Big Kahunas

Geoffrey Barnes wrote:


"Frank" wrote in message
...
Perhaps so, but what he did was show it _could_ work, and at great risk
to himself. Certainly nothing to hold in comtempt. And the lessons have
been used elsewhere. Romania comes to mind, certainly Ceacesceu (sp?)
wasn't much interested in world opinion.

Did you see what they did to Ceacesceu and his wife? That wasn't exactly
Ghandi-esque, and it certainly doesn't qualify as "non-violent".

I did see it and it certainly was not "non-violent". As despicable as he was
I still wouldn't condone it. But his regime was toppled by non-violent
protest and that is what we're talking about.

This is part of my point. In today's world of instant communication
Stalin,
Pol Pot, Saddam should have a much harder time concealing this sort of
thing from the world.

But Saddam was able to conceal this exact sort of thing from the world.
Thousands upon thousands of people were rounded up and executed after the
1991 war. Journalists were everywhere, and some of them even reported (or
at least tried to report) what was going on. The news was ignored by the
rest of the world.

Shame on anyone, anywhere for ignoring any such atrocities.

I said it badly but I'm talking about going forward. Get the internet into
the hands of the people. While there are certainly fine journalists out
there, the news organizations that we rely on for delivery are failing
miserably and can no longer be trusted to fulfil their role.

It's also a way for us to demonstrate to the world that we really mean it
when we talk about free speech. We in America know open dialog is crucial
to democracy so exporting it can only help us in the long run.

--
Frank....H

In article , Frank writes:

But Saddam was able to conceal this exact sort of thing from the world.
Thousands upon thousands of people were rounded up and executed after the
1991 war. Journalists were everywhere, and some of them even reported (or
at least tried to report) what was going on. The news was ignored by the
rest of the world.

Shame on anyone, anywhere for ignoring any such atrocities.


OK, so we don't ignore it. Then what, write a strongly worded letter to "The
Times"?

Or send in troops to take out the monster?

Because monsters like Saddam are not going to stop killing their opponents, and
their relatives and aquaintences, unless they believe that someone will get up
on their hind legs and punish them.

We may not have known the number of people he killed, but we, and the UN, knew
it was in the tens of thousands, and neither the UN, nor his Moslem neighbors
did a damned thing about it until the Cop on the Corner showed up.


I said it badly but I'm talking about going forward. Get the internet into
the hands of the people. While there are certainly fine journalists out
there, the news organizations that we rely on for delivery are failing
miserably and can no longer be trusted to fulfil their role.

I agree that the internet is a great tool for getting inforamtion around the
barriers set up to contain it, but you can't even change my behavior by posting
something critical to usenet, much less the Saddams and Pol Pots of the world.
Sooner or later, you need the presence, or the credible threat, of troops on
the ground to effect that change.

It's also a way for us to demonstrate to the world that we really mean it
when we talk about free speech. We in America know open dialog is crucial
to democracy so exporting it can only help us in the long run.


Well, exporting the rule of law in the form of a representative republic would
be a good thing, but I would not inflict democracy on even our worst enemies.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

Wdtabor wrote:

In article , Frank writes:


snip


Shame on anyone, anywhere for ignoring any such atrocities.


OK, so we don't ignore it. Then what, write a strongly worded letter to
"The Times"?

Or send in troops to take out the monster?

Because monsters like Saddam are not going to stop killing their
opponents, and their relatives and aquaintences, unless they believe that
someone will get up on their hind legs and punish them.

Agreed. I'm sure I didn't say it explicitly before so I'll say it now. I
don't think for a moment that the days of using force are over yet. But I
want to see us working toward that day and I don't see much evidence of us
doing that right now.

You make it sound as if there are only two options: "Do nothing" or "Nuke
the *******". I'll admit that there are scenarios where that might be true
but usually there are other avenues to persue.

As an example take the "sanctions" imposed on Iraq. Many scoff and say they
didn't work and they are right. But we pretty much guaranteed they wouldn't
work by not pressuring others to support them and turning a blind eye when
we knew they were being violated. In other words, we weren't as committed
to using our economic power as we are now to using our military. As a
result we lost much of our moral high ground.

Military force must be a last resort for it to have any chance of being
morally justified.


We may not have known the number of people he killed, but we, and the UN,
knew
it was in the tens of thousands, and neither the UN, nor his Moslem
neighbors did a damned thing about it until the Cop on the Corner showed
up.


I said it badly but I'm talking about going forward. Get the internet into
the hands of the people. While there are certainly fine journalists out
there, the news organizations that we rely on for delivery are failing
miserably and can no longer be trusted to fulfil their role.

I agree that the internet is a great tool for getting inforamtion around
the barriers set up to contain it, but you can't even change my behavior
by posting something critical to usenet, much less the Saddams and Pol
Pots of the world. Sooner or later, you need the presence, or the credible
threat, of troops on the ground to effect that change.

I hope you don't think I was suggesting that posting "Saddam is a big fat
idiot" in rec.soc.heads_of_state would make a big difference......

I'm talking about ensuring a conduit for the free flow of ideas which we
know makes it harder for dictators to gain and/or maintain power. And of
course in times of crisis it can be invaluable for tactical matters. Just
look at how it helped during the attempted coup in Russia some years back.
Or during the Bosnia fighting.

