Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup metatuning Kurds, Turks, Iraqis, Americans roasting in a pot of oil

Now here's a good one. In an excellent article in the Times today,
it is suggested that war in Iraq could lead to Kurds, Turks, Iraqis,
and Americans all fighting with each other over the oil fields.
Sounds like a good time, no?

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/11/opinion/11KRIS.html

Hatreds Steeped in Blood
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

DIYARBAKIR, Turkey

When the war in Iraq begins sometime soon, one of the messiest and
most dangerous battles may be across from here in northern Iraq. And
it won't even involve the Iraqi Army.

In the so far unsuccessful haggling to bribe Turkey into the
coalition, the U.S. acquiesced in the deluded Turkish plan to
intervene in Kurdish lands in northern Iraq. So Turkish Army trucks
are rumbling along toward Iraq on roads in this rugged and remote
area of southeastern Turkey, carrying tanks and artillery and pausing
only to confiscate film from journalists who photograph them.

Many Kurds hate Turks with the kind of enmity steeped in blood and
ripened by centuries of antagonism, and in the confusion of war some
Kurd will surely seize the opportunity to toss a grenade into a truck
full of Turkish troops. That's when Turkish and Kurdish units will
begin slaughtering each other.

The unfolding mess in northern Iraq is a reminder that if we invade
Iraq, we are stepping into an immensely complex region of guns, clans
and hostilities that we only dimly understand. The White House thinks
it can choreograph the warfare, but if we can't control effete gavel-
wielding diplomats on the familiar turf of the United Nations, how
will we manage feuding troops with mortars in the mountains of
northern Iraq?

The nightmare is that the Turks, Kurds, Iraqis and Americans will all
end up fighting over the oil fields of Kirkuk or Mosul. The Americans
plan to get there first to seize the oil fields and avert a broader
conflict, but in the chaos of war that may not be possible. Turkey is
terrified that Iraqi Kurds will emerge from a war with access to oil
to finance a viable Kurdistan which they say could become a
base
for more Kurdish terrorism in Turkey.

"If Kurds try to advance to Kirkuk or Mosul, then nothing can stop
the Turks, not even the Americans," said Ilter Turan, a political
science professor at Bilgi University in Istanbul.

Haluk Sahin, a prominent Istanbul journalist, added: "If American
security is so important that it will fight 10,000 miles from home,
then what about Turkish security? For Turkey, this is right across
our border."

"Kurds are always in conflict," explained Mursel Karacam, a 40-year-
old chestnut vendor in Istanbul, as he plied me with fresh-roasted
nuts. "We would go in and teach them how to be civilized, how to live
in peace."

Oh? Teach the Kurds peace at gunpoint? Some Turks seem to have the
same problem as some Americans they have been so traumatized by
terrorism (whether by Kurds or by Al Qaeda), they are determined to
go abroad with guns blazing, without recognizing that artillery may
not always help, and without acknowledging that the rest of the world
does not accept the nobility of their intentions.

The U.S., desperate to get basing rights for its troops in Turkey,
agreed that Turkey should enter northern Iraq which is like
hiring
the Bloods to patrol a Crips neighborhood. Then Turkey's Parliament
turned down the proposal for up to 62,000 U.S. troops anyway, despite
our bribe of $6 billion in direct aid. At this point, the White House
would probably like to see more democracy in Iraq and less in Turkey.

Frankly, it's just as well the Turks turned us down. That vote
consolidated Turkish democracy, which we need to encourage as a model
for the Islamic world. And as part of the deal, we would have
escorted the Turkish foxes into the Kurdish henhouse.

Unfortunately, as the Turkish military convoys show, the foxes are
planning to visit the hens anyway even though the U.S. now
discourages unilateral Turkish intervention in Iraq. We need to make
the point much more firmly: whether Turkey accepts the U.S. troop
presence or not, it's hard to think of a worse idea than Turkey's
moving into Kurdistan, unless it would be Turkey's simultaneously
providing "peacekeeping" in Armenia.

Tensions are growing, with Iranian-armed fighters entering Kurdistan
and threatening to fight not just Saddam but also the Turks. Our
allies could be too busy disemboweling each other to take on Saddam's
troops. And the U.S., as one American living in Turkey puts it, "has
no clue of the hatreds it's walking into."

