify the assertions made before the war. Assertions which could well have been believed in some cases, even if they do turn out to have been unfounded.

It doesn't matter whether people here believe it or not. The point is, the people who need to be convinced won't believe it. Including people who would in fact very much prefer to believe that there is real evidence, and that it hasn't been faked.

That isn't paranoia, it's being real. Governments tell lies when it suits them, they always have. All governments.

As has been pointed out, it's all speculation, and we shouldn't get too personally involved about it or heated against each other.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: stevetheORC
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 11:43 AM

Nukes are easier to find

De Orc

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 12:34 PM

Yeah, but they're less inspiring...

I can gaze at a Nigel Tufnel poster for hours, and always find something new in it. Nigel is DEEP. He's a visionary.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: stevetheORC
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 12:59 PM

But Nukes blow your mind

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 07:22 PM

Comical Guest quote:"
the Americans used them against the Indians - in the French Indian wars by giving the Indians small silver jars to take back to their villages - and open them when they get back.(they contained small cuttings of small pox infected blankets, put together by soldiers who had recovered from smallpox- and were immune) "

Goooogle/Lord Amherst

"The new Governor General saw no reason to continue the French practice of allying with the native people. He dispensed of the practice of giving natives presents to ensure their loyalty. His "get tough with Indians" policy insulted and angered the native people.
Many, in turn, united under Pontiac and captured several British forts in 1763.

In letters to his subordinate officers, (Lord) Amherst suggested they "inoculate the Indians by means of [smallpox infested] blankets." Several officers followed his suggestion, which resulted in smallpox epidemics among some native communities...

Amherst returned to England in 1763. He was appointed to the British Privy Council in 1772; four years later he was created Baron Amherst. "

He warn't Uhmurrican.

Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Gareth
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 07:34 PM

A thought ? Were the first caucasion settlers in the US of A refugees from Political persecution ???

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Alba
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 07:55 PM

I thought that Religous freedom was the reason the first settlers came to America. The Puritans.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Walking Eagle
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 08:41 PM

We should have known you guys were trouble when you came here from the git-go and let you starve instead of showing you how to survive! (@;->)

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Alba
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 08:54 PM

heehee Walking Eagle;>)

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Troll
Date: 17 Apr 03 - 09:26 PM

One of the things that I learned while I was locked up on a mental ward was how to look at myself with relative honesty.
I have few illusions about myself, Little Hawk, and even fewer about other people. And I have no illusions about any political or philosophical system. They are all build on a foundation that says basically, I can get it for you for free.
TANSTAAFL

troll

TANSTAAFL? There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Apr 03 - 01:01 AM

Well, of course there's no such thing as a free lunch...unless one is an infant or a child, in which case there is.

The reason I have high social ideals, and confidence that they are acheivable is that I have seen small societies where it is not as you say...they were most definitely NOT founded upon the principle that says "I can get if for you for free". On the contrary, they were founded on these principles:

a) nothing worthwhile comes without effort, and everyone is expected to contribute toward that effort according to their own strengths and abilities, if they expect to share in the rewards (exceptions: infants and small children, very old people, and people who are unable to because of illness...they will be assisted by the others)

b) everyone shares equally in the material rewards accrued through those efforts. That is, we all eat equally good food, we all live in equally good circumstances, we all share the enjoyable and interesting aspects of the community in an equal fashion. (This doesn't make us automatically equal to each other. Everyone is unique. But it does give us equal access to the material benefits of community life.)

c) As for non-material rewards (love, respect, friendship, prestige, and so on) those will obviously accrue most to those who do the most to earn such rewards. That is, those who give love are likely to receive it in return. Those who are courageous and helpful and effective are likely to be highly respected, and so on. This is self-evident, and needs no enforcement of rules to make it happen.

d) everyone cares for everyone else with the same concern they would show for themselves. (the golden rule: do not inflict upon others what you would not wish to have inflicted upon you, extend the sort of kindness and good conduct toward others that you would wish to receive)

Not only is it possible for people to rise to such ideals, I've seen it accomplished beautifully within effective communities that had wise and mature leadership setting a good example. These are essentially the values that were demonstrated in many Native American tribal groups, although I don't wish to imply that Indians were "perfect" in their behaviour...they were not. But they had a far more egalitarian society than did the Europeans.

The groups I have seen which did exemplify what I'm talking about were groups who had united around a coherent spiritual ideal. That ideal did not need to be confined to a particular religion. In fact, I find that true brotherhood is only found among people who respect and can integrate all religions in a non-judgmental fashion, and there ARE such people. I'm one of them.

I realize that regular mainstream society is not capable of fully reaching such a level of brotherhood/sisterhood at this point...cos there are too many factors working against it...BUT...regular society is capable of gradually moving toward such an ideal bit by bit.

And that is what I am arguing for. Not an overnight transformation, but a few steps in the right direction...instead of perpetuating fear, division, inequality, and the worship of money above all else in life.

I agree that most political parties (and thereby most political systems) DO say to the voters: "I can get it for you for free."