Once again I don't rule out the possibility that troops will be needed. But
I don't rule out anything that has the potential to avoid the need in the
first place. And we also get the benefit of overtly doing something to
promote our ideals.

It's also a way for us to demonstrate to the world that we really mean it
when we talk about free speech. We in America know open dialog is crucial
to democracy so exporting it can only help us in the long run.


Well, exporting the rule of law in the form of a representative republic
would be a good thing, but I would not inflict democracy on even our worst
enemies.

Don

Killing's too good for 'em, let 'em have Congress!
--
Frank....H

In article , Frank writes:


As an example take the "sanctions" imposed on Iraq. Many scoff and say they
didn't work and they are right. But we pretty much guaranteed they wouldn't
work by not pressuring others to support them and turning a blind eye when
we knew they were being violated. In other words, we weren't as committed
to using our economic power as we are now to using our military. As a
result we lost much of our moral high ground.


How, exactly, does one pressure France?

Short of standing on their border and shouting at them in German.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

How, exactly, does one pressure France?

Short of standing on their border and shouting at them in German.

On the contrary, I believe we have found the PERFECT method of pressuring
the French (and other so-called "allies") -- we have quite simply
disqualified them from bidding on any reconstruction contracts in Iraq.

This has been "Big News" the last couple of days, as if it were somehow
revolutionary to exclude disloyal nations from reaping the benefits of our
labors. Personally, I call it "justice".

Money talks.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article Co2Cb.502462$HS4.3878194@attbi_s01, "Jay Honeck"
writes:


How, exactly, does one pressure France?

Short of standing on their border and shouting at them in German.

On the contrary, I believe we have found the PERFECT method of pressuring
the French (and other so-called "allies") -- we have quite simply
disqualified them from bidding on any reconstruction contracts in Iraq.

This has been "Big News" the last couple of days, as if it were somehow
revolutionary to exclude disloyal nations from reaping the benefits of our
labors. Personally, I call it "justice".

Money talks.

Expect Bush to let them bid after they forgive all or part of the Iraqi debt.

Which should be called the Baathist debt since the Iraqi's never benefited from
it, and they should be collecting it from Saddam.

But still, when they make the cocession of forgiving that debt, Bush will let
them in .

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

Wdtabor wrote:

In article Co2Cb.502462$HS4.3878194@attbi_s01, "Jay Honeck"
writes:


How, exactly, does one pressure France?

Short of standing on their border and shouting at them in German.

On the contrary, I believe we have found the PERFECT method of pressuring
the French (and other so-called "allies") -- we have quite simply
disqualified them from bidding on any reconstruction contracts in Iraq.

This has been "Big News" the last couple of days, as if it were somehow
revolutionary to exclude disloyal nations from reaping the benefits of our
labors. Personally, I call it "justice".

Money talks.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not really disagreeing with the principle. We
are certainly within our rights to dole out the spoils of war as we see
fit.

On the other hand we may have missed an opportunity to mend some fences and
change the perception that the war was really about enriching our economic
interests. Money talks indeed.

Regardless of whether it was the best policy choice or not, they have
botched it in the way it was handled. The timing was incredibly bad, coming
on the heels of another Halliburton scandal. And by trying to circumvent
our own trade aggreements in such a transparent manner we've negated most
of our own credibilty.

Policies driven by vindictiveness will hurt us more than help us. We ought
to above that sort of thing. Apparently we are not a superpower when it
comes to statesmanship.

Expect Bush to let them bid after they forgive all or part of the Iraqi
debt.

Which should be called the Baathist debt since the Iraqi's never benefited
from it, and they should be collecting it from Saddam.

But still, when they make the cocession of forgiving that debt, Bush will
let them in .

It might have worked that way, but I fear both sides have become entrenched
in childish contrariety.


--
Frank....H

Wdtabor wrote:

In article , Frank writes:


As an example take the "sanctions" imposed on Iraq. Many scoff and say
they didn't work and they are right. But we pretty much guaranteed they
wouldn't work by not pressuring others to support them and turning a blind
eye when we knew they were being violated. In other words, we weren't as
committed to using our economic power as we are now to using our military.
As a result we lost much of our moral high ground.


How, exactly, does one pressure France?

Short of standing on their border and shouting at them in German.

LOL! Thanks for the chuckle....

Pressure in the context above could take many forms, including incentives
for future consideration. Most everyone wants/gets something from us we
could leverage. Of course promoting climates of cooperation among would go
a long way to eliminating the need for pressure.

--
Frank....H

In article , Frank writes:


Pressure in the context above could take many forms, including incentives
for future consideration. Most everyone wants/gets something from us we
could leverage. Of course promoting climates of cooperation among would go
a long way to eliminating the need for pressure.


OK, so instead of putting pressure on France, how do you promote a climate of
cooperation with France, given that they have been explicit that they will
oppose us for the simple reason of beign a "counterweight" to US power and
prestige?

They have admitted they will oppose us, just to oppose us, to prevent us from
being successful as a world leader. There is no way to find cooperation with
that mindset.

I think they're just still ****ed that the international language of ATC is
English instead of French.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG