Doh!

——=\_NextPart\_001\_000A\_01C27D3F.42299BF0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

BlankHello Wally,

I do not believe that you possess any interest in resolving anything

from these discussions - you have not successfully argued your case to just=
ify your

governments actions. You have not answered questions in relation to America=
's need

for oil. Your right-wing stance does not read well on the email page, with =
the very

simplistic ill-informed assumption, that I do not care about the Chechnya

occupation, you are quite simply - wrong.


For about 3 years, on and off, I have been helping (in my own small way)

a couple friends, who have come to the UK from Chechnya, with legal

issues in relation to immigration. Supporting them and experiencing the

endless, non-sensical administration and continuous beaucracy thrown at

people who have escape from troubled areas around the world. Talking on

the phone for them because they do not speak good english. I did

not know how badly foreigners were treated until I actually got involved

with it. It is a very stressful thing to do, they were treated like

criminals and they had not even done anything wrong and they had also

lost a brother before they had left their home country. And the repect

they have received is disgraceful.


And they, like myself, believe that America is not helping the world via

its unilateral stance. Yes, they have their own problems at home but they

can also see that certain issues need to be resolved and challenged, in a

more intuitive and intelligent way, rather than by aggression.

Please don't assume Wally, for you do not know what I am up to in my

life, just as much I do not know what you are doing in yours. Why don't

you admit that America is only interested in oil? I won't think the less

of you for it, in fact I would respect you for being honest.


In April 2000, we demonstrated outside Downing street when Mr Putin came

visit the UK. Mr Blair promised to raise the issue with him about

Russia's human rights record in Chechnya. But in the end they just said

that they would not allow the entirety of their relations with Russia and

a new Russian President to be defined by only one issue. We campaigned

and nothing came out of it of course, but at least we bothered. Compassion

for others is not Fraud Wally, it is humane, there is nothing wrong with it.


Yes: I am very bored with protesting, I do not want to do it. But I feel

compelled to when so much crap is being dished out to civilians via

political dominance.


You seem to believe the official press line - and also you do not seem

brave enough to question your own reasonings of why your country is eager

to pretend that they are carrying out a war against Muslim extremists,

when really they just want economical control over oil, due to America's

own need for it. That is why Iraq is going to be invaded, not because

your president believes in human decency. It is all very simple really,

your government is lying to you, don't you get it yet?


Despite a striking lack of consensus among the American foreign-policy

elite, Congress voted to grant President Bush the power to attack Iraq

unilaterally. But the rest of the world, and a good part of the American

public, seem unconvinced of the necessity of an attack. Your aggression

towards other cultures is very wrong Wally, and it does seem that

everyone in the world thinks so as well. Do you think that it is a

democratic act when America decides to bomb another country anyway,

when everyone else in the world has voted for it not to take place? Do you

think that is right? It's the people that matter in the world, not

governments, wake up!


In 1990, in the run-up to Desert Storm, George Bush Senior bribed and

threatened virtually every country on the Security Council to force them

to vote to authorize the US war. The Administration cajoled poor

countries with cheap Saudi oil and dangled arms packages before

governments like Ethiopia and Colombia, whose access to US military

support had been cut because of wars and human rights violations. US

diplomats went to China and said "name your price" to avert a veto–and

fulfilled Beijing's wish list for post-Tiananmen Square diplomatic

rehabilitation (with the announcement of a White House visit by the

Chinese foreign minister) and new development aid (in the form of a $114

million World Bank assistance package). China abstained. When Yemen, the

only Arab country on the Council, voted against the war, a US diplomat

said, "That will be the most expensive No vote you ever cast." And

Washington cut off its entire $70 million US aid package.


Are you proud of this kind of action; do you really think that bullying

other countries into doing things that they do not want to do is right?
Sept.

11 was followed by more violence and death, bloodshed and destruction and

promises of 'permanent war.

Comments

, Wally Keeler

——=\_NextPart\_001\_09CA\_01C27D56.0145DB50
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Blank
From: furtherfield

Hello Wally,

I do not believe that you possess any interest in resolving anything

from these discussions - you have not successfully argued your case to ju=
stify your

governments actions.

Nor do I regard you as having been sucessful in arguing your case.


You have not answered questions in relation to America's need

for oil.

There are questions I asked which you likewise failed to address.


Your right-wing stance does not read well on the email page, with the ver=
y

simplistic ill-informed assumption, that I do not care about the Chechnya

occupation, you are quite simply - wrong.
Your simplistic and uninformed assumption that I am a USAmerican is quite=
simply – wrong. And your simple-minded knee-jerk labelist-response that I=
am a McCarthyist was exceedingly easy to trash.

For about 3 years, on and off, I have been helping (in my own small way)

a couple friends, who have come to the UK from Chechnya, with legal

issues in relation to immigration. Supporting them and experiencing the

endless, non-sensical administration and continuous beaucracy thrown at

people who have escape from troubled areas around the world. Talking on

the phone for them because they do not speak good english. I did

not know how badly foreigners were treated until I actually got involved

with it. It is a very stressful thing to do, they were treated like

criminals and they had not even done anything wrong and they had also

lost a brother before they had left their home country. And the repect

they have received is disgraceful.
And I definitely commend you for this action of yours. Although not perfe=
ct, Canada has been far more accepting of Roma (Gypsy) refugees than the Eu=
ropean countries. I have been involved with the Gypsy community for several=
years now, especially those fleeing right-wing extremist Euro situations. =
My my, how this must conflict with your right-wing stereotype labelling of =
me.

And they, like myself, believe that America is not helping the world via

its unilateral stance. Yes, they have their own problems at home but they

can also see that certain issues need to be resolved and challenged, in a

more intuitive and intelligent way, rather than by aggression.

Please don't assume Wally, for you do not know what I am up to in my

life, just as much I do not know what you are doing in yours.

Then reflect seriously on your presumption that I am an USAmerican.

Why don't

you admit that America is only interested in oil? I won't think the less

of you for it, in fact I would respect you for being honest.
I am being honest when I assert that I do not believe "that America is on=
ly interested in oil". America has been doing quite well since 1991 without=
Iraqi oil. Indeed, all that the USA has to do to open the oil sluices of I=
raq is to withdraw sanctions.

In April 2000, we demonstrated outside Downing street when Mr Putin came

visit the UK. Mr Blair promised to raise the issue with him about

Russia's human rights record in Chechnya.

It is not a human rights problem. I really don't understand how you could=
diminish the horrendous atrocities of the Russian occupation – it is far =
more brutal and lethal than Israel's occupation of the West Bank, or Indone=
sia's former occupation of East Timor. It is a racist war of extermination =
that is over a decade long – and in spite of your involvement on Downing s=
treet, there has never been a mass demonstration against it. Why do you thi=
nk that is so? And it is not a question of your personal involvement, but o=
f the non-involvement of the peace movement at large.

But in the end they just said

that they would not allow the entirety of their relations with Russia and

a new Russian President to be defined by only one issue. We campaigned

and nothing came out of it of course, but at least we bothered. Compassion

for others is not Fraud Wally, it is humane, there is nothing wrong with =
it.
I never asserted that "compassion for others" is fraud. I assert that the=
peace activists at large are perpetrating a fraud when they behave as if t=
he USA is the most brutal, most lethal, most violent in the world. My take =
is that the Russian invasion, occupation and racist genocide of total destr=
uction in Chechnya has been the most brutal, most lethal, most violent in t=
he world and it has been going on for over a decade and relative to the act=
ivity against the USA, hardly a peep has ever been heard from the peace act=
ivsist about Chechnya. It is THAT discrepancy which I refer to as a fraud.

Yes: I am very bored with protesting, I do not want to do it. But I feel

compelled to when so much crap is being dished out to civilians via

political dominance.


You seem to believe the official press line - and also you do not seem

brave enough to question your own reasonings of why your country is eager

to pretend that they are carrying out a war against Muslim extremists,

when really they just want economical control over oil, due to America's

own need for it.

I question my own reasonings – so keep your ill-informed presumptions to=
yourself in that regard. Oil is cheap in the USA, compared to the rest of =
the world. The proof is the number of gas-guzzling SUV's on the roads. Duri=
ng the 70's when the cost of oil took a major leap thanks to the OPEC carte=
l, the era of the "compact car" was born after the heady days of the chromi=
um-ladened land yachts of the 50 & 60's. The USA has done quite well oil-wi=
se during the 1990's when Iraq wasn't putting out due to sanctions.


That is why Iraq is going to be invaded, not because

your president believes in human decency. It is all very simple really,

your government is lying to you, don't you get it yet?

And your Chomsky's have been lying to you, don;t you realize your own gul=
libility?


Despite a striking lack of consensus among the American foreign-policy

elite,


Thank goodness for a lack of consensus – it is a sign of democracy. Ther=
e is 100\% consensus in Iraq – that is a sigh of dictatorshit.


Congress voted to grant President Bush the power to attack Iraq

unilaterally. But the rest of the world, and a good part of the American

public,


A good part, but not quite majority enough at this time.


seem unconvinced of the necessity of an attack. Your aggression

towards other cultures is very wrong Wally,


You need a reading and comprehension course, Marc. I don't have any aggre=
ssion towards other cultures. My wife is of a culture other than mine. I ha=
ve worked for many years with refugees and immigrants to this country. I li=
ve in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, which two independent studies found to be t=
he most multicultural multiracial city in North America (Yes, it trumps NYC=
). In 1995 in Toronto the census revealed that I now belong in the category=
of "visible minority" – I am a WASP. Canada, while far from perfect, and =
with many flaws, has become quite reknown for its accomodation to toher cul=
tures and I take a lot of pride in that. So you know where you can shove yo=
ur simple-minded presumptuous acusation that I am aggressive towards other =
cultures. What I am aggressive against is the culture of dictatorshits – I=
refuse to accommodate with such governing organs. I am very pro-democratic=
and anti-dictatorshit. As I have previously said, I have no problem with k=
illing Hitler and his brain trust, and as much as I regret some loss of inn=
ocent lives to do so, I would be healed by the fact that the lives of sever=
al million Jews, Gypsies, Gays, handicapped wouldn't be transported to the =
ovens. On exceedingly rare occasions I believe many innocent lives can be s=
aved by a selective and focussed killing of a few 100's, 1000's directly in=
volved in the dictatorshit.


and it does seem that

everyone in the world thinks so as well.


That is a load of hyperbolic crap. You don't know any such thing.


Do you think that it is a

democratic act when America decides to bomb another country anyway,

when everyone else in the world has voted for it not to take place?


When and where did that vote take place?


Do you

think that is right? It's the people that matter in the world, not

governments, wake up!

Except when the government is killing hundreds of thousands of innocent c=
ivilians in neighbouring countries, hundreds of thousands of innocent civil=
ians within the same country using gas, torture, or whatever else is at han=
d. I think it is wrong to acquiess to letting a government do that to so ma=
ny innocent people. Wake up!


In 1990, in the run-up to Desert Storm, George Bush Senior bribed and

threatened virtually every country on the Security Council to force them

to vote to authorize the US war. The Administration cajoled poor

countries with cheap Saudi oil and dangled arms packages before

governments like Ethiopia and Colombia, whose access to US military

support had been cut because of wars and human rights violations. US

diplomats went to China and said "name your price" to avert a veto–and

fulfilled Beijing's wish list for post-Tiananmen Square diplomatic

rehabilitation (with the announcement of a White House visit by the

Chinese foreign minister) and new development aid (in the form of a $114

million World Bank assistance package). China abstained. When Yemen, the

only Arab country on the Council, voted against the war, a US diplomat

said, "That will be the most expensive No vote you ever cast." And

Washington cut off its entire $70 million US aid package.


Are you proud of this kind of action; do you really think that bullying

other countries into doing things that they do not want to do is right?
Sept.

11 was followed by more violence and death, bloodshed and destruction and

promises of 'permanent war.

, Jim Andrews

——=_NextPart_001_0007_01C27D74.1D90C360
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

BlankI believe it is better to kill a dictator and his immediate accomplices
so that the innocent civilians suffering death/torture/opression can have
the opportunity to heal themselves.

