Re: Another reason economists are dorks!

[Hunrobe]

According to his SBSC website bio, Mr. Keating holds an MA in economics from
New York University, an MBA in banking and finance from Hofstra University, and
a BS in business administration and economics from St. Joseph`s College.
He seems to be living proof of two of my own personal theories- first, that
idealogues of *any* political persuasion are fools and second, that the almost
universal access to higher education here in the US has ruined a lot of
potentially good manual laborers.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[one of the six billion]

He's complaining about $6.2 million being spent over a whole year to
accomodate people who want to ride their bikes as transportation when the
U.S. is spending almost $4 billion a month to occupy Iraq, more than $130
million every day, $5 million every hour.


"Garrison Hilliard" > wrote in message
...
> The Car vs. the Bicycle
> by Raymond J. Keating
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
>
> July 9, 2003
>
> Living in a prosperous, market economy offers countless benefits. In the
U.S.,
> that most certainly includes widespread ownership of automobiles.
>
> Indeed, one of the striking differences I've noticed over the years
between our
> nation and many undeveloped, non-market economies is that our roads have
lots of
> cars and trucks, while many of these other countries have lots of
bicycles.
>
> Now, don't get me wrong, I have nothing against bicycles for competitive,
> recreational and exercise purposes. However, as a primary mode of
> transportation, they most certainly leave a lot to be desired. The fact
that
> people in this country can afford to buy cars or SUVs, and don't have to
peddle
> bicycles to work and the store is a good thing.
>
> However, for more than a quarter century, some in the environmental
movement
> haven't seen things this way. They hold that the automobile is an evil
polluter
> and consumer of natural resources. These greenies would like to see many
more
> of us riding bicycles around town and to work.
>
> Unfortunately, even when Republicans are in charge of Congress such goof
ball
> ideas receive attention. Consider the energy bill that passed the U.S.
House of
> Representatives in April. The legislation includes some positive items,
such as
> opening part of ANWR to exploration, reducing some regulatory obstacles
to
> drilling on certain federal lands, and repealing the Public Utility
Holding
> Company Act of 1935, which had disassembled economical energy operations
and
> hampered future integration. There also are many counterproductive
measures,
> including a boatload of subsidies and mandated expansion of the use of
ethanol.
>
> The bill also would establish the "Conserve by Bicycling Program" under
the
> Department of Transportation. This program would set up "10 pilot
projects .
> dispersed geographically throughout the United States" and "designed to
conserve
> energy resources by encouraging the use of bicycles in place of motor
vehicles."
>
> The program would "use education and marketing to convert motor vehicle
trips to
> bicycle trips," "maximize bicycle facility investments," and the National
> Academy of Sciences would conduct "a study on the feasibility of
converting
> motor vehicle trips to bicycle trips."
>
> The study would evaluate the pilot projects, and "determine the type and
> duration of motor vehicle trips that people in the United States may
feasibly
> make by bicycle," of course factoring in issues like weather, land use
and
> traffic patterns, "the carrying capacity of bicycles" and "bicycle
> infrastructure." In addition, the report would "determine any energy
savings
> that would result from the conversion of motor vehicle trips to bicycle
trips"
> and perform "a cost-benefit analysis of bicycle infrastructure
investments."
>
> All of this for a mere $6.2 million, at least to start. Who knows how
much more
> will be spent down the road. After all, bicycle infrastructure costs
money.
>
> The next time a politician proclaims that government has been cut to the
bone,
> just think of this federal bicycle program, which also would require that
state
> or local governments pick up at least 20% of the cost for each pilot
project. I
> can hear politicians in the states declaring what a bargain this would be
as
> local taxpayers would only have to foot a mere one-fifth of the total
cost.
>
> If some people want to peddle a bicycle to their jobs or to go shopping,
that's
> their business. But no sound reason exists for the government to be
using
> taxpayer dollars to promote bicycles over motor vehicles. Government
> conservation efforts certainly don't make any sense, as the market is far
better
> equipped to gauge the proper level of conservation through prices. The
> environment is not an issue, as automobiles run cleaner than ever before.
A
> program like this is just a wasteful sop to a small number of
environmental
> extremists.
>
> When it comes to modes of personal transportation, it's better to let
consumers
> decide if they want to drive or peddle to work.
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
>
>
> This column may be reprinted with appropriate credit.
>
>
>
> _______________
> Raymond J. Keating is chief economist for the Small Business Survival
Committee,
> and co-author of U.S. by the Numbers: Figuring What's Left, Right, and
Wrong
> with America State by State (Capital Books, 2000).
>
>
>
> http://www.sbsc.org/LatestNews_Action.asp?FormMode=CyberColumn

[Fabrizio Mazzoleni]

Garrison Hilliard wrote in message ...

>by Raymond J. Keating
>>Now, don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against bicycles for competitive,
>recreational and exercise purposes. However, as a primary mode of
>transportation, they most certainly leave a lot to be desired.

Garr, nobody I know can read that much, please try
to keep your posts to ten lines or less.

Anyway, I read as far as to the part where Ray says it's
cool to be a euro type out on a oversized tubed Al frame
road bike, but it is total FREDness to use some lamer
bike as a primary mode of transport.

I agree with Ray -- DON'T BE A DAMN FRED!!!

If you need to get to work or buy the grocerys(sp?) then use
the car, that's what it's for.

[Zippy the Pinhead]

On 29 Jul 2003 17:37:25 GMT, (Hunrobe) wrote:

>... the almost
>universal access to higher education here in the US has ruined a lot of
>potentially good manual laborers.

That's great. Consider it stolen.

[Thomas Reynolds]

"one of the six billion" > wrote in message >...
> He's complaining about $6.2 million being spent over a whole year to
> accomodate people who want to ride their bikes as transportation when the
> U.S. is spending almost $4 billion a month to occupy Iraq, more than $130
> million every day, $5 million every hour.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

[Chris Neary]

>He's complaining about $6.2 million being spent over a whole year to
>accomodate people who want to ride their bikes as transportation when the
>U.S. is spending almost $4 billion a month to occupy Iraq, more than $130
>million every day, $5 million every hour.

Bingo.

One of the first things you learn in Econ 101 is about "Negative
Externalities".

Either Mr. Keating is too stupid to remember them, or too intellectually
dishonest to address them.


Chris Neary


"Prize the doubt, low kinds exist without"
- Inscription at Ramsmeyer Hall, Ohio State University

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
Chris Neary > writes:

> Bingo.
>
> One of the first things you learn in Econ 101 is about "Negative
> Externalities".
>
> Either Mr. Keating is too stupid to remember them, or too intellectually
> dishonest to address them.

I think he's just trying to propaganda-ly run interference for
that other bill -- the one about cutting US federal funding
for alternative transportation measures. I'm just speculating.
But the timing arouses my suspicions.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Mark Hickey]

"one of the six billion" > wrote:

>He's complaining about $6.2 million being spent over a whole year to
>accomodate people who want to ride their bikes as transportation when the
>U.S. is spending almost $4 billion a month to occupy Iraq, more than $130
>million every day, $5 million every hour.

OK then, how much is it worth to liberate 25 million Iraqis and remove
a destabilizing influence from the near east? $2 million an hour?
$12.50?

Just curious.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Zoot Katz]

Wed, 30 Jul 2003 04:15:46 GMT,
>, Mark Hickey
> wrote:

>"one of the six billion" > wrote:
>
>>He's complaining about $6.2 million being spent over a whole year to
>>accomodate people who want to ride their bikes as transportation when the
>>U.S. is spending almost $4 billion a month to occupy Iraq, more than $130
>>million every day, $5 million every hour.
>
>OK then, how much is it worth to liberate 25 million Iraqis and remove
>a destabilizing influence from the near east? $2 million an hour?
>$12.50?
>
>Just curious.
>
163 and counting.
When there's 3000 dead Americans in Iraq, will that equal 911?
--
zk

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
Mark Hickey > writes:
>
> OK then, how much is it worth to liberate 25 million Iraqis

How much do you get for it?


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Zoot Katz]

Wed, 30 Jul 2003 01:28:18 -0400, >,
"Eric S. Sande" > wrote:

>>163 and counting.
>
>>When there's 3000 dead Americans in Iraq, will that equal 911?
>
>Out of line.

Yes, how very UnCanadian of me.

>Take a few minutes to cool off.

That was stone cold. That's what it has thus far cost in real terms
using numbers people can relate to.

If that ain't it, then what is the formula for the "exit strategy"?

5:4 / 2004?
--
zk

[Pete]

"Kevan Smith" /\/\> wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 04:15:46 GMT, Mark Hickey > from
Habanero
> Cycles wrote:
>
> >OK then, how much is it worth to liberate 25 million Iraqis and remove
> >a destabilizing influence from the near east?
>
> That would be worth something. Instead, we put 25 million Iraqis under
martial
> law, subject to random incarceration and fear of death and managed to
destablize
> at least three borders in the region. That's not worth a plug nickle.

It's only been a couple of months. You can't fix 25 years of idiocy in 90
days.

One option to the current situation would be to just leave. Pack up all the
troops, tanks and aircraft, and just leave. We did that last time (sort of,
except for the aircraft), and it did not go over well. The Iraqi's ready to
overthrow Saddam felt abandoned, and they were. We left them hanging in the
breeze. Then they were persecuted and slaughtered by Saddam.

The other option would have been to let Saddam continue with his previous
practices. Snubbing the UN, killing his own people and neighbors. Would that
have been preferable? Wait until he attacks someone else? Kuwait again,
maybe? Or Jordan? Or wipes out Israel, as was his desire.

Eventually, the Iraqi population will decide their own form of government.
Preferably one that we like, with our guidance, but maybe not. But they will
get to choose.

Give it a little time.

Pete

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
"Eric S. Sande" > writes:

> It doesn't matter. Counting bodies is sick, no matter who
> does it.

You said it! But there, unfortunately, /is/ a body count,
and it's rising.

Maybe it's time to question whether it's worth it?


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
Kevan Smith /\/\> writes:
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 05:55:37 GMT, "Pete" > from Road Runner High
> Speed Online http://www.rr.com wrote:
>
>>One option to the current situation would be to just leave.
>
> I like that option. I bet the Iraqi people would, too.

A lot of 'em just want their jobs & electricity back.

They note the oil is flowing again okay.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Terry Morse]

Pete wrote:

> Eventually, the Iraqi population will decide their own form of government.
> Preferably one that we like, with our guidance, but maybe not. But they will
> get to choose.

Sarcasm can be so humorous.
--
terry

[Mark Hickey]

Kevan Smith /\/\> wrote:

>On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 04:15:46 GMT, Mark Hickey > from Habanero
>Cycles wrote:
>
>>OK then, how much is it worth to liberate 25 million Iraqis and remove
>>a destabilizing influence from the near east?
>
>That would be worth something. Instead, we put 25 million Iraqis under martial
>law, subject to random incarceration and fear of death and managed to destablize
>at least three borders in the region. That's not worth a plug nickle.

Yeah, they were all living in paradise under Saddam, and the middle
east was a peaceful, stable region, and all Iraq's neighbors were
responsible and cooperative with a goal of peace in the region -
right?

Oh, and I'm sure the Iraqis would MUCH rather have hundreds of
thousands more of their citizens offed by the Baath thugs than have
the US occasionally kill a hostile goon with an AK-47, right?

If the Iraqis would have risen up to try to overthrow Saddam, the body
count would have been horrendous. As it is, they got off very easy.