When the White House looks at Iraq, all it sees is hidden weaponry.
It never notices the seething complexities in which we are about to
embed our young men and women.

🔗monz <monz@...>

> From: "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@...>
> To: <metatuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 4:07 PM
> Subject: [metatuning] Kurds, Turks, Iraqis, Americans
> roasting in a pot of oil
>
>
> Now here's a good one. In an excellent article in
> the Times today, it is suggested that war in Iraq could
> lead to Kurds, Turks, Iraqis, and Americans all fighting
> with each other over the oil fields. Sounds like a
> good time, no?

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/11/opinion/11KRIS.html

>
> Hatreds Steeped in Blood
> By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

*now* you're onto something, Joe!

this is *exactly* what happened in Congo.
lots of arms sales (largely from the USA)
while Mobuto was in power holding the country
together, then as soon as he got ousted all hell
broke loose, and it was mainly over the diamonds,
gold, etc.

i think it's pretty clear to everyone how
important oil is to King George W.

(... i refuse to refer to him as my president
from now on. he's a tyrant who seized power
illegaly and he should be deposed, and our
country restored to its former democracy.)

-monz

🔗John A. deLaubenfels <jdl@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

the elector college is not democracy.
it is the form of government that say your opinion matters as long as i
agree!

"John A. deLaubenfels" wrote:

> [Monz wrote:]
> >i think it's pretty clear to everyone how
> >important oil is to King George W.
> >
> >(... i refuse to refer to him as my president
> >from now on. he's a tyrant who seized power
> >illegaly and he should be deposed, and our
> >country restored to its former democracy.)
>
> I stand second to no one in my loathing for the lying thug, George
> W. "Shrub Junior" Bush. If there is any justice in this world, he
> will be hounded by catcalls everywhere he goes in a few years and for
> the rest of his life, if he escapes being prosecuted for treason.
>
> But I would urge you to be careful about using the word "democracy"
> as a synonym to "desirable government". See, for example, my column
> on the subject at:
>
> http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/deLaubenfels/delaubenfels38.html
>
> JdL
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

>But I would urge you to be careful about using the word
>"democracy" as a synonym to "desirable government".

Hi John,

I agree with this statement. Democracy is based on majority
rule, which is only one step above war -- you can prevent war
by determining who will win in advance. So you save the cost
of war, but who would win isn't necessarily who should win.
There are still situations when it's useful -- for example when
there's no clear precedence of rights, or free-trade solution
ala Coase, but unified action is still required (the cost of
war is acceptable to the majority). But as a general form of
government, democracy isn't very good. Fortunately, our
founding fathers knew all this. Hawks can sell wars with it,
though, so we hear plenty of it. [I'm told you won't find the
term in American discourse prior to the beginning of American
imperialism at the end of the 19th century.]

I'm afraid I can't agree that the attrocities of the Reich
were driven by a democracy, however. Hitler was a Monarch.
Incidentally, very few forms of government can beat Monarchy
at its best. Trouble is, it's unreliable -- you can be sure
it will only be at its best a fraction of the time, without
further checks and balances. Historically, free-trade has
provided those (ancient China, for example). But give a despot
control of lots of production (Nazi = socialist), and look out.

Irdisregardless, I condemn the actions of Israel in Palestine.
They appear to be in clear violation of international convention,
by settling an occupied territory.

Lastly,

>In fact, democracy can spawn some of the worst abuses of
>government. In its purest form, it is mob rule. Look at
>the crucifixion of Jesus, for example. Pontius Pilate knew
>that Jesus was not guilty of the trumped-up charges against
>him, and tried his best to use a traditional loophole to
>save his life. The people assembled to witness judgment
>could pick one man among the condemned to spare, and Pilate
>urged them to spare Jesus.

This is apparently not verifiable, and most likely added to
the biblical account at a late date for anti-semetic reasons.