They are lying when they say that. People should not be so foolish as to vote for liars.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Apr 03 - 06:31 AM

It seems to me that there are a lot of powerful people who seem to get free lunches at our expense all the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Apr 03 - 12:41 PM

Yup. That's what happens in a $ySStem created of the elite, by the elite, for the elite. It's planned inequality...achieved through money, propaganda, and control from the top by the guys who get the free lunches. I note that they often get fat and unhealthy, live miserable family lives, and die in the end just the way the rest of us do...unprotected from mortality by their stolen wealth.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Apr 03 - 12:56 PM

Well I suppose you could call that the price they pay for the "free lunch.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Troll
Date: 18 Apr 03 - 03:50 PM

The problem is that these utopian systems only work in small societies. As soon as the society gets any size on it, it breaks down. Which do you suggest to whittle the numbers down to a size where your ideas would work, LH.
A hot war or a bloody plague?
Or maybe we could just drug everyone and brainwash them.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Apr 03 - 04:04 PM

Most people actually live their lives in small societies, it's just we get the illusion that we live in a big society, rather than alongside an aggregation of small societies, because we pay so much attention to all the noise from those other small societies.

The number of people we actually seriously interact with in our lives is probably no greater than it would have been in stone age times. Very likely it's smaller.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 18 Apr 03 - 04:21 PM

McGrath-We may interact with fewer people than we would have in the Neolithic, after towns start cropping up, but we certainly interact with more people than a foraging group, which is pretty much the only society which can exist for long periods of time and still be egalitarian. Once you become sedentary, wealth can accrue, and there goes the neighborhood.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Apr 03 - 04:32 PM

Actually I suspect that the numbers of people we interact with in any serious way may well not be that much more than would have been the case in hunter gatherer times. A couple of score maybe.

And my understanding is that predominantly egalitarian societies have been quite common in Neolithic cultures, and in cultures with more developed technology than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 18 Apr 03 - 04:50 PM

McGrath- A couple score might be four times that in a foraging band, which I think might be a significant difference. My understanding, from the Rise of Civilization class that I am currently in, is that most societies cease to be egalitarian almost immediately upon gaining the ability to hoard wealth. While stored food is not enough, any kind of access to precious materials allows for the concentration of wealth. Only in the Indus Valley, as far as modern archaelogists know, did a complex society arise that presents no evidence of social stratification. Everywhere else, a social elite arose when it became possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Apr 03 - 05:14 PM

Depends on the hunter gatherer society. And again it depends on how much social stratification you're talking about, egalitarian needn't mean absolutely dead level.

For a glimpse of an essentially stone-age and egalitarian community in 20th Century Europe, it's worth reading Maurice O'Sullivan's "Twenty Years A-Growing"

The thread is drifting rather a long way...

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 18 Apr 03 - 05:26 PM

This thread should make good fodder for some enterprising graduate student some day. Hope we've covered all the bases, and the debases.

I do think the Bush Administration (and its coalition partners) has an obligation to come up with the proof of Iraq's possession of WMD's. That allegation was presented as a major justification for war. When they do come up with something, and I expect them to find something more than an old Pre-1991 dump, then they would be wise to invite the UN inspection team to go over their discoveries.

So did you hear about the brilliant Coalition work in guarding the Iraqi Ministry of Public Health? Apparently the place was entirely trashed by looters, releasing lab animals and pathegons to the outside, spilling all kinds of chemical soups around the labs, destroying records and lab equipment. What a sorry mess! Now the whole complex is one biomedical dump...

And did you see the aerial view of the dramatic taking down of the Saddam statue in the square in Baghdad, panned back far enough so you could clearly see that no more than 100 people were involved (recruited more likely), the rest of the square being empty except for strategically placed M-1 tanks? Great video but it's insulting to see how blatently the Bush Admnistration's PR team operates.

It's probably time to attempt to start a more focused thread, although this has been the most interesting one I've found, and that despite the less than courteous postings. Good thing we don't have access to WMD's that we can post.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Apr 03 - 05:42 PM

Now, troll, don't let your desire to win debates lead you into silly statements like "Which do you suggest to whittle the numbers down to a size where your ideas would work, LH.
A hot war or a bloody plague?
Or maybe we could just drug everyone and brainwash them."

No, I do not recommend those alternatives, and never have. I am in favour of freedom, didn't you know? It is the existing $ySStem which drugs and brainwashes people every day of their lives, through commercial advertising, and the marketing of addictive substances and habits without regard to the harm done in the process.

What I recommend is: a great deal more local self-sufficiency in society, and a great deal more local autonomy...coupled with a centralized, consistent and coherent body of legal protections on an equal basis for all citizens.

The latter is exactly what normally already exists in a democratic country, by virtue of its Constitution and Bill of Rights (as in the case of Canada or the USA, for example). A centralized legal system guarantees the normal rights and obligations of the citizenry, through the action of the police, the courts, the bylaws, etc.

What we LACK desperately is more local autonomy in an economic and cultural sense. We lack local small industries owned by local people, local food production adequate to meet local needs, local artistic outlets, locally managed media, and so on. With locally empowered communities, not so dependent on giant multinationals, you have a far more democratic and flexible situation and you are not so dependent upon distant power structures.

So, you see, I am in favour of small scale capitalism. Very much so. I am opposed to mega-scale corporate capitalism, just as I am opposed to mega-scale Communist management of the economy and the arena of goods and services. They both lead to a loss of local autonomy, and situations where the right hand doesn't know (or even care) what the left hand is doing.

And my personal solution to the present situation is simply to: network with people who share my ideas in a useful manner...and if I find a group who share my ideals, to work with them as much as I can. There are such groups. I don't expect YOU to live like I do, nor will I interfere with you if you don't wish to.

Beats hell out of sitting there and saying: "That's just the way it is, and I can't change it, and anyone who disagrees with me is either a fool or a Communist of some kind."

I don't get the impression you're really even trying to think out what I'm saying most of the time.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Apr 03 - 06:23 PM

What Little Hawk wrote there reminded me of this:

How would you feel if you discovered that the society in which you would really like to live was already here, apart from a few little, local difficulties like exploitation, was, dictatorship and starvation?

The argument of this book is that an anarchist society, a society wich organises itself without authority, is always in existence, like a seed beneath the snow, buried underr the weight of teh state and its bureucracy, capitalism and its waste, privilege and its injustices, nationalism andit suicidal loyalties, religious differences and their superstitious separatism.

That's the opening of an excellent book called "Anarchy in Action" by the English writer Colin Ward - it's out of print, but here's a link to a longer extract and some biographical details. Such as the fact that "Colin Ward was converted to anarchism while serving in the armed forces during World War II".

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Apr 03 - 07:50 PM

Beautiful point, McGrath! That is the crux of the matter. Most people are inclined to be cooperative and law-abiding most of the time, regardless of the existing apparatus of the state or the law...or the lack thereof.

It's a few bad apples who spoil the barrel and make everyone's life somewhat insecure...just as in school it's a few bullies who make life miserable for a lot of other people.

In recent days, I have heard numerous Iraqui witnesses to the looting who said that it is about 5% of the population who are responsible for most of the looting and violence. That is typical.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Troll
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 12:30 AM

LH, just because I don't agree, doesn't mean that I don't listen. The problem, as I see it, is that there is little or no local autonomy because the locals gave it up; they exchanged freedom for security. They allowed the central Govt. to take over things that THEY should have been doing, generally in an effort to save money which they then spent on grandiose projects that served little useful function. No more money and now the Fed administers your utilities.
Of course you can have small groups within any large group but it becomes increasingly difficult in a technologically advanced society to kep those small groups even moderately discreet. There must, of course, be some inter-group contact, but if members owe fealty to more than one group, all sorts of conflicts crop up.
While I don't like large corporations much myself -havibg worked for on for 26 years- I can see where they do have some value. Would we have computers and the internet without companies like Microsoft and IBM? I don't think so. While small-time capitalism is good, how do you keep a Carnagie or a Perot or a Gates from expanding his holdings and forming a monopoly. It takes a strong central Govt. to do that and there goes your local autonomy down the tubes.
I think that you and I probably want the same things in the end, but disagree as to the means.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 08:09 PM

The modern technology works both ways. In fact all kinds of things that pushed us into a mass society way of doing things - capitalist mass society or socialist mass society, scratch them and beneath the skin there's an awful lot of unpleasnt similarities - cease to be such big problems with a bit of modern technology.

Whether Microsoft and IBM actually were cricial in kickstarting the internet - well that may be true, though I know a lot of people would challenge it, but they sure as hell aren't necessary now we've got it.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Apr 03 - 10:56 PM

Yeah, troll...but here's an interesting thing. I believe in both a strong central government AND more local autonomy. It's just a question of what the locals have autonomy over, that's all. I'm suggesting that the central government manage things which have to do with overall public security (like the legal system, the monetary system, part of the media and transportation system (but not all of them!), the military defence forces, part of the law enforcment system (but not all of it), part of the educational system (but not all of it), medical insurance for people who get ill, and so on.

I'm suggesting more local, capitalist autonomy in: farming, manufacturing, entertainment, civic and local levels of government, shopping outlets, restaurants, and so on. I'm suggesting, yes, that a strong central government pass legislation to help prevent huge monopolies and assist local small businesses.

I think it was a beautiful thing when there were many small unique companies making automobiles, for instance. There are now effectively 4 major auto manufacturers in the USA and they swallowed up all the ones that once were there before them, and I suspect that behind the scenes they are fixing prices to a great extent and doing other things that are to the detriment of a truly free market.

I think it was a beautiful thing when there were many local farmers supplying local produce, but it has become harder and harder for them to compete effectively with Agri-business, which is rather similar to Stalinist collective farms in its effect.

This is what I'm thinking along the lines of.

I don't think it's really Big Government that IS your main enemy...I think it's Big Business which is actually controlling the government in the USA today. They do it by financing campaigns and lobbying (bribing) the politicians. Government has become the handmaiden of mere commerce...and that means the destruction of the social ideals on which America was founded. Commerce has nothing to do with either freedom or justice...it has to do with control.

- LH