Of course you would prefer to let Saddam go on killing and oppressing
the Iraqis rather than giving them a chance at self-government - which
is odd since you seem to be so in favor of self-government when it
comes to commerce.

But I'm with Bob Hunt on this one - arguing politics with you is like
teaching that pig to sing.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Mark Hickey]

(Tom Keats) wrote:

>In article >,
> Mark Hickey > writes:
>>
>> OK then, how much is it worth to liberate 25 million Iraqis
>
>How much do you get for it?

I hope we get a representative democracy in the middle of an area that
is ruled by oppressive dictators currently. I hope the Iraqis set
such an example for their neighbors that the population in the rest of
the region demands the same.

That's what I hope to "get for it".

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Mike Latondresse]

Kevan Smith /\/\> wrote in
:

> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 04:15:46 GMT, Mark Hickey >
> from Habanero Cycles wrote:
>
>>OK then, how much is it worth to liberate 25 million Iraqis and
>>remove a destabilizing influence from the near east?
>
> That would be worth something. Instead, we put 25 million Iraqis
> under martial law, subject to random incarceration and fear of
> death and managed to destablize at least three borders in the
> region. That's not worth a plug nickle.
>
And what condition were they under prior to that? By the way are you
one of those instant gratification types, obviously not a history
major.

[AustinBoston]

"one of the six billion" > wrote in message >...
> He's complaining about $6.2 million being spent over a whole year to
> accomodate people who want to ride their bikes as transportation when the
> U.S. is spending almost $4 billion a month to occupy Iraq, more than $130
> million every day, $5 million every hour.
>

So in total, how long does it take the feds to spend $6.2 million? About 8 seconds?

Austin

[Zoot Katz]

Wed, 30 Jul 2003 15:41:55 GMT,
>, Mark Hickey
> wrote:

>
>So tell me - how many US lives IS having a democracy in the near east
>worth?

No, I won't waste my breath.

You, explain to their mothers how it was worth it.
--
zk

[Rick Onanian]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 12:35:03 -0500, wrote:
> shoudl either make food on our promises to let them govern themselves or

Mmmmmm....promised food...

I'm hungry.

> --
> http://home.sport.rr.com/cuthulu/ human rights = peace
> I'm also against BODY-SURFING!!
> 12:34:23 PM 30 July 2003
--
Rick Onanian

[Stephen Harding]

Zoot Katz wrote:
>
> Wed, 30 Jul 2003 15:41:55 GMT,
> >, Mark Hickey
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >So tell me - how many US lives IS having a democracy in the near east
> >worth?
>
> No, I won't waste my breath.
>
> You, explain to their mothers how it was worth it.

Calculations have to be done, no matter how you feel about it. It's
the way of the world.

Do you think that calculation (and "explanation to their mothers") was
somehow easier for Lincoln during the Civil War, or Roosevelt during
WWII? These are generally considered "good wars". I doubt it matters.

People can die fighting an evil, or they can die slipping in the bathtub.
The pain of loss is no less for surviving loved ones either way.


SMH

[Stephen Harding]

Kevan Smith wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 15:44:20 GMT, Mark Hickey > from Habanero
> Cycles wrote:
>
> >I hope we get a representative democracy in the middle of an area that
> >is ruled by oppressive dictators currently. I hope the Iraqis set
> >such an example for their neighbors that the population in the rest of
> >the region demands the same.
> >
> >That's what I hope to "get for it".
>
> Those are your hopes. But it certainly isn't the plan. Bush is playing you for a
> chump.

Ahh yes, the evil[tm] Bush.

What he really wants is the oil, even though it's looking like the oil fields
are in such bad shape, the US is going to have to pump in far more to get the
increased flow than Iraq will get from the sales of said oil. Something like
estimated $14 billion.

I'll opt for the hope that a democracy can be established in the area, thus
ending the term "arab democracy" as an oxymoron, and setting nearby regimes
(Syria, Iran), and the people within, on notice that other ways of governing
the region are possible.

If you're only capable of seeing any resulting form of Iraqi government as a
US lackey, then there's nothing really to discuss. Dueling dogma isn't worth
much effort.


SMH

[Rick Onanian]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 16:23:04 -0500, wrote:
> And, you know. It worked. It's plain now Saddam had disarmed fully.

You are supporting Saddam. That attitude is exactly what
he wanted to create.

Here's how it happened:

"We're not feeling very tolerant right now."

"We're coming, and you better not have weapons of mass
destruction when we get there!"

"We'll be there in 10 days, you better not have weapons
of mass destruction!"

"We're here, you better not have weapons of mass destruction!"

Then, we attacked. Saddam knew that we'd win, so his only
option was to save some face and cause some problems on this
end by clearing 'em out before we found them.

If the mayor said in the paper "Due to community concerns,
we're going to raid the crackhouse on Main Street", then
the chief of police said on TV "We're raiding the crackhouse
on Main Street next Monday", then the cops showed up to the
crackhouse and knocked on the door yelling "We're here to
raid you and catch you in the act", do you really think that
the crack dealers would be in that house with a stash of
crack?

No. They'd get rid of it all and run. This is precisely what
Saddam did.

If you believe otherwise, you are very gullible, and I have
a bridge I'd like to sell you, although you wouldn't buy it
from me because I'm a capitalist pig.

> --
> http://home.sport.rr.com/cuthulu/ human rights = peace
> Civilization is fun! Anyway, it keeps me busy!!
> 4:22:25 PM 30 July 2003
--
Rick Onanian

[Patrick Lamb]

Mark Hickey wrote:
>
> So tell me - how many US lives IS having a democracy in the near east
> worth? What IS the price for liberating 25,000,000 Iraqis from an
> oppresive regime?
>
> And while you're calculating the cost/benefit ratio for that, name me
> any other conflict in the history of the world where the cost/benefit
> ratio was lower.

Is there a benefit? If it's zero, that's a _high" cost/benefit ratio.
Democracy? They haven't seen it yet, and frankly, I haven't heard
anything out of our American press or president about free and open
elections anytime lately. Liberated from an oppressive regime? How
many Iraqis are likely to claim they're free now? The Sunnis in the
south want us out, as do the Kurds in the north and the Baathists in the
center.

I'm afraid if you take off your rose-colored glasses, the world doesn't
look so rosy any more...

Pat
--
Apologies to those easily confused. Address is spam-resistant.
Correct email address like pdlamb 'round-about comcast point net.

[Mike Latondresse]

Kevan Smith /\/\> wrote in
:
>>>
>
> You know, as bad a murderer as Saddam was, it seems to me that
> fewer Iraqis were dying as a result of his regime than are dying
> now as a result of the war and occupation. In fact, I think the
> sanctions killed more than Saddam did, too. I could be wrong, but
> no one is collecting the relevant data. I wonder why.
>
Very interesting that your points are that "it seems to me", "I think",
and "you could be wrong".

snip

> we shoudl either make food on our promises to let them
> govern themselves or we should get the hell out.
>
As I see it you are and you are (going to).

[Mark Hickey]

Patrick Lamb > wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>>
>> So tell me - how many US lives IS having a democracy in the near east
>> worth? What IS the price for liberating 25,000,000 Iraqis from an
>> oppresive regime?
>>
>> And while you're calculating the cost/benefit ratio for that, name me
>> any other conflict in the history of the world where the cost/benefit
>> ratio was lower.
>
>Is there a benefit? If it's zero, that's a _high" cost/benefit ratio.
>Democracy? They haven't seen it yet, and frankly, I haven't heard
>anything out of our American press or president about free and open
>elections anytime lately. Liberated from an oppressive regime? How
>many Iraqis are likely to claim they're free now? The Sunnis in the
>south want us out, as do the Kurds in the north and the Baathists in the
>center.
>
>I'm afraid if you take off your rose-colored glasses, the world doesn't
>look so rosy any more...

I don't think anyone with half a brain sees anything "rosy" in Iraq,
but it is a more pleasant color of mud than it was IMHO.

Did you happen to see the demonstrations in Iraq? That's a sure sign
of freedom. Also, people who bitch and throw rocks make much better
news than those who appreciate the US being there (the vast majority
according to the first hand accounts I've heard from service people).
One kind of "glasses" I try not to wear too much are those shaped like
TV screens - they cause all kinds of distortion... ;-)

Of course, there are those who would cast derision on GWB if Baghdad
had already become as good (or bad...) as LA. Decades of horrendous
mismanagement and oppression doesn't vanish overnight, and as you
mentioned, Iraq has a long and bloody history of internal conflict.
Yet that all seems to be GWB's fault all the sudden? Hmmmm.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Mark Hickey]

Kevan Smith /\/\> wrote:

>On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 15:30:51 -0400, Stephen Harding
> from Computer Science Dept/UMass Amherst wrote:
>
>>I'll opt for the hope that a democracy can be established in the area, thus
>>ending the term "arab democracy" as an oxymoron, and setting nearby regimes
>>(Syria, Iran), and the people within, on notice that other ways of governing
>>the region are possible.
>
>I hope that, too. I don't see it happening.

There have already been huge pro-democracy riots in Iran (and not just
college students either). A very good sign that "they're starting to
get it". The region is also fed a steady stream of propaganda about
the US that is crumbling under the weight of the relatively benign US
presence, and will face huge pressure when western news starts being
broadcast in the region (heck, even CNN is better than AJ...).

>>If you're only capable of seeing any resulting form of Iraqi government as a
>>US lackey, then there's nothing really to discuss. Dueling dogma isn't worth
>>much effort.
>
>If we let the Iraqi people organize their own system of governance without U.S.
>oversight, I would be satisfied. Would you? I think you wouldn't. I think you
>view the Iraqi government as 'spoils of war' -- that is, it's ours to dictate
>what is and is not acceptable.

No one has said that, and I'll wager no one here wants that. I think
the US hopes the resultant Iraqi government is friendly toward the US,
but I don't see any real chance of it being a "puppet regime", unless
that's what the people vote for I guess (hey, there COULD be a Puppet
Regime Party I guess...).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[one of the six billion]

"Mark Hickey" > wrote in message
...
>
> So tell me - how many US lives IS having a democracy in the near east
> worth? What IS the price for liberating 25,000,000 Iraqis from an
> oppresive regime?
>

Hello.... we have not installed a democracy over there nor liberated
anyone. The only thing we've done is start pumping oil, and give American
corporations rights to control various aspects of infastructure that have
not been provided. As of now the state of that country is in far worse
condition than before we got there.

What makes you think our murder and plunder won't end up just like
Afghanistan. There's a perfect example of a pipeline and a puppet
government now installed and a country left worse.

[Stephen Harding]

Kevan Smith wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 15:24:56 -0400, Stephen Harding
> > from Computer Science Dept/UMass Amherst wrote:
>
> >Do you think that calculation (and "explanation to their mothers") was
> >somehow easier for Lincoln during the Civil War, or Roosevelt during
> >WWII?
>
> Hitler won WWII. Everyone owning a car was his idea. Now that we've done that in
> the U.S., look at what it has gotten us: dependence on foreign oil and the need
> for a militaristic empire to secure cheap access to resources. Hitler's laughing
> in Hell.

Well Kev, I'll just say it looks like we both agree that Hitler is in Hell.


SMH

[Chalo]

Mark Hickey > wrote:

> So tell me - how many US lives IS having a democracy in the near east
> worth?

To know that, first you gotta have a democracy there. We don't even
have a functioning democracy _here_. I think it's implausible that
the US govt has any intention to set up a democratic system for some
brown folks whom they only ever intended to economically exploit.