-Carl

🔗monz <monz@...>

> From: "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@...>
> To: <metatuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 7:03 AM
> Subject: [metatuning] Re: Kurds, Turks, Iraqis, Americans
> roasting in a pot of oil

then you and i must be tied for first place. :)

> If there is any justice in this world, he
> will be hounded by catcalls everywhere he goes
> in a few years and for the rest of his life,
> if he escapes being prosecuted for treason.

i know it would never happen, and i'm not the kind
of person to wish bad things on people (even when
they're assholes) but if you ask me, W. deserves
to go to county jail and become Bubba's bitch.

> But I would urge you to be careful about using
> the word "democracy" as a synonym to "desirable
> government". See, for example, my column
> on the subject at:
>
> http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/deLaubenfels/delaubenfels38.html

thanks for that link. what you wrote is interesting
and very much in line with my thoughts.

but i wasn't brandishing that word "democracy" as an
"ultimate" of any kind, altho i think it must be conceded
that a *true* democracy is the best form of government
as it affords everyone a chance to participate in
choosing how to run their own affairs.

the points you emphasize, about how bad choices can easily
be made by a stupid majority, are indeed valid criticisms of
the democratic procedure. but the whole idea is that if
a nation chooses democracy as its form of government,
the voters will keep themselves well-enough informed so
as to make intelligent choices.

the problem up until November 2000 was that our democratic
government had always been closely allied to a capitalist
economy, and a very aggressive one at that. this aggressive
capitalism is very much the basis upon which the typical
showmanship-style campaigning is performed during each
presidential election year.

in general, i believe that American-style capitalism really
sucks, and is responsible for a lot of the woes experienced
by both our society and many others all over the world. IMO,
the best scenario is a truly democractic government allied
with a socialist economy. (i think Canada's system is a
fairly close to that ideal.)

the problem since November 2000 is that Emperor W.
seized power, and ... well, you know the rest.

i'm interested in seeing how the idiot tries to retain
his office when we vote in someone else as president
next year. will he handle it like most other dictators,
and simply declare the election illegal on some thin pretext?

-monz

🔗John A. deLaubenfels <jdl@...>

[wallyesterpaulrus wrote:]
>nice equation, john. (?)
>discuss.

I believe that genocide of the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories
is coming very soon. Sharon NEVER speaks of Palestinians as if they
were fellow human beings; he ALWAYS speaks of them as sub-human
monsters, exactly as Hitler spoke of Jews. There is little protest
in Israel, save from a few courageous souls such as Uri Avnery.
Sharon just got re-elected. Every Israeli who voted for him has
blood on his hands, IMHO.

(I do not mean to imply that the response of the Palestinians is
blameless; they have co-written the script that is being played out
today. Still, there is a clear disparity between the two sides, with
Israel the occupier and Palestinian lands being occupied.)

[Carl Lumma wrote:]
>I'm afraid I can't agree that the attrocities of the Reich
>were driven by a democracy, however. Hitler was a Monarch.

If he was a Monarch, he was one who was brought to power through the
democratic processes, and who took care to sustain popular support throughout
his reign. It is true that his government pretty much thumbed its nose on
genuine democratic oversight once he became Führer. Nevertheless, he was
always the Populist, using cheap lies to whip the ignorant public behind his
policies, much as we see in the United States and Israel today.

[JdL:]
>>In fact, democracy can spawn some of the worst abuses of
>>government. In its purest form, it is mob rule. Look at
>>the crucifixion of Jesus, for example. Pontius Pilate knew
>>that Jesus was not guilty of the trumped-up charges against
>>him, and tried his best to use a traditional loophole to
>>save his life. The people assembled to witness judgment
>>could pick one man among the condemned to spare, and Pilate
>>urged them to spare Jesus.

[Carl:]
>This is apparently not verifiable, and most likely added to
>the biblical account at a late date for anti-semetic reasons.

No kidding! I was unaware that this story may be apocryphal.
Do you, however, doubt that such things have often happened,
whether or not this particular story is true?

[Monz:]
>in general, i believe that American-style capitalism really
>sucks, and is responsible for a lot of the woes experienced
>by both our society and many others all over the world.

If by American-style capitalism you mean the government in bed
with large corporations that give campaign payoffs, I'm with
you 100%. If you refer to companies rampaging around the world
despoiling pristine lands and impoverishing native peoples while
reaping oil dollars, again no argument. It is wrong, however,
to blame such actions on "capitalism", a word which simply means
that each of us owns the fruits of his labors, and must be free
to trade peacefully with others.