There does not seem to be much disagreement that Hussein is "the Hitler
of the Euphrates", as a Znet writer called him. What is disagreed on is the
state of his weaponry. That Iraq, given Hussein leads it, should not be
allowed to possess weapons of mass destruction is relatively clear. But
equally as clear, Wally, is that the Muslim world has been vocal in opposing
a unilateral USA attack of Iraq. And not just the Muslim world, but even the
allies of the USA have voiced objections to a unilateral USA attack of Iraq.
No one seems to be disagreeing with the notion that the size of Iraq's fangs
must be determined and if they are relatively large, defanged.

But the world is objecting, Wally, to unilateral excercise of USA power
in Iraq. Not because anybody is supportive of Hussein's dictatorship.

The USA needs to be a strong leader, by virtue of its power, in
establishing and following international law. Not ruling by military
strength and disregarding international law.

We respect leaders who lead for the benefit of the group and recognize
that their own interests are placed in jeopardy when they act unilaterally
in opposition to the group. They are leaders no more when they act this way;
their power is diminished by people distrusting them and not wishing to
cooperate with them.

The world might well be better off with Hussein dead, but it is not the
place of the USA to make it so against voices to the contrary from
governments around the world. It is a global issue.

ja

——=_NextPart_001_0007_01C27D74.1D90C360
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE id=ridTitle>Blank</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-125=
2"><BASE
href="file://C:Program FilesCommon FilesMicrosoft SharedStationery">
<STYLE>BODY {
MARGIN-TOP: 25px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 25px; COLOR: #000000; FONT=
-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica
}
P.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; COLOR: #ffffcc; FONT-F=
AMILY: Helvetica, "Times New Roman"
}
LI.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; COLOR: #ffffcc; FONT-F=
AMILY: Helvetica, "Times New Roman"
}
</STYLE>

<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2716.2200" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=ridBody bgColor=#ffffff background=cid:570070711@27102002-09=
4e>
<DIV><FONT face="Courier New"><EM>I believe it is better to kill a dictat=
or and
his immediate accomplices so that the innocent civilians suffering
death/torture/opression can have the opportunity to heal
themselves.&nbsp;</EM></FONT><FONT face=Arial><SPAN
class=570070711-27102002>&nbsp;</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px soli=
d; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-=
LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><SPAN
class=570070711-27102002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><SPAN class=570070711-27102002><EM><FONT
face="Courier New" color=#0000ff>There does not seem to be much dis=
agreement
that Hussein is "the Hitler of the Euphrates", as a Znet writer called =
him.
What is disagreed on is the state of his weaponry. That&nbsp;Iraq, give=
n
Hussein leads it, should not be allowed to possess weapons of mass
destruction is relatively clear. But equally as clear, Wally, is that t=
he
Muslim world has been vocal in opposing a unilateral USA attack of Iraq=
. And
not just the Muslim world, but even the allies of the USA have voiced=

objections to a unilateral USA attack of Iraq. No one seems to be
disagreeing with the notion&nbsp;that the size of Iraq's fangs must be=

determined and if they are relatively large,
defanged.</FONT></EM></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=570070711-27102002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><SPAN class=570070711-27102002><FONT
color=#0000ff><EM><FONT face="Courier New">But the world is objecti=
ng,
Wally, to unilateral excercise of USA power in
Iraq.</FONT></EM>&nbsp;<EM><FONT face="Courier New">Not because anybo=
dy is
supportive of Hussein's dictatorship.
</FONT></EM></FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Courier New" color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=570070711-27102002><EM></EM></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Courier New" color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=570070711-27102002><EM>The USA needs to be a strong leader, by =
virtue
of its power, in establishing and following international law. Not ruli=
ng by
military strength and disregarding international law.
</EM></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Courier New" color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=570070711-27102002><EM></EM></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Courier New" color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=570070711-27102002><EM>We respect leaders who lead for the bene=
fit of
the group and recognize that their own interests are placed in jeopardy=
when
they act unilaterally in opposition to the group. They are leaders no m=
ore
when they act this way; their power is diminished by people distrusting=
them
and not wishing to cooperate with them.</EM></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Courier New" color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=570070711-27102002><EM></EM></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Courier New" color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=570070711-27102002><EM>The world might well be better off with =
Hussein
dead, but it is not the place of the USA to make it so against voices t=
o the
contrary from governments around the world. It is a global
issue.</EM></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Courier New" color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=570070711-27102002><EM></EM></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Courier New" color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=570070711-27102002><EM>ja</EM></SPAN></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>=
</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

——=_NextPart_001_0007_01C27D74.1D90C360–

, Wally Keeler

——=_NextPart_001_0044_01C27D8C.2533CB40
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

BlankThose are exceedingly valid points. At this point in time, I find it q=
uite agreeable that the USA has presented a credible threat to Saddam's lif=
e. It is necessary that it be credible, otherwise nothing would happen. Tha=
t credible threat was effective in making the UN Security Council implement=
its resolutions regarding Iraq. In the absence of such a credible threat, =
the UN would have continued indulging its self-imposed impotency. I cannot =
imagine the UN Security Council doing anything because it was the right thi=
ng to do. The Council acted because it believed that if it didn't, the USA =
would do it unilaterally. Even if the UN Security Council did decide to imp=
lement its own resolutions concerning weapons of mass destruction in Saddam=
's hands and did it because it was the right thing to do, surely we know th=
at Saddam would refuse any compliance whatsoever – except that there is a =
credible threat to his existence and ambitions.

The above was absolutely necessary in order to effect: No one seems to be d=
isagreeing with the notion that the size of Iraq's fangs must be determined=
and if they are relatively large, defanged.

Personally, I have no problem with the USA unilaterally providing small wea=
pons to Iraqi dissident groups who wish to kill Saddam or his henchmen. I h=
ave no problem with a unilaterally financed (mercenary) assassination squad=
. No bombing from the air, no invasion, just a murderous strike at the head=
of the snake choking the Iraqi people and threatening the neighbourhood. H=
owever, I would restrain such a liquidation for the moment, to give the UN =
Security Council the opportunity to demonstrate its will & intelligence, or=
lack thereof. If it is ineffective, then I would support focussed strikes =
at the head of the snake, even if they were unilateral by the USA.

In the meantime, the credible threats by the USA has been effective in gett=
ing the UN Security Council off its ass, shuck its ennui, and stiffen its b=
ack. If it does that, we can thank the USA for giving the the UN the spine =
it has lacked.
—– Original Message —–
From: Jim Andrews
I believe it is better to kill a dictator and his immediate accomplices s=
o that the innocent civilians suffering death/torture/opression can have th=
e opportunity to heal themselves.

There does not seem to be much disagreement that Hussein is "the Hitl=
er of the Euphrates", as a Znet writer called him. What is disagreed on is =
the state of his weaponry. That Iraq, given Hussein leads it, should not be=
allowed to possess weapons of mass destruction is relatively clear. But eq=
ually as clear, Wally, is that the Muslim world has been vocal in opposing =
a unilateral USA attack of Iraq. And not just the Muslim world, but even th=
e allies of the USA have voiced objections to a unilateral USA attack of Ir=
aq. No one seems to be disagreeing with the notion that the size of Iraq's =
fangs must be determined and if they are relatively large, defanged.

But the world is objecting, Wally, to unilateral excercise of USA pow=
er in Iraq. Not because anybody is supportive of Hussein's dictatorship.

The USA needs to be a strong leader, by virtue of its power, in estab=
lishing and following international law. Not ruling by military strength an=
d disregarding international law.

We respect leaders who lead for the benefit of the group and recogniz=
e that their own interests are placed in jeopardy when they act unilaterall=
y in opposition to the group. They are leaders no more when they act this w=
ay; their power is diminished by people distrusting them and not wishing to=
cooperate with them.

The world might well be better off with Hussein dead, but it is not t=
he place of the USA to make it so against voices to the contrary from gover=
nments around the world. It is a global issue.

ja

——=_NextPart_001_0044_01C27D8C.2533CB40
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE id=ridTitle>Blank</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-125=
2"><BASE
href="file://C:Program FilesCommon FilesMicrosoft SharedStationery">
<STYLE>BODY {
MARGIN-TOP: 25px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 25px; COLOR: #000000; FONT=
-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica
}
P.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; COLOR: #ffffcc; FONT-F=
AMILY: Helvetica, "Times New Roman"
}
LI.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; COLOR: #ffffcc; FONT-F=
AMILY: Helvetica, "Times New Roman"
}
</STYLE>

<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2713.1100" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=ridBody bgColor=#ffffff
background=cid:004201c27db6$0e084ca0$3ce6fea9@wallyx848tqinf>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">Those are exceedingly valid points. At =
this
point in time, I find it quite agreeable that the USA has presented a credi=
ble
threat to Saddam's life. It is necessary that it be credible, otherwise not=
hing
would happen. That credible threat was effective in making the UN Security=

Council implement its resolutions regarding Iraq. In the absence of such a=

credible threat, the UN would have continued indulging its self-imposed
impotency. I cannot imagine the UN Security Council doing anything because =
it
was the right thing to do. The Council acted because it believed that if it=

didn't, the USA would do it unilaterally. Even if the UN Security Council d=
id
decide to implement its own resolutions concerning weapons of mass destruct=
ion
in Saddam's hands and did it because it was the right thing to do, surely w=
e
know that Saddam would refuse any compliance whatsoever – except that ther=
e is
a credible threat to his existence and ambitions.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">The above was absolutely necessary in o=
rder to
effect: </FONT><EM><FONT face="Courier New" color=#0000ff>No one seems =
to be
disagreeing with the notion&nbsp;that the size of Iraq's fangs must be
determined and if they are relatively large, defanged. </FONT></EM></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">Personally, I have no problem with the =
USA
unilaterally providing small weapons to Iraqi dissident groups who wish to =
kill
Saddam or his henchmen. I have no problem with a unilaterally financed
(mercenary) assassination squad. No bombing from the air, no invasion, just=
a
murderous strike at the head of the snake choking the Iraqi people and
threatening the neighbourhood. However, I would restrain such a liquidation=
for
the moment, to give the UN Security Council the opportunity to demonstrate =
its
will &amp; intelligence, or lack thereof. If it is ineffective, then I woul=
d
support focussed strikes at the head of the snake, even if they were unilat=
eral
by the USA.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">In the meantime, the credible threats b=
y the
USA has been effective in getting the UN Security Council off its ass, shuc=
k its
ennui, and stiffen its back. If it does that, we can thank the USA for givi=
ng
the the UN the spine it has lacked.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LE=
FT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">—– Original Message —– </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>Fro=
m:</B>
<A [email protected] href="mailto:[email protected]">Jim Andrews</A> </=
DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Courier New"><EM>I believe it is better to kill a dict=
ator
and his immediate accomplices so that the innocent civilians suffering
death/torture/opression can have the opportunity to heal
themselves.&nbsp;</EM></FONT><FONT face=Arial><SPAN
class=570070711-27102002>&nbsp;</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px so=
lid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDE=
R-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><SPAN
class=570070711-27102002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><SPAN class=570070711-27102002><EM><FONT
face="Courier New" color=#0000ff>There does not seem to be much=

disagreement that Hussein is "the Hitler of the Euphrates", as a Znet=

writer called him. What is disagreed on is the state of his weaponry.=

That&nbsp;Iraq, given Hussein leads it, should not be allowed to poss=
ess
weapons of mass destruction is relatively clear. But equally as clear=
,
Wally, is that the Muslim world has been vocal in opposing a unilater=
al
USA attack of Iraq. And not just the Muslim world, but even the allie=
s of
the USA have voiced objections to a unilateral USA attack of Iraq. No=
one
seems to be disagreeing with the notion&nbsp;that the size of Iraq's =
fangs
must be determined and if they are relatively large,
defanged.</FONT></EM></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=570070711-27102002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><SPAN class=570070711-27102002><FONT
color=#0000ff><EM><FONT face="Courier New">But the world is objec=
ting,
Wally, to unilateral excercise of USA power in
Iraq.</FONT></EM>&nbsp;<EM><FONT face="Courier New">Not because any=
body is
supportive of Hussein's dictatorship.
</FONT></EM></FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Courier New" color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=570070711-27102002><EM></EM></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Courier New" color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=570070711-27102002><EM>The USA needs to be a strong leader, b=
y
virtue of its power, in establishing and following international law.=
Not
ruling by military strength and disregarding international law.
</EM></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Courier New" color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=570070711-27102002><EM></EM></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Courier New" color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=570070711-27102002><EM>We respect leaders who lead for the be=
nefit
of the group and recognize that their own interests are placed in jeo=
pardy
when they act unilaterally in opposition to the group. They are leade=
rs no
more when they act this way; their power is diminished by people
distrusting them and not wishing to cooperate with
them.</EM></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Courier New" color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=570070711-27102002><EM></EM></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Courier New" color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=570070711-27102002><EM>The world might well be better off wit=
h
Hussein dead, but it is not the place of the USA to make it so agains=
t
voices to the contrary from governments around the world. It is a glo=
bal
issue.</EM></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Courier New" color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=570070711-27102002><EM></EM></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Courier New" color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=570070711-27102002><EM>ja</EM></SPAN></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOT=
E></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

——=_NextPart_001_0044_01C27D8C.2533CB40–

, marc garrett

——=\_NextPart\_001\_006B\_01C27DBC.EB737050
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

BlankHi there Wally,

This may sound absurd, but in each email that I have been writing to you I =
have been beginning to warm to you. Finding out other things of you past in=
repsect of certain humanistic things that you, yourself have also taken up=
on to do. So I am not going to respond to you in an aggressive way at all, =
and say that I agree with some of your comments and have a good day creat=
ing some art. One last point, the Russian dictate really fucked it up big t=
ime, what a tragedy, waste of lives, it makes me sad.

respect from marc



From: furtherfield

Hello Wally,

I do not believe that you possess any interest in resolving anything

from these discussions - you have not successfully argued your case to =
justify your

governments actions.