The fear that "Islamists" will come to power is the fear of democratic
rule in Iraq. When the people get to vote freely for the leadership
they want, and their votes are properly counted, and the results
honored, that's representative democracy. That's what the US govt is
presently trying to prevent from happening, here and there both.

And that is why the US regime has handpicked the "democratic" Iraqi
governing body without the consent of the Iraqi people.

> What IS the price for liberating 25,000,000 Iraqis from an
> oppresive regime?

--and substituting a worse one, that shoots innocent folks in the
streets without warning and can't even keep the lights on? Not much.

Chalo Colina

[Pete]

"Kevan Smith" /\/\> wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 15:18:27 -0400, Stephen Harding
> > from Computer Science Dept/UMass Amherst
wrote:
>
>
> >Nah. Twelve years was more than enough time for diplomacy.
>
> And, you know. It worked. It's plain now Saddam had disarmed fully.

And all that was asked was that he show proof of such.

Pete

[Pete]

"Kevan Smith" /\/\> wrote

>
> Nice way to ignore the deaths of innocent civilians like 11-year-old
children
> blown to bits by UXO cluster bombs. Far more innocents are dying than
"thugs."
> I'm sure the Iraqis would much rather have us either live up to the
promise of
> putting them in charge of their own lives or get the hell out.

Give it time. Pulling out now would put the country back under the rule of
the Ba'athists. Maybe Saddam himself. Is this a a good thing?

>
> But, let's talk about those mass graves for a minute. Who were they and
when
> were they killed? IIRC, they were Shi'ites killed after the first Gulf
War. Bush
> I had urged them to rise up against Saddam and promised support. They did
just
> that, but the U.S. abandoned them. Schwarzkopf calls that the worst
decision he
> made in that war -- allowing Saddam to fly armed helicopter gunships into
the
> region to put down the Shi'ite rebellion. So, who bears part
responsibility for
> those graves?

So...

After ODS, we left, and that is bad.
After OIF, we stay, and that is bad.

Which is it Kevan? Can't have it both ways.

Pete

[Pete]

"Kevan Smith" /\/\> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 00:24:25 GMT, Mark Hickey > from
Habanero
> Cycles wrote:
>
> >Yet that all seems to be GWB's fault all the sudden?
>
> Let's just say right out front what GWB is at fault for:
>
> 1) Lying to the American public about the threat Iraq posed America. As it
turns
> out, Iraq was no threat to the U.S. There were -- and are -- no WMD there.

No. There were. The UN knew it, Saddam knew it, you and I knew it.

Where they are now is the question. Did Saddam get rid of all that stuff?
Maybe, maybe not. But if he did....he merely had to provide proof of that.
As was required by the terms of the cease fire agreement.

Instead, we get obfuscation and runaround for 12 years.

Pete

[Hunrobe]

>Kevan Smith /\/\

wrote:

>I don't think that would happen if we left. The country would erupt in civil
>war, most likely, but I don't see the Baathists regaining power against both
>a
>Kurd and a Shi'a opposition. Frankly, before we get out of Iraq, which we
>should
>do ASAP, there should be some sort of UN force there to keep the peace.

Finally Kevan has said it plainly. He's perfectly willing to let Iraq slide
into a civil war that, if recent history in Iraq and even the most perfunctory
review of civil wars throughout the ages are any indicator, would likely be a
long and extremely bloody conflict with hundreds of thousands of civilian
deaths just as long as it would mean that there would be no U.S. troops under
U.S. command in the country.

In fairness, he *did* add almost in passing that, "(B)efore we get out of Iraq,
which we should do ASAP, there should be some sort of UN force there to keep
the peace.". I guess he's aware of some special power that soldiers serving
under a UN command have that not only renders them invulnerable to any physical
harm but also allows them to instill order in situations where people armed
with deadly weapons are shooting at them without resorting to <shudder>
shooting back.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Mark Jones]

"Kevan Smith" /\/\> wrote in message
...
> Besides, after engaging in an illegal and immoral war of
> aggression, what moral right have U.S. forces to stay in Iraq?
You basic premise is wrong.

[Hunrobe]

>Kevan Smith /\/\

wrote in part:

>Frankly, at this point, a U.N. force would have more moral authority than
>U.S.
>forces do.

---snip---

I guess Kevan's "moral authority" is that special power UN forces have that
renders them invulnerable while allowing them to stop civil war combatants from
killing noncombatants and each another without using deadly force themselves.

>A civil war in Iraq if left to
>itself would last just long enough for The Kurds to establish themselves in
>the
>North and the Shi'a to take the rest with the help of Iran.

---snip---

I wonder how many will die in that civil war. Apparently Kev doesn't mind the
deaths of innocents as long as those deaths keep the US out of the region.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Stephen Harding]

Kevan Smith wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 21:05:26 -0400, Stephen Harding
> > from Computer Science Dept/UMass Amherst wrote:
>
> >Kevan Smith wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 15:18:27 -0400, Stephen Harding
> >> > from Computer Science Dept/UMass Amherst wrote:
> >>
> >> >Nah. Twelve years was more than enough time for diplomacy.
> >>
> >> And, you know. It worked. It's plain now Saddam had disarmed fully.
> >
> >It did not work! His *known* chemical and bio materials from 1991
> >through to the expelling of inspectors have never been accounted for.
>
> Saddam didn't "expel" inspectors. Clinton asked the U.N. to withdraw them to
> begin Operation Desert Fox. Saddam later claimed the inspectors were being used
> to scout out bombing targets and didn't want to let them back in for that
> reason. The CIA later admitted that they had been using inspectors to scout out
> targets.

This seems to be one of the dogmatic lines put out by the liberal left about
Iraq along with the "everyone is dying from US DU ammunition laying about"
line.

Here's a nice summarization extracted from Keith Willshaw on the military aviation
newsgroup concerning this issue.

> In 1996 Iraq began systematically denying UNSCOM access to
> ceratin sites, despite the passage of UN sec council resolution 1060
> and the best efforts of Unscom cheif Rolf Ekeus
>
> In June 1997 Iraqi minders went one stage further by boarding
> a UNSCOM helicopter and physically preventing its use to
> fly to a site the Iraqis didnt want UNSCOM to see.
>
> Security council Resolution 1115 was passed
>
> Sept 1997 - Iraqi soldiers physically attack a photographer
> aboard a UNSCOM helicopter for taking pictures of
> unauthorised Iraq vehicle movements at a site scheduled
> for inspection
>
> Later that month UNSCOM inspectors watched and filmed Iraqi
> guards burning documents in a base they were scheduled
> to inspect but prevented from accessing
>
> October 1997 - Yep another UN resolution is passed (1134)
>
> In late October the Iraqi government denied access to all
> inspectors of US nationality
>
> November 1997 - Guess what - yes UN resolution 1137
>
> 13 November 1997 Iraq demands that all US citizens
> working for Unscom leave immediately, all UNSCOM
> inspectors are withdrawn instead
>
> March 1998 - Resolution 1154 is born
>
> August 1998 - after 6 months of negotiation Iraq
> decided it will only readmit inspectors if sanctions
> are dropped.This is refused.
>
> Sept 1998 UN resolution 1194 hits the streets

And yes, everyone opposed to Saddam's policies was pretty much
labeled a spy, and generally executed for it.

The US probably did have spies on the UN team. It is now known
that UNSCOM itself had also been infilitrated by Iraqi
intelligence. Just part of the game.

But please spare us the Saddam apologies. You should be ashamed
of yourself trying to promote the guy, and his policies, as mere
misunderstanding or the result of US bullying.


SMH

[Stephen Harding]

Mark Hickey wrote:

> There have already been huge pro-democracy riots in Iran (and not just
> college students either). A very good sign that "they're starting to
> get it". The region is also fed a steady stream of propaganda about
> the US that is crumbling under the weight of the relatively benign US
> presence, and will face huge pressure when western news starts being
> broadcast in the region (heck, even CNN is better than AJ...).

I find it near unbelievable that of all Muslim countries, the US is likely
most popular in...Iran!!! Apparently America, its democratic ideals as
well as culture has become extremely popular there. Some even look back
to the Shah with a degree of nostalgia given their current situation.

The Mullahs are on their way out. Iran is going to become a real republic
in the not too distant future. Fundamentalist "Islamic Republic" types
just haven't seen, or come to accept, the direction history is going.

It likely won't have American style democratic institutions, but they're
working their way toward some sort of representative government, that will
no longer allow a Fundamentalist Mullah to over-rule secular (popular)
expression.

US success in Iraq will greatly speed that process along, for everyones
betterment in the region.


SMH

[Mark Hickey]

Kevan Smith /\/\> wrote:

>On 31 Jul 2003 13:50:47 GMT, (Hunrobe) from AOL
>http://www.aol.com wrote:
>
>>I wonder how many will die in that civil war. Apparently Kev doesn't mind the
>>deaths of innocents as long as those deaths keep the US out of the region.
>
>Well, how about you? Where's your big clamor to go into China, which is far
>worse a regime than Saddam could have ever dreamed? In fact, where's your outcry
>against being allies with the brutal, murders-his-own-people dictator of
>Pakistan, Pervez Musharef, who overthrew a democratically elected government?

Hey, Kev... you know how long we've been in Bosnia? Where's your
moral outrage against that Clinton-initiated "occupation"?

Oh, and China is a "far worse regime than Saddam could have ever
dreamed?". Heh heh heh. Where DO you come up with this stuff. I
would imagine it would make your fingertips ashamed to type it.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Mark Hickey]

"Pete" > wrote:

>"Kevan Smith" /\/\> wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 00:24:25 GMT, Mark Hickey > from
>Habanero
>> Cycles wrote:
>>
>> >Yet that all seems to be GWB's fault all the sudden?
>>
>> Let's just say right out front what GWB is at fault for:
>>
>> 1) Lying to the American public about the threat Iraq posed America. As it
>turns
>> out, Iraq was no threat to the U.S. There were -- and are -- no WMD there.
>
>No. There were. The UN knew it, Saddam knew it, you and I knew it.
>
>Where they are now is the question. Did Saddam get rid of all that stuff?
>Maybe, maybe not. But if he did....he merely had to provide proof of that.
>As was required by the terms of the cease fire agreement.

Heck, even Jacques Chirac and Hans Blix didn't try to say there were
no WMD in Iraq - that would have been STUPID (are you paying
attention, Kev?).

Let me break it down in simple terms...

1991 - after damaging information is released by an Iraqi defector,
Iraq admits to having large stores of WMD
2003 - As of now, no proof has been shown that Iraq has destroyed ANY
of the WMD they admitted having in '91.
2003 - If Saddam actually HAS gotten rid of all his WMD, he has a
choice. Show proof that he's destroyed the WMD and avoid being run
out of power in a war he can't win, OR refuse to turn over proof of
the destruction and be killed or at best exiled.

So, yes - it IS possible that Saddam actually dutifully destroyed all
the WMD he had, but for some unthinkable reason neglected to provide
any proof. Of course, it's equally possible pigs really CAN fly...
Either way, there was (and is) no reason to believe that Iraq didn't
have the WMD they had in '91 (at the very least).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Mark Hickey]

(Keven Ruf) wrote:

>Mark Hickey > wrote in message >...
>
>> One kind of "glasses" I try not to wear too much are those shaped like
>> TV screens - they cause all kinds of distortion... ;-)
>
>Just curious, what IS your source for news then? I have trouble
>finding a single story that supports the reasons the US government
>gave for going to war in Iraq (that they were a threat to the US, that
>they supported the terrorists that attacked the US, etc.), and I have
>trouble seeing any stories that indicate that our sojourn there has
>had any success at all. Same with Afganistan, where the Taliban is
>back in power in vurtually the whole country and the heroin has
>started flowing again in actual support of actual terrorism.