[Monz:]
>IMO,
>the best scenario is a truly democratic government allied
>with a socialist economy. (i think Canada's system is a
>fairly close to that ideal.)

There I would very much disagree, but let us save that argument
for later.

JdL

🔗Afmmjr@...

🔗kris peck <kris.peck@...>

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 3/13/03 7:55:15 AM Eastern Standard Time, jdl@a...
> > . Sharon NEVER speaks of Palestinians as if they
> > were fellow human beings; he ALWAYS speaks of them as sub-human
> > monsters, exactly as Hitler spoke of Jews
>
> Please explain how Sharon is like Hitler. As this stands, this
> appears as anti-Semitism to me.

Two things:

1. Why an explanation? John has stated the only comparison right in the sentence you quoted, i.e. Sharon speaking of others as sub-human. I'm not saying this is my opinion, but the statement seemed very straight-forward.

2. Let me just ask this in a concrete situation: is it at all possible to criticize Ariel Sharon without being accused of anti-Semitism? Was it only the Hitler comparison that makes it appear as such? I don't happen to believe anyone on this good Earth is beyond criticism, so if this accusation will occur every time Mr. Sharon and/or his policies is/are disagreed with, then dialogue is over and all is lost.

Regards,
Jon

🔗Afmmjr@...

In a message dated 3/13/03 11:22:22 AM Eastern Standard Time,
JSZANTO@... writes:

> metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> > In a message dated 3/13/03 7:55:15 AM Eastern Standard Time, jdl@a...
> > > . Sharon NEVER speaks of Palestinians as if they
> > > were fellow human beings; he ALWAYS speaks of them as sub-human
> > > monsters, exactly as Hitler spoke of Jews
> >
> > Please explain how Sharon is like Hitler. As this stands, this
> > appears as anti-Semitism to me.
>
> Two things:
>
> 1. Why an explanation? John has stated the only comparison right in the
> sentence you quoted, i.e. Sharon speaking of others as sub-human. I'm not
> saying this is my opinion, but the statement seemed very straight-forward.
>

I have not heard or seen any evidence of Sharon speaking of Palestinians as
sub-human monsters. Is this hearsay? Is there a speech you have translated?

Moral relativism that compares a mass killer of millions and the author of
Mein Kampf with Sharon is quite unsupported. Comparing Hitler to Sharon is
STUPID. Maybe on reflection, there are better comparisons that can be made.

> 2. Let me just ask this in a concrete situation: is it at all possible to
> criticize Ariel Sharon without being accused of anti-Semitism?

Absolutely.

Was it only the Hitler comparison that makes it appear as such?

Absolutely. It reflects that the Nazis weren't so bad. See, even the Jews
are now as bad as the Nazis were.

That would be crap (and even beyond the idea of Israel being kept to a higher
standard). (As if Saddam was not a bad egg, himself.) As bad as it is in
Israel and in Palestine, the numbers killed are actually relatively small
compared to other hot spots in the world.

JdL is correct that the Palestinians essentially elected Sharon. The only
reason he was elected was the need for someone to protect them from attacks
of terrorism.

I don't happen to > believe anyone on this good Earth is beyond criticism, so
> if this accusation will occur every time Mr. Sharon and/or his policies
> is/are disagreed with, then dialogue is over and all is lost.
>
> Regards,
> Jon

Jon, this is very straightforward. And this is the ONLY time I have
questioned a response to Sharon that I can recall. Are you sure you are not
running on reflex?

best, Johnny

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

>>I'm afraid I can't agree that the attrocities of the Reich
>>were driven by a democracy, however. Hitler was a Monarch.
>
> If he was a Monarch, he was one who was brought to power
> through the democratic processes,

I don't see how this is relevant to a judgement of democracy.
How do monarchies ever come to power? How does any system of
government come to power? It's outside the question.

