U.S. is losing the sympathy of the world

In article ,
Alan Minyard wrote:

I agree that making multiple copies of an entire book to avoid buying
the book would be a violation, however reproducing an article in a
newspaper/magazine is subject to the academic exemption. That
particular exemption is rather liberally applied.

....except that it's really not. Most schools have very strict codes
about what can and cannot be used, and how liberal that use is. Some
successful lawsuits by publishers put an end to that at most schools.

And, once again, making a few copies of one article from the Times for
your Business 101 class is very different from publishing the entire
article over the Internet, for thousands of readers who are *not*
enrolled in any classes, formally or otherwise. There are specific
rules about this (more sections of the Copyright code).

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article ,
(phil hunt) wrote:

Well, if the USA had a better public reputation, less American
soldiers would be coming back in body bags from Iraq right now.

The per capita fatality rate of US soldiers in Iraq is about equal to
that among tuna fishermen in Alaska... should we withdraw from
Anchorage, too?

Meanwhile, the Iraqis *hate* the UN, are generally welcoming American
soldiers with open arms, and are completely ****ed off at the
Jordanians, Syrians, Saudis and Iranians who are causing all of the
trouble in some parts of Iraq.

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In message , Fred J. McCall
writes
Coridon Henshaw ) wrote:
:Since they are *Saudi* funded crazies, just why are you doing asking the
:rest of the world to march on Iraq rather than on Saudi Arabia?

Why are Lefties so unutterably stupid?

I suppose you also wonder why we don't invade North Korea and
Pakistan, right?

Pakistan is more fungible, but 9/11 came from Saudi. They paid for it,
they provided the personnel, they made it happen.

Then they watched the US miss the point.

What _did_ the US do to punish Saudi Arabia for funding and enthusing
the 9/11 crew?


Since then, Iraq had no WMEs. They claimed so, they were invaded, and
still no WMEs emerge.

North Korea says they _do_ have WMEs and the missiles to deliver them.

One gets invaded, the other doesn't. Clear lesson? WMEs make you safe as
long as your claim is credible. North Korea is believed, Iraq was not..



Why are Righties so unutterably stupid?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 18:41:33 GMT, Fred J. McCall wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote:

:On 14 Sep 2003 03:03:04 GMT, IBM wrote:
:"John Mullen" wrote in news:KMd8b.5371$YL.2063@news-
:binary.blueyonder.co.uk:
:
: Richard Bernstein, NYT
: Reprinted in the International Herald Tribune.
:
: U.S. is losing the sympathy of the world
:
: Do we give a rat's hinder?
:
:Well, if the USA had a better public reputation, less American
:soldiers would be coming back in body bags from Iraq right now.

How would that work again? Are you suggesting the Leftist Eurowienies
are shooting American troops?

No, I'm saying that some Iraqis hate Americans, and most (the vast
majority if opinion polls are accurate) have extreme doubts about
the American occupiers' intentions.

If Iraqis had a moree favourable opinion of Americans, there would
be less attacks on them, partly because less people would be
willing to take part in attacks, but mostly because they would not
be a large number of people prepared to turn a blind eye to
suspicions that their neighbours/friends/co-workers are involved in
guerilla activity.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 19:40:02 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:
In article ,
(phil hunt) wrote:

Well, if the USA had a better public reputation, less American
soldiers would be coming back in body bags from Iraq right now.

The per capita fatality rate of US soldiers in Iraq is about equal to
that among tuna fishermen in Alaska... should we withdraw from
Anchorage, too?

Idiot question.

Meanwhile, the Iraqis *hate* the UN, are generally welcoming American
soldiers with open arms, and are completely ****ed off at the
Jordanians, Syrians, Saudis and Iranians who are causing all of the
trouble in some parts of Iraq.

Cite? That is to say, do you have an opinion poll of iraqi opinion
that backs up your viewpoint. I have of mine, so put up or shut up.

--
A: top posting

Q: what's the most annoying thing about Usenet?