I rely on a lot of internet news sources, C-SPAN is a great way to get
"unfiltered news", and Fox is a lot more objective than all the other
US news networks put together. For example, most US news viewers
somehow missed the fact Iraq admitted to having huge stockpiles of WMD
in '91 - simply because that wasn't deemed "newsworthy". Instead they
were treated to a non-stop barrage of "pundits" who droned on and on
about how there MUST not be any weapons since we haven't found 'em
yet.

>Where are the news stories that support your point of view? I hope
>you are not one of those who cling to an arguement because you made a
>public statement and feel you must save face and stand by it despite
>the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Let's face it, all the
>reasons given for going to war have turned out to be lies.

In which universe? Was Saddam a destabilizing influence in the
near/middle east? Yep. Was he a despotic tyrant who killed hundreds
of thousands of his own people? Yep. Did Iraq admit having many tons
of chemical/biological weapons which the UN had issued resolution
after resolution to get Iraq to turn over? Yep. Did Saddam directly
support terrorist organizations? Yep.

Of course, to listen to the Democrats lately, the only reason we went
to war was because Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Africa. How
short are the memories of the average citizens... (and how desparate
are the Dems to discredit GWB).

> And since
>the oil has started flowing before the water, well, you be the judge
>of why we really invaded Iraq.

Uhhhh, you might want to check on how the Iraqi economy works. It's
pretty obvious that without oil revenue, repairing the horrendously
abused (pre-war) infrastructure would take many, many years. The key
to Iraq's future IS oil - always has been. Does this surprise you?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Rick Onanian]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 09:42:49 -0500, wrote:
> Is not.

Is too.

> Is not.

Is too.

> Is not.

Is too.

> Is not.

I'm telling!

MOM!!!!! Kevan keeps saying "Is not."! Now he's making
faces at me!

> --
> http://home.sport.rr.com/cuthulu/ human rights = peace
> a slippery Tava dissonantly enters yonder a red play...
> 9:42:12 AM 31 July 2003
--
Rick Onanian

[Rick Onanian]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 09:49:55 -0500, wrote:
> War is wrong, period. War does not lead to peace, but only to more war

War is integrated into human genes, culture, and everything
else. Further, with the overpopulation of this planet, it's
impossible to have any less war than we have, and it's amazing
how little there is.

Now, if we could eliminate a few billion people, there could
be a lot less war...but then, how do we do that? I guess we
will just have to wait for AIDS and cancer and everything
else to do it, or else we'll all starve to death.

Then again, somebody could create Stephen King's "Superflu"...

Realistically, none of the above will happen, the population
will never shrink (and will most likely continue to grow),
and there will be more and more war. It doesn't help that we
really like our culture, but some cultures promote the active
hate of ours.

You should join a fundamentalist islamic regime. There, you
can fight for what you believe in.

> --
> http://home.sport.rr.com/cuthulu/ human rights = peace
> I'm having a BIG BANG THEORY!!
> 9:49:12 AM 31 July 2003
--
Rick Onanian

[Terry Morse]

Mark Hickey wrote:

> I rely on a lot of internet news sources, C-SPAN is a great way to get
> "unfiltered news", and Fox is a lot more objective than all the other
> US news networks put together.

Wow, Mark, you do irony as well as you make bikes! "Fox News" is an
oxymoron.

I heard a business guy say this once: CNN is for the CEO crowd, CNBC
is for the CFO crowd, "Fox News" is for the UFO crowd. Classic!
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/

[Chalo]

Mark Hickey > wrote

> (Chalo) wrote:
>
> >I think it's implausible that
> >the US govt has any intention to set up a democratic system for some
> >brown folks whom they only ever intended to economically exploit.
>
> My, my, my... feeling cynical today, are we? Have you read something
> indicating we're keeping their oil revenue? No? Hmmmm.....

"We"? No, not me; not you. Halliburton. Kellogg Brown & Root.
Bechtel. Shrubby's friends, IOW. For, ahem, "services rendered".

> >--and substituting a worse one, that shoots innocent folks in the
> >streets without warning and can't even keep the lights on? Not much.
>
> "A worse one", huh? You might want to take a reality pill, Chalo.

Under Saddam, an Iraqi could have a reasonable expectation of *driving
somewhere* without being machinegunned into chum because some heavily
armed 18-year-old mongoloid got flinchy.

Read the news-- the real news, like from outside the USA. Civilians
are getting murdered every day by "our" boys over there-- folks that
even the occupation forces do not accuse of any wrongdoing. They are
just the latest part of the mountain of "collateral damage" inflicted
so that the US govt can control the petroleum economy. Then there's
the pervasive unfounded detention (and often torture) of ordinary
civilians who probably managed to avoid trouble for years under
Saddam. Add to this the, um, "confiscation" of money and other
property turned up in random searches of civilians by US soldiers.
Fox News won't tell you about it, but it's there.

I just don't see anything Saddam was accused of that isn't being
perpetrated by Americans in Iraq as we speak.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/07/29/MN268.DTL
http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=7911&TagID=2
http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=75618954&p=756y966x

Chalo Colina

[Pete]

"one of the six billion" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mark Hickey" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > So tell me - how many US lives IS having a democracy in the near east
> > worth? What IS the price for liberating 25,000,000 Iraqis from an
> > oppresive regime?
> >
>
> Hello.... we have not installed a democracy over there nor liberated
> anyone. The only thing we've done is start pumping oil, and give American
> corporations rights to control various aspects of infastructure that have
> not been provided. As of now the state of that country is in far worse
> condition than before we got there.
>
> What makes you think our murder and plunder won't end up just like
> Afghanistan. There's a perfect example of a pipeline and a puppet
> government now installed and a country left worse.

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/6429206.htm
" L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. civilian administrator for Iraq, predicted
Thursday that general elections could be held within a year to form a
government to replace the U.S.-appointed Governing Council, which was
announced two weeks ago."

"It's certainly not unrealistic to think that we could have elections by
midyear 2004," Bremer said during a tour of the partially refurbished Iraqi
Foreign Ministry. "And when a sovereign government is installed, the
coalition . . . will cede authority to the government and my job here will
be over."


http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=news&subclass=international&category=general%20news&story_id=244773&y=2003&m=8
"Aspiring to end the anarchy of the post-war, Iraq's Governing Council named
its first president as a group of Iraqi refugees who languished 12 years in
a Saudi camp returned home.
But hopes for the future were mitigated by fresh attacks by insurgents and
the release of another audiotape the Central Intelligence Agency believes
carries Saddam Hussein's voice taunting US troops.
The instability has tried the patience of Iraqis, who expect the US to
deliver on promises of a better life.
But World Bank president James Wolfensohn, on a one-day tour of Baghdad,
said aid might be a year away.
"At some point that [aid] will happen but as you know, there is a need first
to have a constitution, to have a government," he said.
Still, betting on a brighter future, more than 240 Iraqi refugees returned
on Wednesday to their native soil after 12 years living in the squalid Rafha
refugee camp in the barren desert plains of northern Saudi Arabia.
The 244 refugees reached the port of Umm Qasr and then headed up to the
southern city of Basra in buses.
Meanwhile, the US-sponsored interim Governing Council cleared a hurdle on
Wednesday when it named Ibrahim Jafari, from the Shi'ite fundamentalist Dawa
party, as its first president in a nine-man monthly rotation.
He will be succeeded by two fellow Shi'ites: the Pentagon-backed Ahmed
Chalabi and Iyad Allawi, a former Baathist and longtime member of the exiled
opposition.
The rotation includes five Shi'ite Muslims, two Sunni and two Kurdish
members of the 25-strong council, a microcosm of Iraq's rich diversity."

"I. On the Fate of Uday and Qusay
Face to Face with the Truth
An editorial by the editor-in-chief of the independent weekly Al-'Ahd
Al-Jadeed (The New Era) welcomed the death of Saddam's sons: "Yesterday, the
Iraqis happily welcomed the death of the greatest symbols of evil, of
torment and degradation of the Iraqi people. [5]ery few nations in the world
suffered such humiliation ]as Iraqis suffered] and abuse from those who,
regretfully, died at the hands of the occupiers, while the Iraqi people were
unable to stand face to face with those murderers and exact revenge from
those savage executioners who engaged in abnormal terror against the whole
nation, the army, a woman, a young woman, a young man, teenagers, innocent
old men, and mothers who had tears on their cheeks during years of torture.
"


Give it time.

Pete

[Mark Hickey]

Kevan Smith /\/\> wrote:

>On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:48:29 GMT, Mark Hickey > from Habanero
>Cycles wrote:
>
>>Oh, and China is a "far worse regime than Saddam could have ever
>>dreamed?". Heh heh heh. Where DO you come up with this stuff.
>
>Ever heard of the Cultural Revolution? How many _millions_ did that kill? Saddam
>was a piker compared to Mao. And in recent memory, I can recall Tianamen Square.
>That certainly was a nice way to deal with people wanting freedom, eh?

There have been more than a few "regime changes" in China since 1949.
The current government is much more progressive than Mao's (though
there is obviously lots of room for improvement).

Besides, the Cultural Revolution was made up of people pretty much
like you (idealistic to the point of absurdity) - and got WAY out of
hand. Mao was a lousy administrator and let it happen, but didn't
really orchestrate it.

But if you'd really rather have been an Iraqi living under Saddam than
a Chinese person living in modern China, I guess we have to agree to
disagree.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Mark Hickey]

Terry Morse > wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>> I rely on a lot of internet news sources, C-SPAN is a great way to get
>> "unfiltered news", and Fox is a lot more objective than all the other
>> US news networks put together.
>
>Wow, Mark, you do irony as well as you make bikes! "Fox News" is an
>oxymoron.
>
>I heard a business guy say this once: CNN is for the CEO crowd, CNBC
>is for the CFO crowd, "Fox News" is for the UFO crowd. Classic!

If you REALLY think CNN and CNBC are "balanced", Al Sharpton probably
seems a little too conservative to you... ;-) Fox has its share of
obvious conservatives, but ALSO their fair share of card-carrying
liberals. They go out of their way to invite those who disagree with
them to state their case. And that's why Fox is killing the network
news - people do get tired of getting only one side.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Mark Hickey]

Kevan Smith /\/\> wrote:

>On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:04:03 GMT, Mark Hickey > from Habanero
>Cycles wrote:
>
>>Duh. Who "picked" Thomas Jefferson?
>
>For what? He had an extensive history of public service culminating in his
>election as President.

Oh, so the people DON'T have to pick their leaders, huh? Just appoint
the most talented out of the available pool. Just what the US is
doing.

I get SO confused with your "logic".

A bunch of white guys appointed themselves and took it from there.

Fast forward a couple hundred years and history repeats itself in
Iraq.

Hey, it worked last time! It will this time too.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Mark Hickey]

(Chalo) wrote:

>Mark Hickey > wrote
>
>> (Chalo) wrote:
>>
>> >I think it's implausible that
>> >the US govt has any intention to set up a democratic system for some
>> >brown folks whom they only ever intended to economically exploit.
>>
>> My, my, my... feeling cynical today, are we? Have you read something
>> indicating we're keeping their oil revenue? No? Hmmmm.....
>
>"We"? No, not me; not you. Halliburton. Kellogg Brown & Root.
>Bechtel. Shrubby's friends, IOW. For, ahem, "services rendered".