Nor do I regard you as having been sucessful in arguing your case.


You have not answered questions in relation to America's need

for oil.

There are questions I asked which you likewise failed to address.


Your right-wing stance does not read well on the email page, with the v=
ery

simplistic ill-informed assumption, that I do not care about the Chechn=
ya

occupation, you are quite simply - wrong.
Your simplistic and uninformed assumption that I am a USAmerican is qui=
te simply – wrong. And your simple-minded knee-jerk labelist-response that=
I am a McCarthyist was exceedingly easy to trash.

For about 3 years, on and off, I have been helping (in my own small way)

a couple friends, who have come to the UK from Chechnya, with legal

issues in relation to immigration. Supporting them and experiencing the

endless, non-sensical administration and continuous beaucracy thrown at

people who have escape from troubled areas around the world. Talking on

the phone for them because they do not speak good english. I did

not know how badly foreigners were treated until I actually got involved

with it. It is a very stressful thing to do, they were treated like

criminals and they had not even done anything wrong and they had also

lost a brother before they had left their home country. And the repect

they have received is disgraceful.
And I definitely commend you for this action of yours. Although not per=
fect, Canada has been far more accepting of Roma (Gypsy) refugees than the =
European countries. I have been involved with the Gypsy community for sever=
al years now, especially those fleeing right-wing extremist Euro situations=
. My my, how this must conflict with your right-wing stereotype labelling o=
f me.

And they, like myself, believe that America is not helping the world via

its unilateral stance. Yes, they have their own problems at home but th=
ey

can also see that certain issues need to be resolved and challenged, in=
a

more intuitive and intelligent way, rather than by aggression.

Please don't assume Wally, for you do not know what I am up to in my

life, just as much I do not know what you are doing in yours.

Then reflect seriously on your presumption that I am an USAmerican.

Why don't

you admit that America is only interested in oil? I won't think the less

of you for it, in fact I would respect you for being honest.
I am being honest when I assert that I do not believe "that America is =
only interested in oil". America has been doing quite well since 1991 witho=
ut Iraqi oil. Indeed, all that the USA has to do to open the oil sluices of=
Iraq is to withdraw sanctions.

In April 2000, we demonstrated outside Downing street when Mr Putin came

visit the UK. Mr Blair promised to raise the issue with him about

Russia's human rights record in Chechnya.

It is not a human rights problem. I really don't understand how you cou=
ld diminish the horrendous atrocities of the Russian occupation – it is fa=
r more brutal and lethal than Israel's occupation of the West Bank, or Indo=
nesia's former occupation of East Timor. It is a racist war of exterminatio=
n that is over a decade long – and in spite of your involvement on Downing=
street, there has never been a mass demonstration against it. Why do you t=
hink that is so? And it is not a question of your personal involvement, but=
of the non-involvement of the peace movement at large.

But in the end they just said

that they would not allow the entirety of their relations with Russia a=
nd

a new Russian President to be defined by only one issue. We campaigned

and nothing came out of it of course, but at least we bothered. Compass=
ion

for others is not Fraud Wally, it is humane, there is nothing wrong wit=
h it.
I never asserted that "compassion for others" is fraud. I assert that t=
he peace activists at large are perpetrating a fraud when they behave as if=
the USA is the most brutal, most lethal, most violent in the world. My tak=
e is that the Russian invasion, occupation and racist genocide of total des=
truction in Chechnya has been the most brutal, most lethal, most violent in=
the world and it has been going on for over a decade and relative to the a=
ctivity against the USA, hardly a peep has ever been heard from the peace a=
ctivsist about Chechnya. It is THAT discrepancy which I refer to as a fraud.

Yes: I am very bored with protesting, I do not want to do it. But I feel

compelled to when so much crap is being dished out to civilians via

political dominance.


You seem to believe the official press line - and also you do not seem

brave enough to question your own reasonings of why your country is eag=
er

to pretend that they are carrying out a war against Muslim extremists,

when really they just want economical control over oil, due to America's

own need for it.

I question my own reasonings – so keep your ill-informed presumptions =
to yourself in that regard. Oil is cheap in the USA, compared to the rest o=
f the world. The proof is the number of gas-guzzling SUV's on the roads. Du=
ring the 70's when the cost of oil took a major leap thanks to the OPEC car=
tel, the era of the "compact car" was born after the heady days of the chro=
mium-ladened land yachts of the 50 & 60's. The USA has done quite well oil-=
wise during the 1990's when Iraq wasn't putting out due to sanctions.


That is why Iraq is going to be invaded, not because

your president believes in human decency. It is all very simple really,

your government is lying to you, don't you get it yet?

And your Chomsky's have been lying to you, don;t you realize your own g=
ullibility?


Despite a striking lack of consensus among the American foreign-policy

elite,


Thank goodness for a lack of consensus – it is a sign of democracy. Th=
ere is 100\% consensus in Iraq – that is a sigh of dictatorshit.


Congress voted to grant President Bush the power to attack Iraq

unilaterally. But the rest of the world, and a good part of the American

public,


A good part, but not quite majority enough at this time.


seem unconvinced of the necessity of an attack. Your aggression

towards other cultures is very wrong Wally,


You need a reading and comprehension course, Marc. I don't have any agg=
ression towards other cultures. My wife is of a culture other than mine. I =
have worked for many years with refugees and immigrants to this country. I =
live in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, which two independent studies found to be=
the most multicultural multiracial city in North America (Yes, it trumps N=
YC). In 1995 in Toronto the census revealed that I now belong in the catego=
ry of "visible minority" – I am a WASP. Canada, while far from perfect, an=
d with many flaws, has become quite reknown for its accomodation to toher c=
ultures and I take a lot of pride in that. So you know where you can shove =
your simple-minded presumptuous acusation that I am aggressive towards othe=
r cultures. What I am aggressive against is the culture of dictatorshits –=
I refuse to accommodate with such governing organs. I am very pro-democrat=
ic and anti-dictatorshit. As I have previously said, I have no problem with=
killing Hitler and his brain trust, and as much as I regret some loss of i=
nnocent lives to do so, I would be healed by the fact that the lives of sev=
eral million Jews, Gypsies, Gays, handicapped wouldn't be transported to th=
e ovens. On exceedingly rare occasions I believe many innocent lives can be=
saved by a selective and focussed killing of a few 100's, 1000's directly =
involved in the dictatorshit.


and it does seem that

everyone in the world thinks so as well.


That is a load of hyperbolic crap. You don't know any such thing.


Do you think that it is a

democratic act when America decides to bomb another country anyway,

when everyone else in the world has voted for it not to take place?


When and where did that vote take place?


Do you

think that is right? It's the people that matter in the world, not

governments, wake up!

Except when the government is killing hundreds of thousands of innocent=
civilians in neighbouring countries, hundreds of thousands of innocent civ=
ilians within the same country using gas, torture, or whatever else is at h=
and. I think it is wrong to acquiess to letting a government do that to so =
many innocent people. Wake up!


In 1990, in the run-up to Desert Storm, George Bush Senior bribed and

threatened virtually every country on the Security Council to force them

to vote to authorize the US war. The Administration cajoled poor

countries with cheap Saudi oil and dangled arms packages before

governments like Ethiopia and Colombia, whose access to US military

support had been cut because of wars and human rights violations. US

diplomats went to China and said "name your price" to avert a veto–and

fulfilled Beijing's wish list for post-Tiananmen Square diplomatic

rehabilitation (with the announcement of a White House visit by the

Chinese foreign minister) and new development aid (in the form of a $114

million World Bank assistance package). China abstained. When Yemen, the

only Arab country on the Council, voted against the war, a US diplomat

said, "That will be the most expensive No vote you ever cast." And

Washington cut off its entire $70 million US aid package.


Are you proud of this kind of action; do you really think that bullying

other countries into doing things that they do not want to do is right?
Sept.

11 was followed by more violence and death, bloodshed and destruction a=
nd

promises of 'permanent war.

, Wally Keeler

——=\_NextPart\_001\_0066\_01C27D98.5887C8F0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Blank-
Hi there Wally,

This may sound absurd, but in each email that I have been writing to you =
I have been beginning to warm to you.

Gosh I hope this doesn't lead to dating. :-) But sharing a drink or sp=
liff would be pleasant. I have a pref for spliffs.

Finding out other things of you past in repsect of certain humanistic thi=
ngs that you, yourself have also taken upon to do. So I am not going to res=
pond to you in an aggressive way at all, and say that I agree with some of=
your comments and have a good day creating some art.

Damn good idea. I'm more inclined towards poetics, but always had a profo=
und admiration for those with visual talents. Here's looking at your work. =
:-)

One last point, the Russian dictate really fucked it up big time, what a =
tragedy, waste of lives, it makes me sad.

Me too.

respect from marc

All good things
Wally

From: furtherfield

Hello Wally,

I do not believe that you possess any interest in resolving anything

from these discussions - you have not successfully argued your case t=
o justify your

governments actions.

Nor do I regard you as having been sucessful in arguing your case.


You have not answered questions in relation to America's need

for oil.

There are questions I asked which you likewise failed to address.


Your right-wing stance does not read well on the email page, with the=
very

simplistic ill-informed assumption, that I do not care about the Chec=
hnya

occupation, you are quite simply - wrong.
Your simplistic and uninformed assumption that I am a USAmerican is q=
uite simply – wrong. And your simple-minded knee-jerk labelist-response th=
at I am a McCarthyist was exceedingly easy to trash.

For about 3 years, on and off, I have been helping (in my own small w=
ay)

a couple friends, who have come to the UK from Chechnya, with legal

issues in relation to immigration. Supporting them and experiencing t=
he

endless, non-sensical administration and continuous beaucracy thrown =
at

people who have escape from troubled areas around the world. Talking =
on

the phone for them because they do not speak good english. I did

not know how badly foreigners were treated until I actually got invol=
ved

with it. It is a very stressful thing to do, they were treated like

criminals and they had not even done anything wrong and they had also

lost a brother before they had left their home country. And the repect

they have received is disgraceful.
And I definitely commend you for this action of yours. Although not p=
erfect, Canada has been far more accepting of Roma (Gypsy) refugees than th=
e European countries. I have been involved with the Gypsy community for sev=
eral years now, especially those fleeing right-wing extremist Euro situatio=
ns. My my, how this must conflict with your right-wing stereotype labelling=
of me.

And they, like myself, believe that America is not helping the world =
via

its unilateral stance. Yes, they have their own problems at home but =
they

can also see that certain issues need to be resolved and challenged, =
in a

more intuitive and intelligent way, rather than by aggression.

Please don't assume Wally, for you do not know what I am up to in my

life, just as much I do not know what you are doing in yours.