>>>In fact, democracy can spawn some of the worst abuses of
>>>government. In its purest form, it is mob rule. Look at
>>>the crucifixion of Jesus, for example. Pontius Pilate knew
>>>that Jesus was not guilty of the trumped-up charges against
>>>him, and tried his best to use a traditional loophole to
>>>save his life. The people assembled to witness judgment
>>>could pick one man among the condemned to spare, and Pilate
>>>urged them to spare Jesus.
>>
>>This is apparently not verifiable, and most likely added to
>>the biblical account at a late date for anti-semetic reasons.
>
>No kidding! I was unaware that this story may be apocryphal.
>Do you, however, doubt that such things have often happened,
>whether or not this particular story is true?

Oh no, your point is valid. Mob rule is nasty business.

>[Monz:]
>>in general, i believe that American-style capitalism really
>>sucks, and is responsible for a lot of the woes experienced
>>by both our society and many others all over the world.
>
>If by American-style capitalism you mean the government in bed
>with large corporations that give campaign payoffs, I'm with
>you 100%. If you refer to companies rampaging around the world
>despoiling pristine lands and impoverishing native peoples while
>reaping oil dollars, again no argument. It is wrong, however,
>to blame such actions on "capitalism", a word which simply means
>that each of us owns the fruits of his labors, and must be free
>to trade peacefully with others.

It simply means that, but we must ask if that leads to any large-
scale characteristic behavior when we judge it. In fact, 'simple'
capitalism does have characteristic emergeant behaviors, and one
that bears on us here that is a result of the fact that an agent's
ability to control the flow of capital through markets is tied to
how much capital he has. Therefore, polluting corporations can
afford to "buy" the right to pollute from poor nations, while we
feel that the value of clean air should not be less for them than
for us.

>>the best scenario is a truly democratic government allied
>>with a socialist economy. (i think Canada's system is a
>>fairly close to that ideal.)
>
>There I would very much disagree, but let us save that argument
>for later.

Indeed; truly democratic government is a terrible idea, as
discussed. And there's no such thing as a socialist economy.
The optimization of markets is simply intractable from the
top-down. There's always capitalism at work behind the scenes.
The key is to get it to do the right stuff. The first problem
is to decide what the right stuff is. The second is to make
sure it happens. We're fortunate that for the first time in
history we may see tools that can model this stuff and solve
the second problem.

I'm afraid I don't have a good answer first problem. I'm
partial to the libertarian ideal that the set of disallowed
behaviors should be the same for all individuals, and as small
as possible. Finding that set is the trick. Common law seems
a good approach, but the history of precedents has gotten
carried away, taken on a life of its own. Perhaps we need
some clever rules as to how precedents can be created and
applied. Maybe they can even be forbidden entirely. . .

Getting back to "socialist economy"... since Monz cited Canada,
perhaps he's simply advocating more public works projects.
What's the difference between a public and private solution to,
say, healthcare? There really isn't any, except that the public
solution is a guaranteed monopoly. We've seen that free markets
don't have any trouble creating monopolies, in fact monopoly
power can lead to poor nations being ravished, and that we have
to *stop*. [Occasionally, excessive competition causes some waste
in the beginning, as before Rockefeller came to oil, but
Rockefeller always comes, and for the price of the initial waste
you have some assurance that's he's a fit monopolist.] The trick
is, we mustn't stop monopolies when they're beneficial. For
example, by splitting up the radio spectrum, the FCC (eeeevil, I
tells you) created "competition" in the mobile phone market where
there wouldn't have been and shouldn't be any (the technology is
all basically the same -- yes, I know about the triumph of CDMA
over TDMA and GSM; we don't need to build all three to decide
that!). The result is that everybody pays $50 a month in Berkeley
to put up antennas, and there still isn't a single provider that
covers the whole town! In the end, we will all have spent four
(AT&T, Sprint, T-mobile/Cingular, Verizon) times too much on our
phones in order to erect four times too many antennas.

So it seems the control of monopoly power is the central issue
of capitalism.

-Carl

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Johnny,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> Maybe on reflection, there are better comparisons that can be made.

That makes sense to me. Everyone makes value judgements, and I wouldn't equate Mr. Sharon with one of the worst humans to walk the earth, bad as I think he is.

> > 2. Let me just ask this in a concrete situation: is it at all possible to
> > criticize Ariel Sharon without being accused of anti-Semitism?
>
> Absolutely.