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ...
In message , Fred J. McCall
writes
Coridon Henshaw ) wrote:
:Since they are *Saudi* funded crazies, just why are you doing asking the
:rest of the world to march on Iraq rather than on Saudi Arabia?

Why are Lefties so unutterably stupid?

I suppose you also wonder why we don't invade North Korea and
Pakistan, right?

Pakistan is more fungible, but 9/11 came from Saudi. They paid for it,
they provided the personnel, they made it happen.

Then they watched the US miss the point.

What _did_ the US do to punish Saudi Arabia for funding and enthusing
the 9/11 crew?

You are claiming that Saudi Arabia, as in their government, sanctioned
the 9-11 attack? I don't think so... So it must be those Saudi
individuals who have supported AQ that you are carping about.
Otherwise, because the infamous "shoe bomber" was a Brit, we should
"punish" the UK?



Since then, Iraq had no WMEs. They claimed so, they were invaded, and
still no WMEs emerge.

You really think they had no WME, as you call it, programs? The mere
existance of such programs would be in violation of the various UN
resolutions, not to mention the ceasefire agreement from ODS.
Justification does not require the finding of a horde of prepped and
ready chem rounds.


North Korea says they _do_ have WMEs and the missiles to deliver them.

So?


One gets invaded, the other doesn't. Clear lesson? WMEs make you safe as
long as your claim is credible. North Korea is believed, Iraq was not..

WME's are not making the DPRK "safe". It would seem that the
possibility of defanging the DPRK without resorting to armed conflict
is a reasonable one; twelve years of piffling about with Saddam, his
refusal to comply with disarmament requirements, and various
unenforced UN resolutions indicates that avenue was leading nowhere in
the case of Iraq.



Why are Righties so unutterably stupid?

I believe the extremes of both sides are rather stupid, just as I am
none to impressed with the less-than-cerebral machinations of those
who seem to think that all foreign policy has to be done with a cookie
cutter (the "you went into Iraq, but not the DPRK" blathering being a
fine example). Better to use a diplomatic version of METT-T and
develop an optimal COA for each independent situation.

Brooks

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" writes:
In message , Fred J. McCall
writes
Coridon Henshaw ) wrote:
:Since they are *Saudi* funded crazies, just why are you doing asking the
:rest of the world to march on Iraq rather than on Saudi Arabia?

Why are Lefties so unutterably stupid?

I suppose you also wonder why we don't invade North Korea and
Pakistan, right?

Pakistan is more fungible, but 9/11 came from Saudi. They paid for it,
they provided the personnel, they made it happen.

Then they watched the US miss the point.

What _did_ the US do to punish Saudi Arabia for funding and enthusing
the 9/11 crew?


Since then, Iraq had no WMEs. They claimed so, they were invaded, and
still no WMEs emerge.

North Korea says they _do_ have WMEs and the missiles to deliver them.

One gets invaded, the other doesn't. Clear lesson? WMEs make you safe as
long as your claim is credible. North Korea is believed, Iraq was not..

But, then, the DPRK hasn't been invaded in the last 50 years that they
_didn't_ claim to have WME (That would be weapons of Mass Effect?),
either. Quite frankly, I'd much rather wait for the North Koreans to
implode/starve/start digging escape tunnels than to have anybody
invade them. I'm not trying to pass the buck here, but if I were a
DPRK General worrying about an invasion, I'd be more concerned about
the 1,000,000 ROKs on th eother side of the 38th parallel, with a
modern combined arms army suppoerted by a self-sufficent agricultural
and industrial economy (By and large the Koreans make their own
stuff), or teh huge and now aloof at best adn unfriendly at worst
Russian and PRC forces to their North. Whether causing Japan to
reconsider the "Homeland Defence Only" is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing
is another bucket of worms. In the short term, Japan won't be a major
land and air player, but I suspect that those whale-shaped Diesel
Boats od theirs would do quite nicely for sewing up th DPRK's
coastlines. I don't think they're really all that concerned with 2
understrength Infantry Brigades and a U.S.A.F FIghter Wing, with all
that going on.