Then reflect seriously on your presumption that I am an USAmerican.

Why don't

you admit that America is only interested in oil? I won't think the l=
ess

of you for it, in fact I would respect you for being honest.
I am being honest when I assert that I do not believe "that America i=
s only interested in oil". America has been doing quite well since 1991 wit=
hout Iraqi oil. Indeed, all that the USA has to do to open the oil sluices =
of Iraq is to withdraw sanctions.

In April 2000, we demonstrated outside Downing street when Mr Putin c=
ame

visit the UK. Mr Blair promised to raise the issue with him about

Russia's human rights record in Chechnya.

It is not a human rights problem. I really don't understand how you c=
ould diminish the horrendous atrocities of the Russian occupation – it is =
far more brutal and lethal than Israel's occupation of the West Bank, or In=
donesia's former occupation of East Timor. It is a racist war of exterminat=
ion that is over a decade long – and in spite of your involvement on Downi=
ng street, there has never been a mass demonstration against it. Why do you=
think that is so? And it is not a question of your personal involvement, b=
ut of the non-involvement of the peace movement at large.

But in the end they just said

that they would not allow the entirety of their relations with Russia=
and

a new Russian President to be defined by only one issue. We campaigned

and nothing came out of it of course, but at least we bothered. Compa=
ssion

for others is not Fraud Wally, it is humane, there is nothing wrong w=
ith it.
I never asserted that "compassion for others" is fraud. I assert that=
the peace activists at large are perpetrating a fraud when they behave as =
if the USA is the most brutal, most lethal, most violent in the world. My t=
ake is that the Russian invasion, occupation and racist genocide of total d=
estruction in Chechnya has been the most brutal, most lethal, most violent =
in the world and it has been going on for over a decade and relative to the=
activity against the USA, hardly a peep has ever been heard from the peace=
activsist about Chechnya. It is THAT discrepancy which I refer to as a fra=
ud.

Yes: I am very bored with protesting, I do not want to do it. But I f=
eel

compelled to when so much crap is being dished out to civilians via

political dominance.


You seem to believe the official press line - and also you do not seem

brave enough to question your own reasonings of why your country is e=
ager

to pretend that they are carrying out a war against Muslim extremists,

when really they just want economical control over oil, due to Americ=
a's

own need for it.

I question my own reasonings – so keep your ill-informed presumption=
s to yourself in that regard. Oil is cheap in the USA, compared to the rest=
of the world. The proof is the number of gas-guzzling SUV's on the roads. =
During the 70's when the cost of oil took a major leap thanks to the OPEC c=
artel, the era of the "compact car" was born after the heady days of the ch=
romium-ladened land yachts of the 50 & 60's. The USA has done quite well oi=
l-wise during the 1990's when Iraq wasn't putting out due to sanctions.


That is why Iraq is going to be invaded, not because

your president believes in human decency. It is all very simple reall=
y,

your government is lying to you, don't you get it yet?

And your Chomsky's have been lying to you, don;t you realize your own=
gullibility?


Despite a striking lack of consensus among the American foreign-policy

elite,


Thank goodness for a lack of consensus – it is a sign of democracy. =
There is 100\% consensus in Iraq – that is a sigh of dictatorshit.


Congress voted to grant President Bush the power to attack Iraq

unilaterally. But the rest of the world, and a good part of the Ameri=
can

public,


A good part, but not quite majority enough at this time.


seem unconvinced of the necessity of an attack. Your aggression

towards other cultures is very wrong Wally,


You need a reading and comprehension course, Marc. I don't have any a=
ggression towards other cultures. My wife is of a culture other than mine. =
I have worked for many years with refugees and immigrants to this country. =
I live in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, which two independent studies found to =
be the most multicultural multiracial city in North America (Yes, it trumps=
NYC). In 1995 in Toronto the census revealed that I now belong in the cate=
gory of "visible minority" – I am a WASP. Canada, while far from perfect, =
and with many flaws, has become quite reknown for its accomodation to toher=
cultures and I take a lot of pride in that. So you know where you can shov=
e your simple-minded presumptuous acusation that I am aggressive towards ot=
her cultures. What I am aggressive against is the culture of dictatorshits =
– I refuse to accommodate with such governing organs. I am very pro-democr=
atic and anti-dictatorshit. As I have previously said, I have no problem wi=
th killing Hitler and his brain trust, and as much as I regret some loss of=
innocent lives to do so, I would be healed by the fact that the lives of s=
everal million Jews, Gypsies, Gays, handicapped wouldn't be transported to =
the ovens. On exceedingly rare occasions I believe many innocent lives can =
be saved by a selective and focussed killing of a few 100's, 1000's directl=
y involved in the dictatorshit.


and it does seem that

everyone in the world thinks so as well.


That is a load of hyperbolic crap. You don't know any such thing.


Do you think that it is a

democratic act when America decides to bomb another country anyway,

when everyone else in the world has voted for it not to take place



When and where did that vote take place?


Do you

think that is right? It's the people that matter in the world, not

governments, wake up!

Except when the government is killing hundreds of thousands of innoce=
nt civilians in neighbouring countries, hundreds of thousands of innocent c=
ivilians within the same country using gas, torture, or whatever else is at=
hand. I think it is wrong to acquiess to letting a government do that to s=
o many innocent people. Wake up!


In 1990, in the run-up to Desert Storm, George Bush Senior bribed and

threatened virtually every country on the Security Council to force t=
hem

to vote to authorize the US war. The Administration cajoled poor

countries with cheap Saudi oil and dangled arms packages before

governments like Ethiopia and Colombia, whose access to US military

support had been cut because of wars and human rights violations. US

diplomats went to China and said "name your price" to avert a veto–a=
nd

fulfilled Beijing's wish list for post-Tiananmen Square diplomatic

rehabilitation (with the announcement of a White House visit by the

Chinese foreign minister) and new development aid (in the form of a $=
114

million World Bank assistance package). China abstained. When Yemen, =
the

only Arab country on the Council, voted against the war, a US diplomat

said, "That will be the most expensive No vote you ever cast." And

Washington cut off its entire $70 million US aid package.


Are you proud of this kind of action; do you really think that bullyi=
ng

other countries into doing things that they do not want to do is righ=
t?
Sept.

11 was followed by more violence and death, bloodshed and destruction=
and

promises of 'permanent war.

, marc garrett

——=\_NextPart\_001\_000A\_01C27DC3.64081060
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

BlankHi Wally,

I have learnt a lot by our arguments though - it has forced me to reevaluat=
e certain presumptions of my own. Some of my ideas have become stronger and=
some are now obsolete. And I am very sorry for being offensive. My brain i=
s buzzing with some new ideas presently. If you are ever in the UK, pop rou=
nd and say hello and we can carry on with our arguments in a more civilized=
manner over a beer and possibly a spliff (dare I say it). In respect of us=
dating, I am married at the moment but will keep you in mind :-)

respect from marc

p.s. I know you were'nt serious about dating by the way…


-
Hi there Wally,

This may sound absurd, but in each email that I have been writing to yo=
u I have been beginning to warm to you.

Gosh I hope this doesn't lead to dating. :-) But sharing a drink or =
spliff would be pleasant. I have a pref for spliffs.

Finding out other things of you past in repsect of certain humanistic t=
hings that you, yourself have also taken upon to do. So I am not going to r=
espond to you in an aggressive way at all, and say that I agree with some =
of your comments and have a good day creating some art.

Damn good idea. I'm more inclined towards poetics, but always had a pro=
found admiration for those with visual talents. Here's looking at your work=
. :-)

One last point, the Russian dictate really fucked it up big time, what =
a tragedy, waste of lives, it makes me sad.

Me too.

respect from marc

All good things
Wally

From: furtherfield

Hello Wally,

I do not believe that you possess any interest in resolving anything

from these discussions - you have not successfully argued your case=
to justify your

governments actions.

Nor do I regard you as having been sucessful in arguing your case.


You have not answered questions in relation to America's need

for oil.

There are questions I asked which you likewise failed to address.


Your right-wing stance does not read well on the email page, with t=
he very

simplistic ill-informed assumption, that I do not care about the Ch=
echnya

occupation, you are quite simply - wrong.
Your simplistic and uninformed assumption that I am a USAmerican is=
quite simply – wrong. And your simple-minded knee-jerk labelist-response =
that I am a McCarthyist was exceedingly easy to trash.

For about 3 years, on and off, I have been helping (in my own small=
way)

a couple friends, who have come to the UK from Chechnya, with legal

issues in relation to immigration. Supporting them and experiencing=
the

endless, non-sensical administration and continuous beaucracy throw=
n at

people who have escape from troubled areas around the world. Talkin=
g on

the phone for them because they do not speak good english. I did

not know how badly foreigners were treated until I actually got inv=
olved

with it. It is a very stressful thing to do, they were treated like

criminals and they had not even done anything wrong and they had al=
so

lost a brother before they had left their home country. And the rep=
ect

they have received is disgraceful.
And I definitely commend you for this action of yours. Although not=
perfect, Canada has been far more accepting of Roma (Gypsy) refugees than =
the European countries. I have been involved with the Gypsy community for s=
everal years now, especially those fleeing right-wing extremist Euro situat=
ions. My my, how this must conflict with your right-wing stereotype labelli=
ng of me.

And they, like myself, believe that America is not helping the worl=
d via

its unilateral stance. Yes, they have their own problems at home bu=
t they

can also see that certain issues need to be resolved and challenged=
, in a

more intuitive and intelligent way, rather than by aggression.

Please don't assume Wally, for you do not know what I am up to in my

life, just as much I do not know what you are doing in yours.

Then reflect seriously on your presumption that I am an USAmerican.

Why don't

you admit that America is only interested in oil? I won't think the=
less

of you for it, in fact I would respect you for being honest.
I am being honest when I assert that I do not believe "that America=
is only interested in oil". America has been doing quite well since 1991 w=
ithout Iraqi oil. Indeed, all that the USA has to do to open the oil sluice=
s of Iraq is to withdraw sanctions.

In April 2000, we demonstrated outside Downing street when Mr Putin=
came

visit the UK. Mr Blair promised to raise the issue with him about

Russia's human rights record in Chechnya.

It is not a human rights problem. I really don't understand how you=
could diminish the horrendous atrocities of the Russian occupation – it i=
s far more brutal and lethal than Israel's occupation of the West Bank, or =
Indonesia's former occupation of East Timor. It is a racist war of extermin=
ation that is over a decade long – and in spite of your involvement on Dow=
ning street, there has never been a mass demonstration against it. Why do y=
ou think that is so? And it is not a question of your personal involvement,=
but of the non-involvement of the peace movement at large.

But in the end they just said

that they would not allow the entirety of their relations with Russ=
ia and

a new Russian President to be defined by only one issue. We campaig=
ned

and nothing came out of it of course, but at least we bothered. Com=
passion

for others is not Fraud Wally, it is humane, there is nothing wrong=
with it.
I never asserted that "compassion for others" is fraud. I assert th=
at the peace activists at large are perpetrating a fraud when they behave a=
s if the USA is the most brutal, most lethal, most violent in the world. My=
take is that the Russian invasion, occupation and racist genocide of total=
destruction in Chechnya has been the most brutal, most lethal, most violen=
t in the world and it has been going on for over a decade and relative to t=
he activity against the USA, hardly a peep has ever been heard from the pea=
ce activsist about Chechnya. It is THAT discrepancy which I refer to as a f=
raud.

Yes: I am very bored with protesting, I do not want to do it. But I=
feel

compelled to when so much crap is being dished out to civilians via

political dominance.


You seem to believe the official press line - and also you do not s=
eem

brave enough to question your own reasonings of why your country is=
eager

to pretend that they are carrying out a war against Muslim extremis=
ts,

when really they just want economical control over oil, due to Amer=
ica's

own need for it.

I question my own reasonings – so keep your ill-informed presumpti=
ons to yourself in that regard. Oil is cheap in the USA, compared to the re=
st of the world. The proof is the number of gas-guzzling SUV's on the roads=
. During the 70's when the cost of oil took a major leap thanks to the OPEC=
cartel, the era of the "compact car" was born after the heady days of the =
chromium-ladened land yachts of the 50 & 60's. The USA has done quite well =
oil-wise during the 1990's when Iraq wasn't putting out due to sanctions.=



That is why Iraq is going to be invaded, not because

your president believes in human decency. It is all very simple rea=
lly,

your government is lying to you, don't you get it yet?