OK. See below...

> Was it only the Hitler comparison that makes it appear as such?
>
> Absolutely. It reflects that the Nazis weren't so bad. See, even the Jews
> are now as bad as the Nazis were.

Wait a minute: he compared two people, not "the Nazis" and "the Jews". This is the kind of thing that has made me very hesitant to even try and discuss some of these matters, because of the sliding scale of sensitivity, correctness, and other careful behavior.

> As bad as it is in Israel and in Palestine, the numbers killed
> are actually relatively small compared to other hot spots in the
> world.

I don't think the literal number of people killed is something that can just be used as a value comparison. All killing, to me, is quite wrong, and probably you feel similarly, if not exactly.

> Jon, this is very straightforward.

Not necessarily, Johnny. If it was I wouldn't have asked, and you know as well as I that every one of our opinions can seem opaque to others at times.

> And this is the ONLY time I have questioned a response to Sharon
> that I can recall. Are you sure you are not running on reflex?

No, this was a sincere question. If you notice (no reason to, really), I have not entered into many of the middle East discussions because I frankly can not tell anymore what someone would call "anti-Semitism". I can see that the comparison between Sharon and Hitler is over the top; I don't see that it follows on to the next value of anti- this or that. You've clarified at least this particular question, and that is probably enough for now, as I have no intention of inflaming the issue. I'm really just trying to be as aware as possible of all views.

Regards,
Jon

🔗John Starrett <jstarret@...>

🔗John A. deLaubenfels <jdl@...>

[Johnny wrote:]
>Please explain how Sharon is like Hitler.

Please reread: "Sharon NEVER speaks of Palestinians as if they
were fellow human beings; he ALWAYS speaks of them as sub-human
monsters, exactly as Hitler spoke of Jews."

[Johnny:]
>As this stands, this appears as anti-Semitism to me.

If all else fails, launch an ad hominem attack, eh?

[Johnny:]
>I have not heard or seen any evidence of Sharon speaking of Palestinians as
>sub-human monsters. Is this hearsay? Is there a speech you have translated?

Are you not aware that Sharon often spews his racist bile in English,
no translator needed? You might start with his victory speech after his
recent re-election, if you are truly interested in being educated.

[Johnny:]
>Moral relativism that compares a mass killer of millions and the author of
>Mein Kampf with Sharon is quite unsupported. Comparing Hitler to Sharon is
>STUPID. Maybe on reflection, there are better comparisons that can be made.

Yet another ad hominem attack; you're really on a roll! It is without
doubt true that Sharon has not yet achieved mass murder on the same scale as
Hitler. You ARE aware that he is a war criminal, however, are you not?
This is by conclusion of Israel's own commission, not some alleged cabal of
"anti-Semites". Is the pre-meditated murder of thousands of non-Jewish
civilians worthy of concern in your mind?

[Johnny:]
>Was it only the Hitler comparison that makes it appear as such?
>Absolutely. It reflects that the Nazis weren't so bad. See, even the Jews
>are now as bad as the Nazis were.

The Nazis, and Hitler in particular, were Evil with a capital 'E'.
So, in my humble opinion, is Ariel Sharon. So (again IMHO) is
George W. Bush. Am I therefore "Anti-Protestant", since Mr. Bush
claims to be of that religious persuasion?

If in fact I am wrong, and Sharon is actually a decent person, no one
will be more pleased than I. That would mean, among other things, that my
fear of Palestinian genocide at the hands of Israel will prove groundless -
HOORAY!! I wish with all my heart that this proves to be true.

I also wish with all my heart that there is not going to be an imminent
slaughter of innocent Iraqis at the hands of the murderous thug Bush.
May God please prove me wrong about both Sharon and Bush.

To Carl L: you strike me as having an irrational fear of monopolies.
They always end up collapsing under their own weights eventually, and in
the mean time, there are still choices for those who pursue them (look
at Linux, making steady inroads against the mighty "monopolist" Bill
Gates). The only monopolies that survive are government-run, like the
Post Office, propped up by ever higher fees and the coercion of the
State.

Freedom works.

JdL

🔗Afmmjr@...