And you think that any company with any (long since severed)
relationships to anyone in high office should disqualify themselves
from doing the kind of work they do (and do more of than anyone else)
for the government? Hoo boy, that's a tough one.

I heard a lot of bitching about the contracts being let to KB&R, but
haven't seen anything about any impropriety. Lots of inuendo, but no
numbers. Doncha think if there were ANY irregularities they'd be
paraded around on every left-leaning front page in the country?

>> >--and substituting a worse one, that shoots innocent folks in the
>> >streets without warning and can't even keep the lights on? Not much.
>>
>> "A worse one", huh? You might want to take a reality pill, Chalo.
>
>Under Saddam, an Iraqi could have a reasonable expectation of *driving
>somewhere* without being machinegunned into chum because some heavily
>armed 18-year-old mongoloid got flinchy.

I'm glad you respect our fighting men and women who are putting their
lives on the line, Chalo. Citizens do occasionally get killed when
other citizens attack US soldiers. The Iraqis can stop 100% of that
from happening if they really want to. Citizens in the US
occasionally get killed when thugs shoot it out with police. Does
that make cops "mongoloids" as well? Should the cops leave all the
major cities?

>Read the news-- the real news, like from outside the USA. Civilians
>are getting murdered every day by "our" boys over there-- folks that
>even the occupation forces do not accuse of any wrongdoing. They are
>just the latest part of the mountain of "collateral damage" inflicted
>so that the US govt can control the petroleum economy.

Any indication that they're trying to do that? No? Hmmmm. Do you
have any idea how much scrutiny the Iraqi oil revenues are receiving
right now? Have you heard a peep about any US wrong-doing in
conjunction with them? I haven't.

>Then there's
>the pervasive unfounded detention (and often torture) of ordinary
>civilians who probably managed to avoid trouble for years under
>Saddam. Add to this the, um, "confiscation" of money and other
>property turned up in random searches of civilians by US soldiers.
>Fox News won't tell you about it, but it's there.

Yeah, those cases with MILLIONS OF US DOLLARS were some little old
widow's life savings, right? And I guess you could consider all of
Saddam's houses "private property" - but who cares? They're so tacky
I'm surprised the grunts can get to sleep in them.

>I just don't see anything Saddam was accused of that isn't being
>perpetrated by Americans in Iraq as we speak.

Show me mass graves with hundreds of thousands of men, women and
children and then we'll talk. Show me the gassing of entire villages.
Show me the organized rape.

If you think the US military is as scary as Saddam, explain why there
were NO protests in the decades under Saddam, but frequent ones under
US military rule.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Hunrobe]

>Kevan Smith /\/\

wrote:

>Ever heard of the Cultural Revolution? How many _millions_ did that kill?
>Saddam
>was a piker compared to Mao. And in recent memory, I can recall Tianamen
>Square.
>That certainly was a nice way to deal with people wanting freedom, eh?

Hmmm....
Cultural Revolution- '66 through '68
Driving force- Mao Tse Dung (died Sept '76)
Tiananmen Square- April through June '89
Driving force- Crackdown on dissidents by Deng Xiaoping (died Feb '97)

Will someone please hand Kevan that time travel machine?

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Hunrobe]

>Kevan Smith /\/\

wrote:

>Well, how about you? Where's your big clamor to go into China, which is far
>worse a regime than Saddam could have ever dreamed? In fact, where's your
>outcry
>against being allies with the brutal, murders-his-own-people dictator of
>Pakistan, Pervez Musharef, who overthrew a democratically elected government?

It seems Kevan isn't really against a Pax Americana. He just wants to be in
charge of the enemies list.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Eric S. Sande]

>Is there no political newsgroup somewhere for this discourse? I starve
>for bicycling content!

Well, I picked a 1975 or so Raleigh Record Ace out of the trash on
my way home from work, I'll get good use out of the parts, Weinmann
centerpulls in perfect condition, Raleigh branded Sun Tour ders, a
nice alloy stem and bars.

No cranks, wheels or seatpost, I think someone was stripping it
and went home for tools. Some important bolts were missing.

But the real prize is the frame. A lugged 65 cm job in black with
silver head tube and seat tube panel, really slick with the metal
head badge and all, a little scratched but no rust.

Lugwork pretty nice, paint ditto, not too heavy for a fixie or
beater.

Only problem is the size. 65 cm wasn't a typo, yes, its a 25 1/2
inch frame. I won't be riding this bike soon, but it's just the
right size for Osama bin Laden.

And you thought this wasn't a political post.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------

[Pete]

"Chalo" > wrote

>
> Under Saddam, an Iraqi could have a reasonable expectation of *driving
> somewhere* without being machinegunned into chum because some heavily
> armed 18-year-old mongoloid got flinchy.

Spoken by someone that truly has no clue, and has never actually had to
defend anything.
"...heavily armed 18-year-old mongoloid...". Give me a break...

>
> Read the news-- the real news, like from outside the USA.

http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD54603 Al-Balat July 24, 2003.
Not in Defense of Saddam

Al-Balat(The Royal Court), which is published by the Iraqi National
Coalition, reflects the views of Sherif Hussein, who is a claimant to the
throne. The editor-in-chief of the publication decried the fact that Iraqis
did not find it in themselves to punish the looters and the thieves who
destroyed the country, and said that "if only the Iraqis had learnt from
Western democracy and conducted a general referendum among all citizens,
except the looters and their relatives, and asked them for their verdict on
those who destroyed the country in such an evil and barbaric manner [meaning
Saddam's sons]. they would have screamed: 'Death. Death to all those who
brought shame on the country and harmed its people.' [The Iraqis] wish that
Iraq could have put an end to all mass graves with one last big mass grave
for the looters. Baghdad was about to realize that in 1991, but the
opportunity dissipated in the face of savagery." The article continued,
stating that "no one can defend Saddam and clear him of the [crimes of]
mass-graves. and perhaps the Iraqis have been saturated with murder to the
point that they may not want to kill even one looter. but the laws of the
universe -according to the article - decree death to whoever harms the
motherland and society and if "defending the country is a sacred
responsibility, then fighting those who betray it is more than sacred."

Pete

[R15757]

<< The bonobo, the closest genetic relative to man, is naturally peaceful and
non-aggressive. >>

they are constantly f***ing. If Marx wrote about that maybe I woulda gone to
class once or twice.

R

[Terry Morse]

Mark Hickey wrote:

> And that's why Fox is killing the network
> news - people do get tired of getting only one side.

No, it's because people can't tell the difference between news and
info-tainment. Rent a video of "Network" and see where Rupert got
his ideas for Fox "News".
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/

[Pete]

"Kevan Smith" /\/\> wrote

>
> OK, you too. Falun Gong. Fetch.

Not knowing a whole lot about this group, except for persecution by the
Chinese government, I went and looked.

Either a peaceful quasi-Buddhist sect,
http://www.falundafa.org/eng/index_en.htm or a racist UFO cult
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/f02.html .

Depends on how far you are into it.

[liberal snippage, which is not really conducive to the whole concept, but
we can't copy the whole thing here... follows]

http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/flg_3.htm#1
1. Xinxing's Inner Meaning

The "xinxing" referred to in Falun Gong cannot be fully encompassed by
"virtue" alone. It encompasses much more than virtue. It encompasses many
different facets of things, including those of virtue. Virtue is only one
manifestation of one's xinxing, so using only virtue to understand the
meaning of xinxing is inadequate. Xinxing encompasses how to deal with the
two matters of gain and loss.

3. Simultaneous Cultivation of Zhen, Shan, and Ren

Our cultivation way cultivates Zhen, Shan, and Ren simultaneously. "Zhen" is
about telling the truth, doing truthful things, returning to one's origin
and true self, and ultimately becoming a true person. "Shan" is about
developing great compassion, doing good things, and saving people. We
particularly emphasize the ability of Ren. Only with Ren can one cultivate
to become a person with great virtue. Ren is a very powerful thing and
transcends Zhen and Shan. Throughout the entire cultivation process you are
asked to forbear, to watch your xinxing, and to exercise self-control.

or...

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/f02.html
In Li's view, the races are not to be intermingled. Mixed-race children, he
notes, are a symptom of societal decline. A race has its own particular
''biosphere,'' and whenever children are born of a mixed-race relationship,
they are ''defective persons.'' Li contends that heaven itself is
segregated.

But Mr. Li has also told Western reporters that humanity will soon be wiped
out, that space aliens are on Earth trying to replace human beings with
clones and that he is invested with supernatural powers allowing him to move
through dimensions. He also criticizes rock 'n'roll, science and
homosexuality.

Li's rambling dissertation, http://www.falundafa.org/eng/books.htm , has
only added to accusations that Falun Gong is a cult. Li writes he can
personally heal disease and that his followers can stop speeding cars using
the powers of his teachings. He writes that the Falun Gong emblem exists in
the bellies of practitioners, who can see through the celestial eyes in
their foreheads. Li believes ''humankind is degenerating and demons are
everywhere''-extraterrestrials are everywhere, too-and that Africa boasts a
2-billion-year-old nuclear reactor. He also says he can fly. "

Ssome good thoughts, but also some wildly off the wall stuff.

Pete
Your job is complete, Kevan. You got some of us to go look.

[Sorni]

"Kevan Smith" /\/\> wrote in message
...
> On 01 Aug 2003 04:41:00 GMT, (R15757) from AOL
http://www.aol.com
> wrote:
>
> ><< The bonobo, the closest genetic relative to man, is naturally peaceful
and
> >non-aggressive. >>
> >
> >they are constantly f***ing. If Marx wrote about that maybe I woulda gone
to
> >class once or twice.
>
> Yep. And if two males fight, they get all guilty and make up by
masturbating
> each other.

Check please!

Waiter, There's SOMETHING In My Soup Bill

[Eric S. Sande]

"The Actual Pete" wrote:

>Your job is complete, Kevan. You got some of us to go look.

In fact I was personally leafletted by Falun Gong practicioners
in front of the very coffee shop to which I earlier alluded.

Until I saw Pete's post I thought nothing of it, in fact I just
thanked the leafletter, a presumably Chinese woman of earnest
demeanor, for her gift.

Which I promptly shoved into my pannier and thought no more about.

Now here come Pete and Kevan arguing, and I suddenly remember that
in my very pannier, in my direct possession, is important information
that a REAL Falun Gong person pressed upon me!

Imagine my surprise. Imagine my additional surprise to find that
it is still there.

I have before me two double-sided leaflets detailing the abuses of
Chinese government against the Falun Gong. They are a little the
worse for wear but I can read them fine.

I discover that if I want more information I can call Lisa Fan at
(703) 541-5567 or Kith at (202) 256-4705.

If the Falun Gong can hand me leaflets before I have my coffee,
my hat's off to them, I absolutely never got even a Christmas card
from Jiang Zemin.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------

[Mark Jones]

"Mark Hickey" > wrote in message
...
> And you think that any company with any (long since severed)
> relationships to anyone in high office should disqualify themselves
> from doing the kind of work they do (and do more of than anyone else)
> for the government? Hoo boy, that's a tough one.

The best, most capable companies are bound to have plenty
of government contacts. That is how they have been able to
grow and prosper and be able to attract the kind of talent
needed to carry out tough tasks.

Some people seem to think that it would be better to hire
a sub-standard company instead of one that really stands
the best chance of getting the job done.