And your Chomsky's have been lying to you, don;t you realize your o=
wn gullibility?


Despite a striking lack of consensus among the American foreign-pol=
icy

elite,


Thank goodness for a lack of consensus – it is a sign of democracy=
. There is 100\% consensus in Iraq – that is a sigh of dictatorshit.


Congress voted to grant President Bush the power to attack Iraq

unilaterally. But the rest of the world, and a good part of the Ame=
rican

public,


A good part, but not quite majority enough at this time.


seem unconvinced of the necessity of an attack. Your aggression

towards other cultures is very wrong Wally,


You need a reading and comprehension course, Marc. I don't have any=
aggression towards other cultures. My wife is of a culture other than mine=
. I have worked for many years with refugees and immigrants to this country=
. I live in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, which two independent studies found t=
o be the most multicultural multiracial city in North America (Yes, it trum=
ps NYC). In 1995 in Toronto the census revealed that I now belong in the ca=
tegory of "visible minority" – I am a WASP. Canada, while far from perfect=
, and with many flaws, has become quite reknown for its accomodation to toh=
er cultures and I take a lot of pride in that. So you know where you can sh=
ove your simple-minded presumptuous acusation that I am aggressive towards =
other cultures. What I am aggressive against is the culture of dictatorshit=
s – I refuse to accommodate with such governing organs. I am very pro-demo=
cratic and anti-dictatorshit. As I have previously said, I have no problem =
with killing Hitler and his brain trust, and as much as I regret some loss =
of innocent lives to do so, I would be healed by the fact that the lives of=
several million Jews, Gypsies, Gays, handicapped wouldn't be transported t=
o the ovens. On exceedingly rare occasions I believe many innocent lives ca=
n be saved by a selective and focussed killing of a few 100's, 1000's direc=
tly involved in the dictatorshit.


and it does seem that

everyone in the world thinks so as well.


That is a load of hyperbolic crap. You don't know any such thing.


Do you think that it is a

democratic act when America decides to bomb another country anyway,

when everyone else in the world has voted for it not to take place



When and where did that vote take place?


Do you

think that is right? It's the people that matter in the world, not

governments, wake up!

Except when the government is killing hundreds of thousands of inno=
cent civilians in neighbouring countries, hundreds of thousands of innocent=
civilians within the same country using gas, torture, or whatever else is =
at hand. I think it is wrong to acquiess to letting a government do that to=
so many innocent people. Wake up!


In 1990, in the run-up to Desert Storm, George Bush Senior bribed a=
nd

threatened virtually every country on the Security Council to force=
them

to vote to authorize the US war. The Administration cajoled poor

countries with cheap Saudi oil and dangled arms packages before

governments like Ethiopia and Colombia, whose access to US military

support had been cut because of wars and human rights violations. US

diplomats went to China and said "name your price" to avert a veto-=
-and

fulfilled Beijing's wish list for post-Tiananmen Square diplomatic

rehabilitation (with the announcement of a White House visit by the

Chinese foreign minister) and new development aid (in the form of a=
$114

million World Bank assistance package). China abstained. When Yemen=
, the

only Arab country on the Council, voted against the war, a US diplo=
mat

said, "That will be the most expensive No vote you ever cast." And

Washington cut off its entire $70 million US aid package.


Are you proud of this kind of action; do you really think that bull=
ying

other countries into doing things that they do not want to do is ri=
ght?
Sept.

11 was followed by more violence and death, bloodshed and destructi=
on and

promises of 'permanent war.

, marc garrett

——=\_NextPart\_001\_0013\_01C27DC8.5DC136F0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

BlankHi Wally,

I have learnt a lot by our arguments though - it has forced me to reevaluat=
e certain presumptions of my own. Some of my ideas have become stronger and=
some are now obsolete. And I am very sorry for being offensive. My brain i=
s buzzing with some new ideas presently. If you are ever in the UK, pop rou=
nd and say hello and we can carry on with our arguments in a more civilized=
manner over a beer and possibly a spliff (dare I say it). In respect of us=
dating, I am married at the moment but will keep you in mind :-)

respect from marc

p.s. I know you were'nt serious about dating by the way…


-
Hi there Wally,

This may sound absurd, but in each email that I have been writing to yo=
u I have been beginning to warm to you.

Gosh I hope this doesn't lead to dating. :-) But sharing a drink or =
spliff would be pleasant. I have a pref for spliffs.

Finding out other things of you past in repsect of certain humanistic t=
hings that you, yourself have also taken upon to do. So I am not going to r=
espond to you in an aggressive way at all, and say that I agree with some =
of your comments and have a good day creating some art.

Damn good idea. I'm more inclined towards poetics, but always had a pro=
found admiration for those with visual talents. Here's looking at your work=
. :-)

One last point, the Russian dictate really fucked it up big time, what =
a tragedy, waste of lives, it makes me sad.

Me too.

respect from marc

All good things
Wally

From: furtherfield

Hello Wally,

I do not believe that you possess any interest in resolving anything

from these discussions - you have not successfully argued your case=
to justify your

governments actions.

Nor do I regard you as having been sucessful in arguing your case.


You have not answered questions in relation to America's need

for oil.

There are questions I asked which you likewise failed to address.


Your right-wing stance does not read well on the email page, with t=
he very

simplistic ill-informed assumption, that I do not care about the Ch=
echnya

occupation, you are quite simply - wrong.
Your simplistic and uninformed assumption that I am a USAmerican is=
quite simply – wrong. And your simple-minded knee-jerk labelist-response =
that I am a McCarthyist was exceedingly easy to trash.

For about 3 years, on and off, I have been helping (in my own small=
way)

a couple friends, who have come to the UK from Chechnya, with legal

issues in relation to immigration. Supporting them and experiencing=
the

endless, non-sensical administration and continuous beaucracy throw=
n at

people who have escape from troubled areas around the world. Talkin=
g on

the phone for them because they do not speak good english. I did

not know how badly foreigners were treated until I actually got inv=
olved

with it. It is a very stressful thing to do, they were treated like

criminals and they had not even done anything wrong and they had al=
so

lost a brother before they had left their home country. And the rep=
ect

they have received is disgraceful.
And I definitely commend you for this action of yours. Although not=
perfect, Canada has been far more accepting of Roma (Gypsy) refugees than =
the European countries. I have been involved with the Gypsy community for s=
everal years now, especially those fleeing right-wing extremist Euro situat=
ions. My my, how this must conflict with your right-wing stereotype labelli=
ng of me.

And they, like myself, believe that America is not helping the worl=
d via

its unilateral stance. Yes, they have their own problems at home bu=
t they

can also see that certain issues need to be resolved and challenged=
, in a

more intuitive and intelligent way, rather than by aggression.

Please don't assume Wally, for you do not know what I am up to in my

life, just as much I do not know what you are doing in yours.

Then reflect seriously on your presumption that I am an USAmerican.

Why don't

you admit that America is only interested in oil? I won't think the=
less

of you for it, in fact I would respect you for being honest.
I am being honest when I assert that I do not believe "that America=
is only interested in oil". America has been doing quite well since 1991 w=
ithout Iraqi oil. Indeed, all that the USA has to do to open the oil sluice=
s of Iraq is to withdraw sanctions.

In April 2000, we demonstrated outside Downing street when Mr Putin=
came

visit the UK. Mr Blair promised to raise the issue with him about

Russia's human rights record in Chechnya.

It is not a human rights problem. I really don't understand how you=
could diminish the horrendous atrocities of the Russian occupation – it i=
s far more brutal and lethal than Israel's occupation of the West Bank, or =
Indonesia's former occupation of East Timor. It is a racist war of extermin=
ation that is over a decade long – and in spite of your involvement on Dow=
ning street, there has never been a mass demonstration against it. Why do y=
ou think that is so? And it is not a question of your personal involvement,=
but of the non-involvement of the peace movement at large.

But in the end they just said

that they would not allow the entirety of their relations with Russ=
ia and

a new Russian President to be defined by only one issue. We campaig=
ned

and nothing came out of it of course, but at least we bothered. Com=
passion

for others is not Fraud Wally, it is humane, there is nothing wrong=
with it.
I never asserted that "compassion for others" is fraud. I assert th=
at the peace activists at large are perpetrating a fraud when they behave a=
s if the USA is the most brutal, most lethal, most violent in the world. My=
take is that the Russian invasion, occupation and racist genocide of total=
destruction in Chechnya has been the most brutal, most lethal, most violen=
t in the world and it has been going on for over a decade and relative to t=
he activity against the USA, hardly a peep has ever been heard from the pea=
ce activsist about Chechnya. It is THAT discrepancy which I refer to as a f=
raud.

Yes: I am very bored with protesting, I do not want to do it. But I=
feel

compelled to when so much crap is being dished out to civilians via

political dominance.


You seem to believe the official press line - and also you do not s=
eem

brave enough to question your own reasonings of why your country is=
eager

to pretend that they are carrying out a war against Muslim extremis=
ts,

when really they just want economical control over oil, due to Amer=
ica's

own need for it.

I question my own reasonings – so keep your ill-informed presumpti=
ons to yourself in that regard. Oil is cheap in the USA, compared to the re=
st of the world. The proof is the number of gas-guzzling SUV's on the roads=
. During the 70's when the cost of oil took a major leap thanks to the OPEC=
cartel, the era of the "compact car" was born after the heady days of the =
chromium-ladened land yachts of the 50 & 60's. The USA has done quite well =
oil-wise during the 1990's when Iraq wasn't putting out due to sanctions.=



That is why Iraq is going to be invaded, not because

your president believes in human decency. It is all very simple rea=
lly,

your government is lying to you, don't you get it yet?

And your Chomsky's have been lying to you, don;t you realize your o=
wn gullibility?


Despite a striking lack of consensus among the American foreign-pol=
icy

elite,


Thank goodness for a lack of consensus – it is a sign of democracy=
. There is 100\% consensus in Iraq – that is a sigh of dictatorshit.


Congress voted to grant President Bush the power to attack Iraq

unilaterally. But the rest of the world, and a good part of the Ame=
rican

public,


A good part, but not quite majority enough at this time.


seem unconvinced of the necessity of an attack. Your aggression

towards other cultures is very wrong Wally,


You need a reading and comprehension course, Marc. I don't have any=
aggression towards other cultures. My wife is of a culture other than mine=
. I have worked for many years with refugees and immigrants to this country=
. I live in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, which two independent studies found t=
o be the most multicultural multiracial city in North America (Yes, it trum=
ps NYC). In 1995 in Toronto the census revealed that I now belong in the ca=
tegory of "visible minority" – I am a WASP. Canada, while far from perfect=
, and with many flaws, has become quite reknown for its accomodation to toh=
er cultures and I take a lot of pride in that. So you know where you can sh=
ove your simple-minded presumptuous acusation that I am aggressive towards =
other cultures. What I am aggressive against is the culture of dictatorshit=
s – I refuse to accommodate with such governing organs. I am very pro-demo=
cratic and anti-dictatorshit. As I have previously said, I have no problem =
with killing Hitler and his brain trust, and as much as I regret some loss =
of innocent lives to do so, I would be healed by the fact that the lives of=
several million Jews, Gypsies, Gays, handicapped wouldn't be transported t=
o the ovens. On exceedingly rare occasions I believe many innocent lives ca=
n be saved by a selective and focussed killing of a few 100's, 1000's direc=
tly involved in the dictatorshit.


and it does seem that

everyone in the world thinks so as well.


That is a load of hyperbolic crap. You don't know any such thing.


Do you think that it is a

democratic act when America decides to bomb another country anyway,

when everyone else in the world has voted for it not to take place



When and where did that vote take place?


Do you

think that is right? It's the people that matter in the world, not

governments, wake up!

Except when the government is killing hundreds of thousands of inno=
cent civilians in neighbouring countries, hundreds of thousands of innocent=
civilians within the same country using gas, torture, or whatever else is =
at hand. I think it is wrong to acquiess to letting a government do that to=
so many innocent people. Wake up!