In a message dated 3/14/03 8:39:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, jdl@...
writes:

> Johnny wrote:]
> >Please explain how Sharon is like Hitler.
>
> Please reread: "Sharon NEVER speaks of Palestinians as if they
> were fellow human beings; he ALWAYS speaks of them as sub-human
> monsters, exactly as Hitler spoke of Jews."
>
> [Johnny:]
> >As this stands, this appears as anti-Semitism to me.
>
> If all else fails, launch an ad hominem attack, eh?
>

I don't know what an "ad hominem attack" is. I said "appears" and I mean it.
You still have not provided anything Sharon said, either. And yes, educate
me. Please.

> [Johnny:]
> >I have not heard or seen any evidence of Sharon speaking of Palestinians
> as
> >sub-human monsters. Is this hearsay? Is there a speech you have
> translated?
>
> Are you not aware that Sharon often spews his racist bile in English,
> no translator needed? You might start with his victory speech after his
> recent re-election, if you are truly interested in being educated.
>

JR: Sharon's victory speech was in English? What I have heard is that Sharon
insists on a Palestinian state contrary to many in his own party.

> [Johnny:]
> >Moral relativism that compares a mass killer of millions and the author of
>
> Kampf with Sharon is quite unsupported. Comparing Hitler to Sharon is
> >STUPID. Maybe on reflection, there are better comparisons that can be
> made.
>
> Yet another ad hominem attack; you're really on a roll! It is without
> doubt true that Sharon has not yet achieved mass murder on the same scale
> as
> Hitler.

JR: My doubt is in your comparing a world devourer (Hitler) with a last ditch
effort to survive (Sharon).

You ARE aware that he is a war criminal, however, are you not?
>
>
You mean the disgusting behavior he portrayed in Shatilla, etc., letting
enemies kill themselves. I know that he is likely to be brought up on
charges by the Belgian Court, after he is no longer Prime Minister. This is
soon, because he will be forced to leave office after his second term is up.
You saying "he is a war criminal" does not make it so. If you can back up
your statements in detail, we can all learn.

This is by conclusion of Israel's own commission, not some alleged cabal of >
> "anti-Semites".

JR: Some may think there is no such thing as anti-Semitism. Until recently,
living in NYC, I never felt it. (Though in Virginia I met some who were
pleasantly checking my head for horns. Not kidding). But tell that to my
stepfather with the numbers on his arm.

When the ambassador of Bulgaria spoke of joining the US in a war on Iraq on
CNN yesterday, he spoke repeatedly about how his country saved their 50,000
Jews in World War II. It seemed at first a non sequitor. But soon after I
thought that he was responding to a perception of the against al Queda (and
Iraq) as a fight against anit-semitism, and maybe Christianity as well, and
even Shiism (and certainly Hindus, and the many different tiny religions that
are on their last legs).

There has much discussion about Europe taking an anti-Semitic position in all
this. The discussion is sort of like this:

Europeans: "See, the Israelis (Jews) are as bad as we used to be (in Nazi
times, and for thousands of years before that), only we are near perfect
now."

Is the pre-meditated murder of thousands of non-Jewish > civilians worthy of
> concern in your mind?
>
As Jon Szanto said, every killing is horrible. Anyone guilty of
pre-meditated killing should be tried and convicted. The question I have is
"When is killing justified." For some the answer is never. Defending
oneself and your family is a change in the rules. The Palestinian attack on
Israel is the cornering of the survivors of a holocaust less than 60 years
old. This holocaust did not only take place in Europe, but in Libya and Iraq
and Egypt, and elsewhere in the Arabic world.

> [Johnny:]
> >Was it only the Hitler comparison that makes it appear as such?
> >Absolutely. It reflects that the Nazis weren't so bad. See, even the Jews
> >are now as bad as the Nazis were.
>
> The Nazis, and Hitler in particular, were Evil with a capital 'E'.
> So, in my humble opinion, is Ariel Sharon. So (again IMHO) is
> George W. Bush. Am I therefore "Anti-Protestant", since Mr. Bush
> claims to be of that religious persuasion?
>

You are confusing "the appearance of anti-Semitism" in my opinion with an
accusation against you, personally. Only you know your own heart. I figure
if you were an anti-Semite you'd have simply said so by now, or have long
been off this list. But in this country we are judged by actions, not
beliefs. Interestingly, I am a Jew in this world whether I believe in
Judaism or not.