[Stephen Harding]

R15757 wrote:

> People who really think the US wants to leave Iraq with a true democracy need
> to stop and think for a second.
>
> In the mid East, in central Asia, in pretty much everywhere in the world, in
> farging Europe, democracy equals anti-American. Democracies are not going along
> with the program. A democracy in Iraq would not go along with the program. Not
> even close. Now why would the US waste all that money and all those lives to
> install a democracy in a country where the US is vastly unpopular? Seems to me
> that would defeat the purpose of taking the oil.

Haven't taken over Saudi Arabia, Venezuala, UK, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia or
any where else the US gets its foreign oil from.

Why spend all that money in "taking over" Iraqi oil when all we have to do to
get it is...BUY IT! Like we do with all other sources of foreign oil.

You "oil for blood" types are stuck in an intellectual rut. The complexities
of international interaction are way too complex, so you grab at these little
"one liner" explanations for things.


SMH

[Stephen Harding]

Kevan Smith wrote:

> The bonobo, the closest genetic relative to man, is naturally peaceful and
> non-aggressive.

You clearly never watched or read papers by Jane Goodall or other primate
researchers.

Chimpanzee society is quite dynamic, and includes creation of cliques that
harass and are aggressive to other competing groups. Murder is not unknown
in the Chimp world, and sometimes "war" in the sense of one social group
victimizing through aggression, other social groups.

The Bonobo IIRC is a Chimp variant, but not especially well studied, so I
have my doubts if it would behave much differently from very well studied
Chimp behavior.


SMH

[archer]

In article >, says...
> Kevan Smith wrote:
>
> > The bonobo, the closest genetic relative to man, is naturally peaceful and
> > non-aggressive.
>
> You clearly never watched or read papers by Jane Goodall or other primate
> researchers.
>
> Chimpanzee society is quite dynamic, and includes creation of cliques that
> harass and are aggressive to other competing groups. Murder is not unknown
> in the Chimp world, and sometimes "war" in the sense of one social group
> victimizing through aggression, other social groups.
>
> The Bonobo IIRC is a Chimp variant, but not especially well studied, so I
> have my doubts if it would behave much differently from very well studied
> Chimp behavior.

IIRC, from what I've read the bonobo's are rather different in their
behavior from the better-known chimps. You are correct that chimpanzees
have quite complex and sometimes violently aggressive behavior.


--
David Kerber
An optimist says "Good morning, Lord." While a pessimist says "Good
Lord, it's morning".

Remove the ns_ from the address before e-mailing.

[Keven Ruf]

Mark Hickey > wrote in message >...

> Fox is a lot more objective than all the other
> US news networks put together.

It's all clear to me now. The source of your opinion is not fact,
it's from talking heads shouting in your living room. It's funny, you
said you try not to look at the world through lenses the shape of TVs,
yet the news sources you cite are primarily TV sources. Except the
internet. And we all know you can find anything you want here.

Point by point:

> Was Saddam a destabilizing influence in the
> near/middle east? Yep.

But the question was: was he a threat to the United States? Nope.

> Was he a despotic tyrant who killed hundreds
> of thousands of his own people? Yep.

That was a secondary or terciary reason for going to war, given after
the other reasons (the threat to the US and the support for
terrorists) failed to hold up to scrutiny. And this is a failed
expanation for our need to go to war because there are other despots
in existence who get full US cooperation. Are we going to mop things
up in Iraq then move on through the rest of the world creating
democracy? While this administration actually curtails democratic
freedoms in our own country? This reasoning doesn't even pass the
straight face test.

> Did Iraq admit having many tons of chemical/biological weapons which the UN
> had issued resolution after resolution to get Iraq to turn over? Yep.

You are right, they admitted it and even CIA sources indicated the
weapons were destroyed. And that seems to have been confirmed by the
occupational forces. Even the Bushies have given up on looking for
actual weapons, now they say they are looking for "weapons programs."
Furthermore, since when did the US take it upon itself to unilaterally
to enforce UN resolutions? Oh, I forgot about the Coalition of the
Bribed.


> Did Saddam directly support terrorist organizations? Yep.

There has never been any proof of this and there have been statements
by CIA operatives that the Baathist regime did not support the
terrorists that attacked the US and in fact they have conflicting
interests. Yes, they supported the Palestinians, who are engaged in a
war with Isreal, but the Palestinians are not a threat to the US. Are
you suggesting we went to war with Iraq because they are a threat to
Isreali occupation of Palestinian territories?


> Uhhhh, you might want to check on how the Iraqi economy works. It's
> pretty obvious that without oil revenue, repairing the horrendously
> abused (pre-war) infrastructure would take many, many years. The key
> to Iraq's future IS oil - always has been. Does this surprise you?

Now the future of Iraq is about profit for US energy corporations.
Imperialism pure and simple. Lots of death, lots of money.

By the way, what does Fox have to say about Ossama Bin Forgotten?
How's the search for him going? Or the guy who sent the Anthrax
letters? How's life in liberated Afganistan?

--Keven.

>
> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $695 ti frame

[Mike Kruger]

"Eric S. Sande" > wrote in message
...

> I just
> thanked the leafletter, a presumably Chinese woman of earnest
> demeanor, for her gift.
>
> Which I promptly shoved into my pannier and thought no more about.
>
> Now here come Pete and Kevan arguing, and I suddenly remember that
> in my very pannier, in my direct possession, is important information
> that a REAL Falun Gong person pressed upon me!
>
> Imagine my surprise. Imagine my additional surprise to find that
> it is still there.

You are really trying hard to get bicycling content into this thread, aren't
you?

What ELSE is in those panniers?
Maybe you could save a couple of pounds if you really cleaned them out. ;)

[David Reuteler]

Kevan Smith /\/\> wrote:
: The bonobo, the closest genetic relative to man, is naturally peaceful and
: non-aggressive. Further, humans have to be convinced to fight wars -- it doesn't
: come naturally. There has to be a big propaganda effort beforehand demonizing
: and dehumanizing "the enemy." War is definitely NOT genetic.

a few years back the san diego zoo had a nice group of bonobos (maybe still).
it was quite fun to just pull up a chair and watch the, uhh, spectacle. the
other spectacle was the light of recognition on people's faces as they
realized what was happening.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0520216512/qid=1059767089/sr=8-4/ref=sr_8_4/103-9088506-4643820?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

this book is priceless. there's a great picture of a young bonobo male
strutting his ... stuff (he's on his way to visit the ladies), in one hand
is a large piece of sugarcane. he's also wearing a pretty big smile.

surprisingly we are the second sexiest ape (in terms of getting some).

sadly it's probably a pretty distant second.
--
david reuteler

[Rick Onanian]

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 19:11:00 GMT, Mark Hickey > wrote:
> I'll be he'd ride it with the drop bars flipped upside down and let
> the chain get all squeaky.

I rescued a bike with the drop bars flipped upside down
last night. It's got brand new, cheap 27 inch tires on
it too, and stem mounted shifters.

It's probably a la Huffy, but I haven't had a chance to
look at it yet. Looks like a few adjustments and then
sell it at a yard sale...even the foam on the bars is
in good shape.

> Mark Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $695 ti frame
--
Rick Onanian

[Mark Hickey]

Kevan Smith /\/\> wrote:

>On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 05:53:27 -0500, "Mark Jones" > from MindSpring
>Enterprises wrote:
>
>>Some people seem to think that it would be better to hire
>>a sub-standard company instead of one that really stands
>>the best chance of getting the job done.
>
>Most people think opening the process to competitive bids is a fairer way than
>just picking your buddies and campaign contributors then calling the ones you
>pick "the best ones for the job."

So we should have waited a year or so while all the RFQs, responses,
clarifications, negotiations, consortium-building and other nonsense
took place before STARTING the work of rebuilding Iraq???

Which is it, Kevan? Should we go faster or should we go slower. You
seem to say we're doing both simultaneously. Hmmmmm.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Chalo]

Mark Hickey > wrote:

> (Chalo) wrote:
>
> >"We"? No, not me; not you. Halliburton. Kellogg Brown & Root.
> >Bechtel. Shrubby's friends, IOW. For, ahem, "services rendered".
>
> And you think that any company with any (long since severed)
> relationships to anyone in high office should disqualify themselves
> from doing the kind of work they do (and do more of than anyone else)
> for the government? Hoo boy, that's a tough one.

"Long since severed"? Sorry, "Trickier Dick" Cheney still gets
$180,000/yr from Halliburton. I'd call that a relationship. The
contract, worth billions, to "manage" Iraqi oil was awarded without
competitive bidding to KB&R, which is wholly owned by Halliburton.

It _is_ what it smells like.

> I heard a lot of bitching about the contracts being let to KB&R, but
> haven't seen anything about any impropriety. Lots of inuendo, but no
> numbers. Doncha think if there were ANY irregularities they'd be
> paraded around on every left-leaning front page in the country?

Not if everything is kept secret. NGOs can't even get those *******s
to say how many Iraqis they are employing, how many subcontracts
they've awarded and to whom, or how much they're paying for them.
They're protected by the might of US aggression from having to reveal
anything they don't want revealed.

> >Under Saddam, an Iraqi could have a reasonable expectation of *driving
> >somewhere* without being machinegunned into chum because some heavily
> >armed 18-year-old mongoloid got flinchy.
>
> I'm glad you respect our fighting men and women who are putting their
> lives on the line, Chalo.

They are drawn from the lowest-performing of society; that's well
known. Even Shrubby's "No Child Left Behind" act requires that the
contact information for poor academic performers be furnished to
military recruiters so they can target their marketing.

I can't speak for generations outside my experience, but today's US
military selects for those with deficiencies of intellect, social
prospects, and moral conscience. The results are there for all to
see.

> Citizens in the US
> occasionally get killed when thugs shoot it out with police. Does
> that make cops "mongoloids" as well?

Maybe.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/toosmart000908.html

Innocent civilian motorists are not getting caught in the crossfire
over there nearly as often as they are being mistakenly perceived as
threats by some idiot bumpkin with an itchy trigger finger. Fox News
won't tell you, but the facts are public knowledge.

Good firsthand accounts here: http://tinyurl.com/is65

"'Oh yes,' she says, rather nervously, 'we have three children buried
here. Yes, I think I know who you're talking about.'

"An examination of Mr Kassim's car shows this to have been a clinical
and frontal piece of musketry. A fusillade of heavy-calibre chain-gun
tank fire attacked the vehicle, with some rounds twisting into the
metalwork, but most fired straight through the windows at its
occupants."

Gotta neutralize the security threat imposed on the US by Iraqi
children, I guess.

> >mountain of "collateral damage" inflicted
> >so that the US govt can control the petroleum economy.
>
> Any indication that they're trying to do that? No? Hmmmm.

In their own words, from
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf:

"In the Persian Gulf region, the presence of American forces, along
with British and French units, has become a semi-permanent fact of
life... Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a
more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved
conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for
a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue
of the regime of Saddam Hussein" (p. 14).

"The Air Force presence in the Gulf region is a vital one for U.S.
military strategy, and the United States should consider it a de facto
permanent presence, even as it seeks ways to lessen Saudi, Kuwaiti and
regional concerns about U.S. presence" (p. 35).

So what do you think they're trying to control by having a permanent
military presence in the Persian Gulf irrespective of what happens to
Saddam? It must be all those valuable date palms, yes?

> If you think the US military is as scary as Saddam, explain why there
> were NO protests in the decades under Saddam, but frequent ones under
> US military rule.