In 1990, in the run-up to Desert Storm, George Bush Senior bribed a=
nd

threatened virtually every country on the Security Council to force=
them

to vote to authorize the US war. The Administration cajoled poor

countries with cheap Saudi oil and dangled arms packages before

governments like Ethiopia and Colombia, whose access to US military

support had been cut because of wars and human rights violations. US

diplomats went to China and said "name your price" to avert a veto-=
-and

fulfilled Beijing's wish list for post-Tiananmen Square diplomatic

rehabilitation (with the announcement of a White House visit by the

Chinese foreign minister) and new development aid (in the form of a=
$114

million World Bank assistance package). China abstained. When Yemen=
, the

only Arab country on the Council, voted against the war, a US diplo=
mat

said, "That will be the most expensive No vote you ever cast." And

Washington cut off its entire $70 million US aid package.


Are you proud of this kind of action; do you really think that bull=
ying

other countries into doing things that they do not want to do is ri=
ght?
Sept.

11 was followed by more violence and death, bloodshed and destructi=
on and

promises of 'permanent war.

, Jim Andrews

——=_NextPart_001_001A_01C27DCC.C19EB7C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Blank
Personally, I have no problem with the USA unilaterally providing small
weapons to Iraqi dissident groups who wish to kill Saddam or his henchmen. I
have no problem with a unilaterally financed (mercenary) assassination
squad. No bombing from the air, no invasion, just a murderous strike at the
head of the snake choking the Iraqi people and threatening the
neighbourhood. However, I would restrain such a liquidation for the moment,
to give the UN Security Council the opportunity to demonstrate its will &
intelligence, or lack thereof. If it is ineffective, then I would support
focussed strikes at the head of the snake, even if they were unilateral by
the USA.

If the USA unilaterally acts in the way you describe, it is the end of USA
global power. However dangerous Hussein is, international law is more
important. International vigilantism is no more preferable than vigilantism
on a smaller scale.

In the meantime, the credible threats by the USA has been effective in
getting the UN Security Council off its ass, shuck its ennui, and stiffen
its back. If it does that, we can thank the USA for giving the the UN the
spine it has lacked.

The UN has the power that other countries of the world give it. The same
is true of nations themselves.

And the same is true of the rule of law on a smaller scale: the rule of
law in cities, amongst people, is not by force of the police; it is by
consent of the people or it is out the window. Even in Canada, where I am
from also.

ja

——=_NextPart_001_001A_01C27DCC.C19EB7C0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE id=ridTitle>Blank</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-125=
2"><BASE
href="file://C:Program FilesCommon FilesMicrosoft SharedStationery">
<STYLE>BODY {
MARGIN-TOP: 25px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 25px; COLOR: #000000; FONT=
-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica
}
P.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; COLOR: #ffffcc; FONT-F=
AMILY: Helvetica, "Times New Roman"
}
LI.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; COLOR: #ffffcc; FONT-F=
AMILY: Helvetica, "Times New Roman"
}
</STYLE>

<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2716.2200" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=ridBody bgColor=#ffffff background=cid:160140823@27102002-2a=
74>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px soli=
d; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">Personally, I have no problem with th=
e USA
unilaterally providing small weapons to Iraqi dissident groups who wish t=
o
kill Saddam or his henchmen. I have no problem with a unilaterally financ=
ed
(mercenary) assassination squad. No bombing from the air, no invasion, ju=
st a
murderous strike at the head of the snake choking the Iraqi people and
threatening the neighbourhood. However, I would restrain such a liquidati=
on
for the moment, to give the UN Security Council the opportunity to demons=
trate
its will &amp; intelligence, or lack thereof. If it is ineffective, then =
I
would support focussed strikes at the head of the snake, even if they wer=
e
unilateral by the USA.</FONT><FONT face=Arial><SPAN
class=160140823-27102002>&nbsp;</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><SPAN
class=160140823-27102002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><SPAN class=160140823-27102002><FONT
face="Times New Roman" color=#0000ff>If the USA unilaterally acts in =
the way
you describe, it is the end of USA global power. </FONT><FONT
face="Times New Roman" color=#0000ff>However dangerous Hussein is,
international law is more important. International vigilantism is no more=

preferable than vigilantism on a smaller scale.</FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">In the meantime, the credible threats=
by the
USA has been effective in getting the UN Security Council off its ass, sh=
uck
its ennui, and stiffen its back. If it does that, we can thank the USA fo=
r
giving the the UN the spine it has lacked.</FONT><FONT face=Arial><SPAN=

class=160140823-27102002>&nbsp;</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><SPAN
class=160140823-27102002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><SPAN class=160140823-27102002><FONT
face="Times New Roman" color=#0000ff>The UN has the power that other =
countries
of the world give it. The same is true of nations
themselves.</FONT>&nbsp;</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=160140823-27102002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=160140823-27102002>And the same is true of the rule of law on a s=
maller
scale: the rule of law in cities, amongst people, is not by force of the=

police; it is by consent of the people or it is out the window. Even in=

Canada, where I am from also.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=160140823-27102002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=160140823-27102002>ja</SPAN></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HT=
ML>

——=_NextPart_001_001A_01C27DCC.C19EB7C0–

, Wally Keeler

——=_NextPart_001_01C4_01C27E07.A0465570
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Blank
Personally, I have no problem with the USA unilaterally providing small=
weapons to Iraqi dissident groups who wish to kill Saddam or his henchmen.=
I have no problem with a unilaterally financed (mercenary) assassination s=
quad. No bombing from the air, no invasion, just a murderous strike at the =
head of the snake choking the Iraqi people and threatening the neighbourhoo=
d. However, I would restrain such a liquidation for the moment, to give the=
UN Security Council the opportunity to demonstrate its will & intelligence=
, or lack thereof. If it is ineffective, then I would support focussed stri=
kes at the head of the snake, even if they were unilateral by the USA.

If the USA unilaterally acts in the way you describe, it is the end of =
USA global power. However dangerous Hussein is, international law is more i=
mportant. International vigilantism is no more preferable than vigilantism =
on a smaller scale.

Actually I doubt that it would erode USA Global power. USA global power=
grew during most of the 20th century, and during that time, it had indulge=
d in such behaviour as wet work. It was quite clumsy at it and in many inst=
ances I did not find it agreeable. I must say that I am still impressed and=
continue to celebrate Israel's Mossad for its raid on Entebbe airport, res=
cuing the hostages, and, if memory serves me right, killing no civilians. =
Technically they violated several laws. International law is in its infancy=
and has no enforcement mechanisms, unlike national laws with a police forc=
e to enforce them. The world at large is still in a state of anarchy. It is=
against the law for anyone, including police to run a red light, however, =
the concept of hot pursuit provides that the police can run a red light in =
the performance of its duty to enforce the law.

In the meantime, the credible threats by the USA has been effective in =
getting the UN Security Council off its ass, shuck its ennui, and stiffen i=
ts back. If it does that, we can thank the USA for giving the the UN the sp=
ine it has lacked.

The UN has the power that other countries of the world give it.

Which is nothing. A criminal state thereby has carte blanche to do as i=
t pleases – Iraq for instance.

The same is true of nations themselves.

And the same is true of the rule of law on a smaller scale: the rule of=
law in cities, amongst people, is not by force of the police; it is by con=
sent of the people

The consent of the people provide for a police force to pursue law-brea=
kers and bring them to justice. It is the police who enforce the laws on be=
half of the people who pay money for them to do so.

or it is out the window. Even in Canada, where I am from also.

Which have laws and police forces. And the people at large consent to t=
his.

——=_NextPart_001_01C4_01C27E07.A0465570
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE id=ridTitle>Blank</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-125=
2"><BASE
href="file://C:Program FilesCommon FilesMicrosoft SharedStationery">
<STYLE>BODY {
MARGIN-TOP: 25px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 25px; COLOR: #000000; FONT=
-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica
}
P.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; COLOR: #ffffcc; FONT-F=
AMILY: Helvetica, "Times New Roman"
}
LI.msoNormal {
MARGIN-TOP: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; COLOR: #ffffcc; FONT-F=
AMILY: Helvetica, "Times New Roman"
}
</STYLE>

<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2713.1100" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=ridBody bgColor=#ffffff
background=cid:01c201c27e31$891ad6d0$3ce6fea9@wallyx848tqinf>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LE=
FT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px so=
lid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">Personally, I have no problem with =
the USA
unilaterally providing small weapons to Iraqi dissident groups who wish=
to
kill Saddam or his henchmen. I have no problem with a unilaterally fina=
nced
(mercenary) assassination squad. No bombing from the air, no invasion, =
just
a murderous strike at the head of the snake choking the Iraqi people an=
d
threatening the neighbourhood. However, I would restrain such a liquida=
tion
for the moment, to give the UN Security Council the opportunity to
demonstrate its will &amp; intelligence, or lack thereof. If it is
ineffective, then I would support focussed strikes at the head of the s=
nake,
even if they were unilateral by the USA.</FONT><FONT face=Arial><SPAN=

class=160140823-27102002>&nbsp;</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><SPAN
class=160140823-27102002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><SPAN class=160140823-27102002><FONT
face="Times New Roman" color=#0000ff>If the USA unilaterally acts i=
n the way
you describe, it is the end of USA global power. </FONT><FONT
face="Times New Roman" color=#0000ff>However dangerous Hussein is,=

international law is more important. International vigilantism is no mo=
re
preferable than vigilantism on a smaller scale.</FONT></SPAN></FONT></D=
IV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=160140823-27102002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#ff0000><SPAN
class=160140823-27102002>Actually I doubt that it would erode USA Glo=
bal
power. USA global power grew during most of the 20th century, and durin=
g
that time, it had indulged in such behaviour as wet work. It was quite=

clumsy at it and in many instances I did not find it agreeable. I must =
say
that I am still impressed and continue to celebrate Israel's&nbsp;Mossa=
d for
its raid on Entebbe airport, rescuing the hostages, and, if memory serv=
es me
right, &nbsp;killing no civilians. Technically they violated several la=
ws.
International law is in its infancy and has no enforcement mechanisms,=

unlike national laws with a police force to enforce them. The world at =
large
is still in a state of anarchy. It is against the law for anyone, inclu=
ding
police to run a red light, however, the concept of hot pursuit provides=
that
the police can run a red light in the performance of its duty to enforc=
e the
law. </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">In the meantime, the credible threa=
ts by
the USA has been effective in getting the UN Security Council off its a=
ss,
shuck its ennui, and stiffen its back. If it does that, we can thank th=
e USA
for giving the the UN the spine it has lacked.</FONT><FONT face=Arial=
><SPAN
class=160140823-27102002>&nbsp;</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><SPAN
class=160140823-27102002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><SPAN class=160140823-27102002><FONT
face="Times New Roman" color=#0000ff>The UN has the power that othe=
r
countries of the world give it. </FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><SPAN class=160140823-27102002><FONT
face="Times New Roman" color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</D=
IV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><SPAN class=160140823-27102002><FONT
face="Times New Roman" color=#ff0000>Which is nothing. A criminal s=
tate
thereby has carte blanche to do as it pleases – Iraq for
instance.</FONT></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><SPAN class=160140823-27102002><FONT
face="Times New Roman" color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</D=
IV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><SPAN class=160140823-27102002><FONT
face="Times New Roman" color=#0000ff>The same is true of nations
themselves.</FONT>&nbsp;</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=160140823-27102002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=160140823-27102002>And the same is true of the rule of law on a=

smaller scale: the rule of law in cities, amongst people, is not by for=
ce of
the police; it is by consent of the people </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=160140823-27102002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#ff0000><SPAN
class=160140823-27102002>The consent of the people provide for a poli=
ce
force to pursue law-breakers and bring them to justice. It is the polic=
e who
enforce the laws on behalf of the people who pay money for them to do=

so.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=160140823-27102002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=160140823-27102002>or it is out the window. Even in Canada, whe=
re I am
from also.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=160140823-27102002></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#ff0000><SPAN
class=160140823-27102002>Which have laws and police forces. And the p=
eople
at large consent to
this.</SPAN></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

——=_NextPart_001_01C4_01C27E07.A0465570–

, Vijay Pattisapu

Wally
Acting behind the back like that (supplying dissident Iraqi factions) is similar to what we did to Afghanistan back in the 70's…in trying to give the Soviets their own Vietnam, we used Afghanistan as a pawn, one that we easily forgot until decades later…remember, Taliban and Al-Qaeda are fighting those troops right now with American firearms.
Vijay