> If in fact I am wrong, and Sharon is actually a decent person, no one
> will be more pleased than I. That would mean, among other things, that my
> fear of Palestinian genocide at the hands of Israel will prove groundless -
> HOORAY!! I wish with all my heart that this proves to be true.
>

Me, too!

> I also wish with all my heart that there is not going to be an imminent
> slaughter of innocent Iraqis at the hands of the murderous thug Bush.
> May God please prove me wrong about both Sharon and Bush.
>

We share the same wish here.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Paul Erlich <PERLICH@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...>
wrote:

> To Carl L: you strike me as having an irrational fear of
monopolies.
> They always end up collapsing under their own weights eventually,
and in
> the mean time, there are still choices for those who pursue them
(look
> at Linux, making steady inroads against the mighty "monopolist"
Bill
> Gates).

the current monopoly of Clear Channel Communications is ruining
american musical, and even cultural and political, life in a deep and
profound way. the cost to society is immeasurable, and was brought
upon us by said company coercing the government to lift anti-
monopolizing restrictions in an abrupt move unparalleled in any other
facet of our economy. lifting the restrictions ushered in a domino
effect whereby one company gobbled up the rights to control an
incredible plurality of radio and billboard media and live
entertainment. as a result, we have effectively concentrated the
access to the heads and hearts of the masses of american individuals
and handed it over to a tiny few. there are choices for those who
pursue them -- but these are rapidly disappearing, and few people
have any clue that a single entity is behind the vast majority of
apparent multiplicity of "choices" that seem open to them.

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/weekly_article/clear_channel_backlash.
html
http://archive.salon.com/ent/clear_channel/2001/08/08/antitrust/
http://www.evilsite.org/evil/Clear+Channel+Communications/
http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=4808

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

>To Carl L: you strike me as having an irrational fear
>of monopolies.

You strike me as having an irrational fear of anything
other than 'laissez-faire capitalism'. Politics is a
trap -- it isn't a valid methodology for solving problems.
I fell into the trap of libertarianism for a few years.
It's full of tempting oversimplifications.

The reality is that humans have both an individual and a
social nature. We are born with certain rights as
individuals, and certain obligations as social animals.
This dichotomy expresses itself in our government and
economics, and is an unsolved problem. Only serious
attempts to study this issue should occupy our time.

One of the comfortable ideas often implicit in
libertarianism is that pure capitalism is somehow more
'natural' than what we've got. And if we would just get
together and implement it, everyone would be better off.
The fact is, anyone who's proposing to change what we've
got is proposing an un-natural solution. If pure
capitalism is so great, why hasn't it ever implemented
itself, in all of history? Governments are free-market
entities that must survive, like everything else. Now,
if I claim that the motive and means by which governments
survive are meritless (say, money for them via appeals to
pity and promises to the weak, ala Rand), that's one
thing. But in a sense this is a less-pure version of
capitalism than what exists.

>They always end up collapsing under their own weights
>eventually,

Everything ends up changing eventually. Monopolies can
can lead to serious and protracted market inefficiencies.
This is well acknowledged in economics. It's the same as
lock-in effects in... tuning, for example.

>Freedom works.

"Save the Whales".

-Carl

I notice the strike-the-root site only accepts articles
that support certain fundamental doctrines. A very
distressing sign of political methodology. On the tuning
tuning list we don't delete posts advocating 12-tET.

Kurds, Turks, Iraqis, Americans roasting in a pot of oil

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@...>

🔗monz <monz@...>

🔗John A. deLaubenfels <jdl@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗monz <monz@...>

🔗John A. deLaubenfels <jdl@...>

🔗Afmmjr@...

🔗kris peck <kris.peck@...>

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗Afmmjr@...

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗John Starrett <jstarret@...>

🔗John Starrett <jstarret@...>

🔗John A. deLaubenfels <jdl@...>

🔗Afmmjr@...

🔗Paul Erlich <PERLICH@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>