Protests, yes. Then our boys start shooting.

http://newsfromrussia.com/accidents/2003/04/29/46516.html
http://indymedia.org.nz/features.cgi?screen=edit&ID=168
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2988823.stm

If the US govt fancies itself to be the "good guys" in Iraq, well they
had better start acting less like the bad guys.

Chalo Colina

[Rick Onanian]

On 1 Aug 2003 15:08:59 -0700, Chalo > wrote:
> I can't speak for generations outside my experience, but today's US
> military selects for those with deficiencies of intellect, social
> prospects, and moral conscience. The results are there for all to
> see.

I beg to differ. That was the past in the military; but they can
no longer afford to do that. In fact, the technology and structure
of the modern US military is such that deficient people are useless,
and certainly not worth the large cost of having them.

> Chalo Colina
--
Rick Onanian

[Mark Jones]

"Kevan Smith" /\/\> wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 05:53:27 -0500, "Mark Jones" > from
MindSpring
> Enterprises wrote:
>
> >Some people seem to think that it would be better to hire
> >a sub-standard company instead of one that really stands
> >the best chance of getting the job done.
>
> Most people think opening the process to competitive bids is a fairer way
than
> just picking your buddies and campaign contributors then calling the ones
you
> pick "the best ones for the job."
Competitive bids are not always the best way to do things
when you need a rapid response from a company with a
proven track record of being able to carry out difficult jobs.

Just because "most" people think something does not
mean that you should listen to them. They could be totally
wrong and not deserving of any say in a situation. In this
situation, the correct course of action was taken.

[Mark Jones]

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
> You also want to get results fast, and opening bids up to the typical
bidding
> process means you don't get going on the job for perhaps a year! Time is
> crucial. You're describing a "normal" good process for getting jobs done,
> but rebuilding Iraq isn't a normal type of job.
Exactly. Opening it up to bids will be the right thing to do
as soon as things stabilize a little and the time frame for
releasing a job is long enough for bidding to occur.

The jobs should mainly go to Iraqis or we will be there
for a very long time. We need to help them take care of
themselves so we can leave.

[Mark Jones]

"Kevan Smith" /\/\> wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 16:35:05 -0400, Stephen Harding >
from
> Computer Science Dept UMass Amherst wrote:
>
> >The rebuilding of Iraq isn't a "Joes Home Improvement" sort of job. You
need
> >high power players with proven records of accomplishment on *large* jobs.
>
> The problem is "high power players" means "big camapign contributors" and
> political patronage.
There is nothing at all wrong with that. Only the really
big companies have the manpower and equipment to
take on a job of this size.

[Mark Jones]

"Mark Hickey" > wrote in message
...
> So we should have waited a year or so while all the RFQs, responses,
> clarifications, negotiations, consortium-building and other nonsense
> took place before STARTING the work of rebuilding Iraq???
I do not think that Kevan has even a slight idea of
what is involved with a bidding process or the scale
of work required on a large civil engineering project.

The number of companies that could take on something
this large is fairly small. The number of companies with
a proven track record at taking on something like this
on very short notice is even smaller.

This was handled the only way that had a high percentage
chance of being done properly. The bidding process can
begin to happen as soon as the situation gets to the
point where the companies won't be working in the middle
of active combat.

[Mark Jones]

"Kevan Smith" /\/\> wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 21:00:58 GMT, Mark Hickey > from
Habanero
> Cycles wrote:
> >So we should have waited a year or so while all the RFQs, responses,
> >clarifications, negotiations, consortium-building and other nonsense
> >took place before STARTING the work of rebuilding Iraq???
>
> You sure like building up strawmen.
If you think this is a strawman, it clearly indicates that you
are operating without a single clue. Mark Hickey's comments
show a clear understanding of a problem that you can't seem
to grasp.

[Hunrobe]

wrote in part:

>Mark Hickey > wrote:

> I'm glad you respect our fighting men and women who are putting their
>> lives on the line, Chalo.
>
>They are drawn from the lowest-performing of society; that's well
>known. Even Shrubby's "No Child Left Behind" act requires that the
>contact information for poor academic performers be furnished to
>military recruiters so they can target their marketing.
>
>I can't speak for generations outside my experience, but today's US
>military selects for those with deficiencies of intellect, social
>prospects, and moral conscience. The results are there for all to
>see.
>
>> Citizens in the US
>> occasionally get killed when thugs shoot it out with police. Does
>> that make cops "mongoloids" as well?
>
>Maybe.

If you ever are the victim of a violent crime or find yourself in a war zone,
call Kevan. The two of you can surely sort the problem out.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[David Kerber]

In article >,
says...

....

> They are drawn from the lowest-performing of society; that's well
> known. Even Shrubby's "No Child Left Behind" act requires that the
> contact information for poor academic performers be furnished to
> military recruiters so they can target their marketing.
>
> I can't speak for generations outside my experience, but today's US
> military selects for those with deficiencies of intellect, social
> prospects, and moral conscience. The results are there for all to
> see.

Sorry, you are *seriously* out of touch with the modern military's
requirements. Even in the least-demanding segments of the military, it
is extremely difficult to withhout a high school diploma; there are
strict limits on the numbers of GED's allowed. With no HS equivalency,
forget it.

When I was in the Navy, many of the enlisted people had at least some
college, and there were a few with 4-year degrees, mainly in the more
technically-demanding ratings.

.....

--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

[Mark Hickey]

(Chalo) wrote:

>Mark Hickey > wrote:
>> (Chalo) wrote:
>>
>> >"We"? No, not me; not you. Halliburton. Kellogg Brown & Root.
>> >Bechtel. Shrubby's friends, IOW. For, ahem, "services rendered".
>>
>> And you think that any company with any (long since severed)
>> relationships to anyone in high office should disqualify themselves
>> from doing the kind of work they do (and do more of than anyone else)
>> for the government? Hoo boy, that's a tough one.
>
>"Long since severed"? Sorry, "Trickier Dick" Cheney still gets
>$180,000/yr from Halliburton. I'd call that a relationship. The
>contract, worth billions, to "manage" Iraqi oil was awarded without
>competitive bidding to KB&R, which is wholly owned by Halliburton.

If he gets any money, it's in the form of a pension. How much will he
get if KB&R gets the contract? $180K. How much will he get if they
don't? $180K. He holds no stock - in fact he gave all his remaining
options to charity. He has NO STAKE in Halliburton, period.

>It _is_ what it smells like.

It smells like a no-bid award to the largest and most capable
contractor who has the qualifications to do the job. Would you prefer
we hadn't started ANY work in Iraq yet to go through a lengthy bidding
process (one that would likely give the job to KB&R anyway)? You and
Kevan want it all to happen instantly, but then come out saying that
we should have employed a process that would have delayed any progress
for a year. Talk about "wanting it both ways"...

>> I heard a lot of bitching about the contracts being let to KB&R, but
>> haven't seen anything about any impropriety. Lots of inuendo, but no
>> numbers. Doncha think if there were ANY irregularities they'd be
>> paraded around on every left-leaning front page in the country?
>
>Not if everything is kept secret. NGOs can't even get those *******s
>to say how many Iraqis they are employing, how many subcontracts
>they've awarded and to whom, or how much they're paying for them.
>They're protected by the might of US aggression from having to reveal
>anything they don't want revealed.

Again, if there are ANY improprieties, why aren't they splashed across
the front page of the NY Times or put on endless loop on CNN?
Obviously the process is squeaky clean. KB&R must be complying with
all the terms of the agreement or we'd ALL hear about it
(incessantly).

>> >Under Saddam, an Iraqi could have a reasonable expectation of *driving
>> >somewhere* without being machinegunned into chum because some heavily
>> >armed 18-year-old mongoloid got flinchy.
>>
>> I'm glad you respect our fighting men and women who are putting their
>> lives on the line, Chalo.
>
>They are drawn from the lowest-performing of society; that's well
>known. Even Shrubby's "No Child Left Behind" act requires that the
>contact information for poor academic performers be furnished to
>military recruiters so they can target their marketing.
>
>I can't speak for generations outside my experience, but today's US
>military selects for those with deficiencies of intellect, social
>prospects, and moral conscience. The results are there for all to
>see.

You are SO wrong. I'm kind of ashamed for you. It's too bad you
don't feel the same shame denigrating the people who are risking their
lives (and/or dying) to protect the interests of the US. I hope you
can walk into a bar full of Marines some day and explain to them all
how morally and intellectually bankrupt they all are.

>> Citizens in the US
>> occasionally get killed when thugs shoot it out with police. Does
>> that make cops "mongoloids" as well?
>
>Maybe.
>http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/toosmart000908.html
>
>Innocent civilian motorists are not getting caught in the crossfire
>over there nearly as often as they are being mistakenly perceived as
>threats by some idiot bumpkin with an itchy trigger finger. Fox News
>won't tell you, but the facts are public knowledge.

So tell me, how many cars have been cut to pieces by the "idiot
bumpkins"? A thousand? A hundred? Oh, you found one.

>> >mountain of "collateral damage" inflicted
>> >so that the US govt can control the petroleum economy.
>>
>> Any indication that they're trying to do that? No? Hmmmm.
>
>In their own words, from
>http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf:
>
>"In the Persian Gulf region, the presence of American forces, along
>with British and French units, has become a semi-permanent fact of
>life... Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a
>more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved
>conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for
>a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue
>of the regime of Saddam Hussein" (p. 14).
>
>"The Air Force presence in the Gulf region is a vital one for U.S.
>military strategy, and the United States should consider it a de facto
>permanent presence, even as it seeks ways to lessen Saudi, Kuwaiti and
>regional concerns about U.S. presence" (p. 35).
>
>So what do you think they're trying to control by having a permanent
>military presence in the Persian Gulf irrespective of what happens to
>Saddam? It must be all those valuable date palms, yes?

You seem to have missed my point, Chalo. Show me anything that says
the US is "controlling the petroleum economy". I know that's not fair
- you should only have to repeat inuendo and baseless accusations if
you're attacking GWB, but I'm not gonna let you off the hook...
c'mon, show me the proof. By your logic, the Washington State Police
control the Microsoft economy, right?

>> If you think the US military is as scary as Saddam, explain why there
>> were NO protests in the decades under Saddam, but frequent ones under
>> US military rule.
>
>Protests, yes. Then our boys start shooting.
>
>http://newsfromrussia.com/accidents/2003/04/29/46516.html
>http://indymedia.org.nz/features.cgi?screen=edit&ID=168
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2988823.stm
>
>If the US govt fancies itself to be the "good guys" in Iraq, well they
>had better start acting less like the bad guys.

The instances where protesters have been fired on have been instances
where soldiers were put in danger (and usually that means by someone
with an AK-47). I'm sure you think Saddam's boys would have wrapped
them in a warm embrace and softly explained to them the errors of
their ways, right? Heh.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Eric S. Sande]

>You are really trying hard to get bicycling content into this thread, aren't
>you?

Yep.

>What ELSE is in those panniers?

Exact inventory follows:

One Kyrptonite Evo 2000 lock in an outside left pocket.

One Kryptonite frame holder engaging sleeve that fell off said lock.

One Hefty Zip-Lock freezer bag, empty, in left main compartment.

One rack bail, front, in left main compartment.

Thirty-eight cents American in the form of:

One Quarter
One dime
Three pennies

In the lefthand top pocket.

One CVS plastic bag, empty, in the righthand main compartment.

I discovered no other items.

>Maybe you could save a couple of pounds if you really cleaned them out. ;)

I think that was pretty clean for a snap inspection, Mike :-).

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------

[Eric S. Sande]

>Would never happen to me. First, I'd just take the whole bike;
>there's always a spot in my pickup truck, or if the bed is full,
>I've got very versatile racks I can strap it to.