> "Wally Keeler" <[email protected]> "Jim Andrews" <[email protected]>, "List@Rhizome. Org" <[email protected]> Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Doh!Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 22:24:33 -0500
>Reply-To: "Wally Keeler" <[email protected]>
>
>Blank
> Personally, I have no problem with the USA unilaterally providing small weapons to Iraqi dissident groups who wish to kill Saddam or his henchmen. I have no problem with a unilaterally financed (mercenary) assassination squad. No bombing from the air, no invasion, just a murderous strike at the head of the snake choking the Iraqi people and threatening the neighbourhood. However, I would restrain such a liquidation for the moment, to give the UN Security Council the opportunity to demonstrate its will & intelligence, or lack thereof. If it is ineffective, then I would support focussed strikes at the head of the snake, even if they were unilateral by the USA.
>
> If the USA unilaterally acts in the way you describe, it is the end of USA global power. However dangerous Hussein is, international law is more important. International vigilantism is no more preferable than vigilantism on a smaller scale.
>
> Actually I doubt that it would erode USA Global power. USA global power grew during most of the 20th century, and during that time, it had indulged in such behaviour as wet work. It was quite clumsy at it and in many instances I did not find it agreeable. I must say that I am still impressed and continue to celebrate Israel's Mossad for its raid on Entebbe airport, rescuing the hostages, and, if memory serves me right, killing no civilians. Technically they violated several laws. International law is in its infancy and has no enforcement mechanisms, unlike national laws with a police force to enforce them. The world at large is still in a state of anarchy. It is against the law for anyone, including police to run a red light, however, the concept of hot pursuit provides that the police can run a red light in the performance of its duty to enforce the law.
>
> In the meantime, the credible threats by the USA has been effective in getting the UN Security Council off its ass, shuck its ennui, and stiffen its back. If it does that, we can thank the USA for giving the the UN the spine it has lacked.
>
> The UN has the power that other countries of the world give it.
>
> Which is nothing. A criminal state thereby has carte blanche to do as it pleases – Iraq for instance.
>
> The same is true of nations themselves.
>
> And the same is true of the rule of law on a smaller scale: the rule of law in cities, amongst people, is not by force of the police; it is by consent of the people
>
> The consent of the people provide for a police force to pursue law-breakers and bring them to justice. It is the police who enforce the laws on behalf of the people who pay money for them to do so.
>
> or it is out the window. Even in Canada, where I am from also.
>
> Which have laws and police forces. And the people at large consent to this.
>
><< msg2.html >>
><< Blank_Bkgrd.gif >>




————————————————————
Get Your Free and Private Junglist E-mail from Junglist.com
Register Online Here -> http://www.junglist.com


———————————————————————
Express yourself with a super cool email address from BigMailBox.com.
Hundreds of choices. It's free!
http://www.bigmailbox.com
———————————————————————

, Wally Keeler

Vijay
As I recall, there was a mutuality in the relationship with the USA and the
Afghan Mujahadin. The totalitarian dictatorshit of the USSR had fully
invaded and occupied Afghanistan to make it a colony. It served the
expansionist policies of communist totalitarianism. For several years the
Afghan resistance was getting nowhere. They asked the USA for weapons to
help them oust the occupiers. The USA provided the weapons. The Afghanis did
not want any strings attached to the assistance. Okay. No strings. A few
years go by and the Soviets are still doing their genocide thing. So the
Afghanis ask for better weapons and so the USA upped the ante by providing
weapons that would shoot helicopter gunships out of the sky. Worked quite
well – it made the Soviets hurt – also made the Soviets step up their
genocide. Nevertheless, the Mujahadin asked for the help and the USA was
happy to provide it. The Mujahadin asked for no strings attached and the USA
said okay. So when the Soviets were eventually driven out of Afghanistan,
then the Afghanis were free (no strings attached) to make what they wished
of their country. And so they did.

Well so much for any kind of gratitude towards the USA for providing the
materiel support to rid their country of foreign occupiers.

Well, yes, the Taliban & Al-Qaeda are using those weapons to kill Jews and
Christians.

What's your take on it? Would you refuse to render any sort of assistance to
a people who want to liberate their nation from foreign occupation?
What would you say to the Mujahadin who wanted weapons to rid their country
of totalitarian occupiers? "Get used to it." ??????

—– Original Message —–
From: "Vijay Pattisapu" <[email protected]>
> Wally
> Acting behind the back like that (supplying dissident Iraqi factions)
is similar to what we did to Afghanistan back in the 70's…in trying to
give the Soviets their own Vietnam, we used Afghanistan as a pawn, one that
we easily forgot until decades later…remember, Taliban and Al-Qaeda are
fighting those troops right now with American firearms.
> Vijay
>
> > "Wally Keeler" <[email protected]> "Jim Andrews" <[email protected]>,
"List@Rhizome. Org" <[email protected]> Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Doh!Date: > >Blank
> > Personally, I have no problem with the USA unilaterally providing
small weapons to Iraqi dissident groups who wish to kill Saddam or his
henchmen. I have no problem with a unilaterally financed (mercenary)
assassination squad. No bombing from the air, no invasion, just a murderous
strike at the head of the snake choking the Iraqi people and threatening the
neighbourhood. However, I would restrain such a liquidation for the moment,
to give the UN Security Council the opportunity to demonstrate its will &
intelligence, or lack thereof. If it is ineffective, then I would support
focussed strikes at the head of the snake, even if they were unilateral by
the USA.
> >
> > If the USA unilaterally acts in the way you describe, it is the end
of USA global power. However dangerous Hussein is, international law is more
important. International vigilantism is no more preferable than vigilantism
on a smaller scale.
> >
> > Actually I doubt that it would erode USA Global power. USA global
power grew during most of the 20th century, and during that time, it had
indulged in such behaviour as wet work. It was quite clumsy at it and in
many instances I did not find it agreeable. I must say that I am still
impressed and continue to celebrate Israel's Mossad for its raid on Entebbe
airport, rescuing the hostages, and, if memory serves me right, killing no
civilians. Technically they violated several laws. International law is in
its infancy and has no enforcement mechanisms, unlike national laws with a
police force to enforce them. The world at large is still in a state of
anarchy. It is against the law for anyone, including police to run a red
light, however, the concept of hot pursuit provides that the police can run
a red light in the performance of its duty to enforce the law.
> >
> > In the meantime, the credible threats by the USA has been effective
in getting the UN Security Council off its ass, shuck its ennui, and stiffen
its back. If it does that, we can thank the USA for giving the the UN the
spine it has lacked.
> >
> > The UN has the power that other countries of the world give it.
> >
> > Which is nothing. A criminal state thereby has carte blanche to do as
it pleases – Iraq for instance.
> >
> > The same is true of nations themselves.
> >
> > And the same is true of the rule of law on a smaller scale: the rule
of law in cities, amongst people, is not by force of the police; it is by
consent of the people
> >
> > The consent of the people provide for a police force to pursue
law-breakers and bring them to justice. It is the police who enforce the
laws on behalf of the people who pay money for them to do so.
> >
> > or it is out the window. Even in Canada, where I am from also.
> >
> > Which have laws and police forces. And the people at large consent to
this.
> >
> ><< msg2.html >>
> ><< Blank_Bkgrd.gif >>
>
>
>
>
> ————————————————————
> Get Your Free and Private Junglist E-mail from Junglist.com
> Register Online Here -> http://www.junglist.com
>
>
> ———————————————————————
> Express yourself with a super cool email address from BigMailBox.com.
> Hundreds of choices. It's free!
> http://www.bigmailbox.com
> ———————————————————————

, Ivan Pope

> As I recall, there was a mutuality in the relationship with the USA and
the
> Afghan Mujahadin. …. So when the Soviets were eventually driven out of
Afghanistan,
> then the Afghanis were free (no strings attached) to make what they wished
> of their country. And so they did.
>
> What's your take on it? Would you refuse to render any sort of assistance
to
> a people who want to liberate their nation from foreign occupation?

Would you extend the same kind offer of assistance to the Palestinians who
seem to find their country occupied?
Cheers,
Ivan

, Wally Keeler

—– Original Message —–
From: "Ivan Pope" <[email protected]>
> > As I recall, there was a mutuality in the relationship with the USA and
> the
> > Afghan Mujahadin. …. So when the Soviets were eventually driven out of
> Afghanistan,
> > then the Afghanis were free (no strings attached) to make what they
wished
> > of their country. And so they did.
> >
> > What's your take on it? Would you refuse to render any sort of
assistance
> to
> > a people who want to liberate their nation from foreign occupation?
>
> Would you extend the same kind offer of assistance to the Palestinians who
> seem to find their country occupied?
> Cheers,

If they refrain from targetting children and it also includes suicide
bombers attacking Syria for its occupation of Lebanon.

, Vijay Pattisapu

Wally
Very nice argument by the way. What isn't clear, however, is to what end these stipulated insurrectionists propose a revolution. One negative example is the one you gave about Afghanistan. Another is the Northern Alliance–alone the NA would have constructed a government no less oppressive than the Taliban's. Their history is at least as gruesome (child soldiers, pillage and rape, summary execution without trial, indiscriminate killing of civilians, the list goes on…(Associated Press)). Arms don't just suddenly disappear once a supposedly just cause has been realized; this lesson is being learned painfully across the globe, in the Subcontinent, the Congo/Burundi, the Balkans, etc. There's no discrete design one can impose on the area after such "regime-change" to "clean up the mess," so to speak. Furthermore, this situation becomes so far removed from concrete results in terms of improved homeland security, I wonder if It is worth it to put money from our crippled eco!
nomy into this project at all. What are your thoughts?
Vijay