The DPRK is a walking corpse. It has been for years. It might have a
highly destructive spasm left in it, like a mortally wounded
rattlesnake, but all everybody has to do is wait.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

(phil hunt) wrote:

:On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 18:41:33 GMT, Fred J. McCall wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote:
:
::On 14 Sep 2003 03:03:04 GMT, IBM wrote:
::"John Mullen" wrote in news:KMd8b.5371$YL.2063@news-
::binary.blueyonder.co.uk:
::
:: Richard Bernstein, NYT
:: Reprinted in the International Herald Tribune.
::
:: U.S. is losing the sympathy of the world
::
:: Do we give a rat's hinder?
::
::Well, if the USA had a better public reputation, less American
::soldiers would be coming back in body bags from Iraq right now.
:
:How would that work again? Are you suggesting the Leftist Eurowienies
:are shooting American troops?
:
:No, I'm saying that some Iraqis hate Americans, and most (the vast
:majority if opinion polls are accurate) have extreme doubts about
:the American occupiers' intentions.

This doesn't seem to relate to losing "the sympathy of the world".

:If Iraqis had a moree favourable opinion of Americans, there would
:be less attacks on them, partly because less people would be
:willing to take part in attacks, but mostly because they would not
:be a large number of people prepared to turn a blind eye to
:suspicions that their neighbours/friends/co-workers are involved in
:guerilla activity.

Again, this doesn't seem to relate to the original remarks. I
understand why we might care what the IRAQIS think is going on,
although I'm frankly at a loss for how to affect that in the short
term. However, I'm still awaiting an answer for why we should give a
**** what the WORLD (as in Eurotrash Europe) thinks.

--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer

In article ,
(phil hunt) wrote:

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 19:40:02 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:
In article ,
(phil hunt) wrote:

Well, if the USA had a better public reputation, less American
soldiers would be coming back in body bags from Iraq right now.

The per capita fatality rate of US soldiers in Iraq is about equal to
that among tuna fishermen in Alaska... should we withdraw from
Anchorage, too?

Idiot question.

No, just making fun of an idiotic statement.

Meanwhile, the Iraqis *hate* the UN, are generally welcoming American
soldiers with open arms, and are completely ****ed off at the
Jordanians, Syrians, Saudis and Iranians who are causing all of the
trouble in some parts of Iraq.

Cite? That is to say, do you have an opinion poll of iraqi opinion
that backs up your viewpoint. I have of mine, so put up or shut up.

Here's mine:
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=734

If you were correct, then why do almost 70% of Iraqis think they're
going to be better off in five years? If "the majority" of them are
suspicious of the motives of the US "occupiers," they should be much
more pessimistic, right?

Where's your poll, now that you mention it?

Oh, that's right, you don't have one.

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 02:09:35 +0100, (phil
hunt) wrote:

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 18:41:33 GMT, Fred J. McCall wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote:

:On 14 Sep 2003 03:03:04 GMT, IBM wrote:
:"John Mullen" wrote in news:KMd8b.5371$YL.2063@news-
:binary.blueyonder.co.uk:
:
: Richard Bernstein, NYT
: Reprinted in the International Herald Tribune.
:
: U.S. is losing the sympathy of the world
:
: Do we give a rat's hinder?
:
:Well, if the USA had a better public reputation, less American
:soldiers would be coming back in body bags from Iraq right now.

How would that work again? Are you suggesting the Leftist Eurowienies
are shooting American troops?

No, I'm saying that some Iraqis hate Americans, and most (the vast
majority if opinion polls are accurate) have extreme doubts about
the American occupiers' intentions.

I wonder how these opinion polls are conducted. The only one I
checked into was a survey of memebers of an association of Iraqi
landed immigrants to Canada, interesting but hardly conclusive.

____

Peter Skelton