> "Wally Keeler" <[email protected]> "Vijay Pattisapu" <[email protected]>Cc: <[email protected]>
> Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Doh!Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 22:08:45 -0500
>
>Vijay
>As I recall, there was a mutuality in the relationship with the USA and the
>Afghan Mujahadin. The totalitarian dictatorshit of the USSR had fully
>invaded and occupied Afghanistan to make it a colony. It served the
>expansionist policies of communist totalitarianism. For several years the
>Afghan resistance was getting nowhere. They asked the USA for weapons to
>help them oust the occupiers. The USA provided the weapons. The Afghanis did
>not want any strings attached to the assistance. Okay. No strings. A few
>years go by and the Soviets are still doing their genocide thing. So the
>Afghanis ask for better weapons and so the USA upped the ante by providing
>weapons that would shoot helicopter gunships out of the sky. Worked quite
>well – it made the Soviets hurt – also made the Soviets step up their
>genocide. Nevertheless, the Mujahadin asked for the help and the USA was
>happy to provide it. The Mujahadin asked for no strings attached and the USA
>said okay. So when the Soviets were eventually driven out of Afghanistan,
>then the Afghanis were free (no strings attached) to make what they wished
>of their country. And so they did.
>
>Well so much for any kind of gratitude towards the USA for providing the
>materiel support to rid their country of foreign occupiers.
>
>Well, yes, the Taliban & Al-Qaeda are using those weapons to kill Jews and
>Christians.
>
>What's your take on it? Would you refuse to render any sort of assistance to
>a people who want to liberate their nation from foreign occupation?
>What would you say to the Mujahadin who wanted weapons to rid their country
>of totalitarian occupiers? "Get used to it." ??????
>
>—– Original Message —–
>From: "Vijay Pattisapu" <[email protected]>
>> Wally
>> Acting behind the back like that (supplying dissident Iraqi factions)
>is similar to what we did to Afghanistan back in the 70's…in trying to
>give the Soviets their own Vietnam, we used Afghanistan as a pawn, one that
>we easily forgot until decades later…remember, Taliban and Al-Qaeda are
>fighting those troops right now with American firearms.
>> Vijay
>>
>> > "Wally Keeler" <[email protected]> "Jim Andrews" <[email protected]>,
>"List@Rhizome. Org" <[email protected]> Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Doh!Date: > >Blank
>> > Personally, I have no problem with the USA unilaterally providing
>small weapons to Iraqi dissident groups who wish to kill Saddam or his
>henchmen. I have no problem with a unilaterally financed (mercenary)
>assassination squad. No bombing from the air, no invasion, just a murderous
>strike at the head of the snake choking the Iraqi people and threatening the
>neighbourhood. However, I would restrain such a liquidation for the moment,
>to give the UN Security Council the opportunity to demonstrate its will &
>intelligence, or lack thereof. If it is ineffective, then I would support
>focussed strikes at the head of the snake, even if they were unilateral by
>the USA.
>> >
>> > If the USA unilaterally acts in the way you describe, it is the end
>of USA global power. However dangerous Hussein is, international law is more
>important. International vigilantism is no more preferable than vigilantism
>on a smaller scale.
>> >
>> > Actually I doubt that it would erode USA Global power. USA global
>power grew during most of the 20th century, and during that time, it had
>indulged in such behaviour as wet work. It was quite clumsy at it and in
>many instances I did not find it agreeable. I must say that I am still
>impressed and continue to celebrate Israel's Mossad for its raid on Entebbe
>airport, rescuing the hostages, and, if memory serves me right, killing no
>civilians. Technically they violated several laws. International law is in
>its infancy and has no enforcement mechanisms, unlike national laws with a
>police force to enforce them. The world at large is still in a state of
>anarchy. It is against the law for anyone, including police to run a red
>light, however, the concept of hot pursuit provides that the police can run
>a red light in the performance of its duty to enforce the law.
>> >
>> > In the meantime, the credible threats by the USA has been effective
>in getting the UN Security Council off its ass, shuck its ennui, and stiffen
>its back. If it does that, we can thank the USA for giving the the UN the
>spine it has lacked.
>> >
>> > The UN has the power that other countries of the world give it.
>> >
>> > Which is nothing. A criminal state thereby has carte blanche to do as
>it pleases – Iraq for instance.
>> >
>> > The same is true of nations themselves.
>> >
>> > And the same is true of the rule of law on a smaller scale: the rule
>of law in cities, amongst people, is not by force of the police; it is by
>consent of the people
>> >
>> > The consent of the people provide for a police force to pursue
>law-breakers and bring them to justice. It is the police who enforce the
>laws on behalf of the people who pay money for them to do so.
>> >
>> > or it is out the window. Even in Canada, where I am from also.
>> >
>> > Which have laws and police forces. And the people at large consent to
>this.
>> >
>> ><< msg2.html >>
>> ><< Blank_Bkgrd.gif >>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ————————————————————
>> Get Your Free and Private Junglist E-mail from Junglist.com
>> Register Online Here -> http://www.junglist.com
>>
>>
>> ———————————————————————
>> Express yourself with a super cool email address from BigMailBox.com.
>> Hundreds of choices. It's free!
>> http://www.bigmailbox.com
>> ———————————————————————




————————————————————
Get Your Free and Private Junglist E-mail from Junglist.com
Register Online Here -> http://www.junglist.com


———————————————————————
Express yourself with a super cool email address from BigMailBox.com.
Hundreds of choices. It's free!
http://www.bigmailbox.com
———————————————————————

, Wally Keeler

—– Original Message —–
From: "Vijay Pattisapu" <[email protected]>
> Wally
>Very nice argument by the way. What isn't clear,
>however, is to what end these stipulated insurrectionists
>propose a revolution.

I'm not sure I know to whom you are referring. Are you referring to the
insurrectionists (mujahadin) fighting against the Soviets?

>One negative example is the one you gave about Afghanistan.

Is that the ingratitude towards the USA?

>Another is the Northern Alliance–alone the NA would have
>constructed a government no less oppressive than the Taliban's.

The NA is certainly far far removed from being humane and democratic. It's
warlord culture. However, I'm not convinced of the "no less oppressive"
element in your assertion. (The NA is not guided by ideology, whereas the
Taliban was.) But even if it is equal to the Taliban in every respect
towards it's own people, it would be sufficient insofar as it is less
hostile towards The West.

>Their history is at least as gruesome (child soldiers, pillage
>and rape, summary execution without trial, indiscriminate
>killing of civilians, the list goes on…(Associated Press)).

All of that is quite true, but the NA is guided by warlord pragmatism, which
I consider less oppressive than ideological rule.

>Arms don't just suddenly disappear once a supposedly
>just cause has been realized; this lesson is being learned
>painfully across the globe, in the Subcontinent, the
>Congo/Burundi, the Balkans, etc.

The weapon of choice is largely Kalashnikovs – so the protests should be
out front of Russian embassies, but it never seems to happen.

>There's no discrete design one can impose on the area
>after such "regime-change" to "clean up the mess,"
>so to speak.

No strings attached. The locals wanted it that way. Are you suggesting the
USA should dictate?

>Furthermore, this situation becomes so far removed
>from concrete results in terms of improved homeland
>security,

That is quite difficult to measure. Homeland security certainly would not
have been improved by doing nothing. Just because cockroaches keep returning
doesn't mean I shouldn't spray to kill them from my home/apt/condo.

>I wonder if It is worth it to put money from our crippled eco!
>nomy into this project at all. What are your thoughts?

It's not my economy. Matter of fact, Canada is a bit amazed at itself for
outperforming the USA economy for a few quarters now. It's not normal.

> Vijay
>
> > "Wally Keeler" <[email protected]> "Vijay Pattisapu"
<[email protected]>Cc: <[email protected]>
> > Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Doh!Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 22:08:45 -0500
> >
> >Vijay
> >As I recall, there was a mutuality in the relationship with the USA and
the
> >Afghan Mujahadin. The totalitarian dictatorshit of the USSR had fully
> >invaded and occupied Afghanistan to make it a colony. It served the
> >expansionist policies of communist totalitarianism. For several years the
> >Afghan resistance was getting nowhere. They asked the USA for weapons to
> >help them oust the occupiers. The USA provided the weapons. The Afghanis
did
> >not want any strings attached to the assistance. Okay. No strings. A few
> >years go by and the Soviets are still doing their genocide thing. So the
> >Afghanis ask for better weapons and so the USA upped the ante by
providing
> >weapons that would shoot helicopter gunships out of the sky. Worked quite
> >well – it made the Soviets hurt – also made the Soviets step up their
> >genocide. Nevertheless, the Mujahadin asked for the help and the USA was
> >happy to provide it. The Mujahadin asked for no strings attached and the
USA
> >said okay. So when the Soviets were eventually driven out of Afghanistan,
> >then the Afghanis were free (no strings attached) to make what they
wished
> >of their country. And so they did.
> >
> >Well so much for any kind of gratitude towards the USA for providing the
> >materiel support to rid their country of foreign occupiers.
> >
> >Well, yes, the Taliban & Al-Qaeda are using those weapons to kill Jews
and
> >Christians.
> >
> >What's your take on it? Would you refuse to render any sort of assistance
to
> >a people who want to liberate their nation from foreign occupation?
> >What would you say to the Mujahadin who wanted weapons to rid their
country
> >of totalitarian occupiers? "Get used to it." ??????
> >
> >—– Original Message —–
> >From: "Vijay Pattisapu" <[email protected]>
> >> Wally
> >> Acting behind the back like that (supplying dissident Iraqi
factions)
> >is similar to what we did to Afghanistan back in the 70's…in trying to
> >give the Soviets their own Vietnam, we used Afghanistan as a pawn, one
that
> >we easily forgot until decades later…remember, Taliban and Al-Qaeda are
> >fighting those troops right now with American firearms.
> >> Vijay
> >>
> >> > "Wally Keeler" <[email protected]> "Jim Andrews" <[email protected]>,
> >"List@Rhizome. Org" <[email protected]> Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Doh!Date: >
>Blank
> >> > Personally, I have no problem with the USA unilaterally providing
> >small weapons to Iraqi dissident groups who wish to kill Saddam or his
> >henchmen. I have no problem with a unilaterally financed (mercenary)
> >assassination squad. No bombing from the air, no invasion, just a
murderous
> >strike at the head of the snake choking the Iraqi people and threatening
the
> >neighbourhood. However, I would restrain such a liquidation for the
moment,
> >to give the UN Security Council the opportunity to demonstrate its will &
> >intelligence, or lack thereof. If it is ineffective, then I would support
> >focussed strikes at the head of the snake, even if they were unilateral
by
> >the USA.
> >> >
> >> > If the USA unilaterally acts in the way you describe, it is the
end
> >of USA global power. However dangerous Hussein is, international law is
more
> >important. International vigilantism is no more preferable than
vigilantism
> >on a smaller scale.
> >> >
> >> > Actually I doubt that it would erode USA Global power. USA global
> >power grew during most of the 20th century, and during that time, it had
> >indulged in such behaviour as wet work. It was quite clumsy at it and in
> >many instances I did not find it agreeable. I must say that I am still
> >impressed and continue to celebrate Israel's Mossad for its raid on
Entebbe
> >airport, rescuing the hostages, and, if memory serves me right, killing
no
> >civilians. Technically they violated several laws. International law is
in
> >its infancy and has no enforcement mechanisms, unlike national laws with
a
> >police force to enforce them. The world at large is still in a state of
> >anarchy. It is against the law for anyone, including police to run a red
> >light, however, the concept of hot pursuit provides that the police can
run
> >a red light in the performance of its duty to enforce the law.
> >> >
> >> > In the meantime, the credible threats by the USA has been
effective
> >in getting the UN Security Council off its ass, shuck its ennui, and
stiffen
> >its back. If it does that, we can thank the USA for giving the the UN the
> >spine it has lacked.
> >> >
> >> > The UN has the power that other countries of the world give it.
> >> >
> >> > Which is nothing. A criminal state thereby has carte blanche to do
as
> >it pleases – Iraq for instance.
> >> >
> >> > The same is true of nations themselves.
> >> >
> >> > And the same is true of the rule of law on a smaller scale: the
rule
> >of law in cities, amongst people, is not by force of the police; it is by
> >consent of the people
> >> >
> >> > The consent of the people provide for a police force to pursue
> >law-breakers and bring them to justice. It is the police who enforce the
> >laws on behalf of the people who pay money for them to do so.
> >> >
> >> > or it is out the window. Even in Canada, where I am from also.
> >> >
> >> > Which have laws and police forces. And the people at large consent
to
> >this.
> >> >
> >> ><< msg2.html >>
> >> ><< Blank_Bkgrd.gif >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ————————————————————
> >> Get Your Free and Private Junglist E-mail from Junglist.com
> >> Register Online Here -> http://www.junglist.com
> >>
> >>
> >> ———————————————————————
> >> Express yourself with a super cool email address from BigMailBox.com.
> >> Hundreds of choices. It's free!
> >> http://www.bigmailbox.com
> >> ———————————————————————
>
>
>
>
> ————————————————————
> Get Your Free and Private Junglist E-mail from Junglist.com
> Register Online Here -> http://www.junglist.com
>
>
> ———————————————————————
> Express yourself with a super cool email address from BigMailBox.com.
> Hundreds of choices. It's free!
> http://www.bigmailbox.com
> ———————————————————————

, Ivan Pope

> From: "Wally Keeler" <[email protected]>

>> Would you extend the same kind offer of assistance to the Palestinians who
>> seem to find their country occupied?
>> Cheers,
>
> If they refrain from targetting children and it also includes suicide
> bombers attacking Syria for its occupation of Lebanon.
OK Wally, fair enough, I missed this post in the welter of Rhizome stuff. So
for all the years leading up to the current intifada the US should have been
supplying the Palestinians with money and arms (stingers, mines, training
etc). Which would have of course been to liberate the whole of Palestine,
surely? Cheers, Ivan

, Wally Keeler

—– Original Message —–
From: "Ivan Pope" <[email protected]>
> > From: "Wally Keeler" <[email protected]>
>
> >> Would you extend the same kind offer of assistance to the Palestinians
who
> >> seem to find their country occupied?
> >> Cheers,
> >
> > If they refrain from targetting children and it also includes suicide
> > bombers attacking Syria for its occupation of Lebanon.

> OK Wally, fair enough, I missed this post in the welter of Rhizome stuff.
So
> for all the years leading up to the current intifada the US should have
been
> supplying the Palestinians with money and arms (stingers, mines, training
> etc). Which would have of course been to liberate the whole of Palestine,
> surely? Cheers, Ivan

And the "whole of Palestine" means what to you?

And why should the USA duplicate services (money & arms) that several other
Arab countries are providing. Are the Palestinians clamouring for USA
weapons?