You misunderstand. I had to walk back to get it. It wasn't far,
I spotted it on the ride home and said to myself, that looks good.

>Second, I've always got tools enough to strip anything off a bike
>except the headset and BB (though I could prolly hammer the BB out,
>that may destroy it).

I had it completeley disassembled including BB and headset a half
hour after I got it home. Zip, zip on the rusted cables with a
side cutter, most everything else including the chain was within the
capabilities of my Alien.

The headset and BB were off in a trice with no tool marks thanks
to my $8.95 mini pipe wrench and a wash cloth.

I have no idea what parts were on it before I rescued it, it looked
as though someone were working on it.

Anyway, I got a frame that's too big for me ar anybody I know, but
it was too nice to allow it to go to landfill.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------

[Mike Latondresse]

Kevan Smith /\/\> wrote in
:

>
>
> You sure like building up strawmen.
>
You sure like being contradictory.

[Hunrobe]

>Mike Latondresse

wrote:
>Kevan Smith /\/\> wrote in
:
>
>>
>>
>> You sure like building up strawmen.


>You sure like being contradictory.

We may now expect a reply from Kevan saying, "No I don't."

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Stephen Harding]

Kevan Smith wrote:
>
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 10:22:23 -0400, Stephen Harding > from
> Computer Science Dept UMass Amherst wrote:
>
> >Why spend all that money in "taking over" Iraqi oil when all we have to do to
> >get it is...BUY IT! Like we do with all other sources of foreign oil.
> >
> >You "oil for blood" types are stuck in an intellectual rut. The complexities
> >of international interaction are way too complex, so you grab at these little
> >"one liner" explanations for things.
>
> Saudi Arabia -- dependent on U.S. arms and aid to maintain an oppressive regime.
>
> Venezuala -- recent CIA-led coup attempt after democratically-elected President
> took anti-U.S. positions.
>
> UK -- long term ally, inferior oil in small amounts
>
> Nigeria -- heavy U.S. involvement
>
> Mexico -- wholly dependent on U.S. goodwill, dominated by corporations
>
> Indonesia -- Long history of U.S. military involvement and support of brutal
> dictators open to American corporate exploitation.

So we "own" the oil from all these countries, yet still have to pay for it??!!!
Your concept of "ownership" seems different from mine.

Don't forget our "ownership" of China since we have generally good relationships
with that country despite rather brutal non-tolerance of anything the Party
regards as a threat, which must make us pro-Communist and controller of China in
your view.

And then of course we must own Russia and Russia's resources, since we supported
the anti-communist elements, so of which turned out to be horrendously corrupt
under the control of Yeltsin. We continue to give Russia tons of money to aid
in their conversion to democracy and a market based economy.

I think the US probably "owns" all the resources of the world based on your criteria.


SMH

[Stephen Harding]

Kevan Smith wrote:
>
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 16:35:05 -0400, Stephen Harding > from
> Computer Science Dept UMass Amherst wrote:
>
> >The rebuilding of Iraq isn't a "Joes Home Improvement" sort of job. You need
> >high power players with proven records of accomplishment on *large* jobs.
>
> The problem is "high power players" means "big camapign contributors" and
> political patronage.

Your cynicism and political/economic dogma robs you of the ability to make cogent
analysis of anything the US does and deeply biases your view of world events.


SMH

[Mark Jones]

"Kevan Smith" /\/\> wrote in message
...
> There's nothing wrong with bribery and political patronage? OK. Whatever.

The really big companies are all going to be politically
well connected. It is one of the ways that they get the
early information about new projects and what the
job requirements are. If you deny access to the large,
well connected companies, then you have just made
certain that the job can't be done properly.

[Mark Jones]

"Kevan Smith" /\/\> wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 18:07:25 -0500, "Mark Jones" > from
MindSpring
> Enterprises wrote:
>
> >Competitive bids are not always the best way to do things
> >when you need a rapid response from a company with a
> >proven track record of being able to carry out difficult jobs.
>
> But, you know, competetive bids just happens to be the LEGAL way
government
> contractors are chosen. Who gave the EB carte blanche to hire whomever it
liked?
> I don't recall Congress waiving anything for Bush's campaign contributors
and
> oil buddies to loot Iraq.
>
> >Just because "most" people think something does not
> >mean that you should listen to them. They could be totally
> >wrong and not deserving of any say in a situation. In this
> >situation, the correct course of action was taken.
>
> So much for your democratic (small d) tendencies.
Just so you will know, I am a Democrat. I also happen to
be familiar with large government civil engineering projects
and recognize that this was different because it was not
a standard situation.

This is a military rebuilding program and not a standard
civilian project that can wait through a lengthy bidding
process. They needed to have rapid deployment of the
people and equipment so the rebuilding could start to
happen as soon as possible to prevent political instability
from lasting any longer than it has to.

Your exaggerations serves no other purpose than to demonstrate
your lack of understanding of what is going on. Bush's campaign
contributors are not looting Iraq.

[Mark Jones]

"Kevan Smith" /\/\> wrote in message
...
> You keep saying that. Doesn't make it true. Sure, economy of scale can be
good,
> but should fairness be sacrificed to it? There would be nothing wrong with
lots
> of different companies from around the world pitching in to do a multitude
of
> small projects around Iraq. Yoo don't need some monolithic American
corporation
> in there controlling everything so that it loots the maximum amount it can
from
> both the U.S. Treasury and the Iraqi people.
There you go again with a comment about looting.
That is not what is happening and you should know that
it isn't.

Small companies just do not have the resources to deploy
large numbers of employees and the heavy equipment
needed. The large companies do business all over the
world and have the means to go wherever the work is.

There is also the matter of it being easier for the military
to deal with a very small number of large companies
instead of having to deal with a large number of small
companies.

There is also the matter of the rest of the world not wanting
to be involved in the first place. If you don't want to join
the military operation, don't expect to be allowed to come
in afterwards.

[Rick Onanian]

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 16:58:18 -0500, wrote:
>> So we should have waited a year or so while all the RFQs, responses,
>> clarifications, negotiations, consortium-building and other nonsense
>> took place before STARTING the work of rebuilding Iraq???
>
> You sure like building up strawmen.

It's obvious that you've never been involved in a government
bid.

> --
> http://home.sport.rr.com/cuthulu/ human rights = peace
> If I am elected, the concrete barriers around the WHITE HOUSE will be
> replaced by tasteful foam replicas of ANN MARGARET!
> 4:57:53 PM 1 August 2003
--
Rick Onanian

[Rick Onanian]

On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 22:24:45 -0400, Eric S. Sande > wrote:
>> Would never happen to me. First, I'd just take the whole bike;
>> there's always a spot in my pickup truck, or if the bed is full,
>> I've got very versatile racks I can strap it to.
>
> You misunderstand. I had to walk back to get it. It wasn't far,
> I spotted it on the ride home and said to myself, that looks good.

Heheh..no, you misunderstand. I was talking about the person
who got to it before you, who stripped what he could and then
presumably went off to get more tools or just gave up.

> The headset and BB were off in a trice with no tool marks thanks
> to my $8.95 mini pipe wrench and a wash cloth.

Come again? Talk to me...how is it done? I thought headset
and BB are press-fit. Am I wrong? Maybe I _can_ service these
myself, then...

--
Rick Onanian

[Stephen Harding]

Kevan Smith wrote:
>
> On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 06:47:56 -0400, Stephen Harding > from
> Computer Science Dept UMass Amherst wrote:
>
> >So we "own" the oil from all these countries, yet still have to pay for it??!!!
> >Your concept of "ownership" seems different from mine.
>
> Oil is an exlpicitly stated national interest. Our military and political
> interventions keep us with cheap, relatively unfettered access to it. If oil
> were traded in a market without U.S. military and political influence yet with
> the same demand as today, the price would be incredibly higher than it is now.

Not necessarily.

OPEC learned in the early 70's that they could charge too high a price for oil.
They raised the price (reduced production) causing recession in much of the
western world and industrialized Asia. Suddenly, no one was buying as much of
their pricier oil, and OPEC countries suddenly found themselves without the
cash flow their economies had come to take for granted.

US policy is for "cheap" oil. This isn't just a good thing for the US as Europe
and industrialized Asia benefit too. You seem to think that only in the US is
cheap oil considered a good thing.

It is our domestic policy in not taxing it the way Europe does because of our
car-centric society that differentiates us from say Europe. Europe doesn't get
oil at a higher price than we do; they simply tax it more, or limit the types
of oil production/consumption they indulge in.


SMH

[Rick Onanian]

On Sat, 02 Aug 2003 14:45:55 -0400, Eric S. Sande > wrote:
> You can go to http://www.sheldonbrown.com and learn everything you need
> to know about repair and maintenance.

I was too lazy to do that at the time.. ;)

> As you do more of this you will find that you need more specialized
> tools for certain evolutions. As you do more of this you will find
> that you can hack more common tools to do the same job.

Almost bought some tools today, but decided that with no
immediate need for them, I'd wait.

> All part of the joy of cycling,

Yes indeed.
--
Rick Onanian

[Pete]

"Chalo" > wrote
>
> > >Under Saddam, an Iraqi could have a reasonable expectation of *driving
> > >somewhere* without being machinegunned into chum because some heavily
> > >armed 18-year-old mongoloid got flinchy.
> >
> > I'm glad you respect our fighting men and women who are putting their
> > lives on the line, Chalo.
>
> They are drawn from the lowest-performing of society; that's well
> known. Even Shrubby's "No Child Left Behind" act requires that the
> contact information for poor academic performers be furnished to
> military recruiters so they can target their marketing.

Well known? Really.

Would you consider a high school teacher a mongoloid, low performer?
Or a TV weatheman?
Or a Linux developer?
Or the senior s/w developer for a medium size multinational corporation?

This is from a sample size of 4. Myself, and 3 former military people I know
and work with. People who have all left the military within the last few
years.

Would you consider the Secretary of State a low performer? Or Tome Daschle?
Or John Kerry? Or a whole bunch of other congresspersons, both Dem and Rep?

Entrance to the USAF and USN requires entrance exams, which a large
percentage of current high school seniors wuld not pass.
The Army requirements are somewhat lower, but deifnately not the lowest
performers. Have I known HS kids denied entrance because of poor performance
on those tests? Yep.

If what you say is true, then any fool who happens to walk in the door would
be accepted. And that is certainly not the case. I know this from direct
experience, whereas you are merely talking out your ass.

>
> I can't speak for generations outside my experience, but today's US
> military selects for those with deficiencies of intellect, social
> prospects, and moral conscience. The results are there for all to
> see.

Please show these selection criteria. I'm sure we'll be fascinated.

Pete

[Pete]

"Kevan Smith" /\/\> wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 18:33:38 -0400, Rick Onanian > from
The
> Esoteric c0wz' Society wrote:
>
> >In fact, the technology and structure
> >of the modern US military is such that deficient people are useless,
> >and certainly not worth the large cost of having them.
>
> The "modern military" for the most part is about 10 to 30 years behind the
> civilian world in terms of high tech. There are a few high-profile
exceptions,
> but the vast majority of military personnel work on equipment that is
obsolete.
> They call it job training, but the jobs they are trained to do simply
don't
> exist anymore in the civilian economy.

How do you figure?

Aircraft mechanics? KC-10 and C-17 are the equal to just about any recent
civilian aircraft
Plumbers? New buildings go up every day. Same construction techniques as
eveywhere else.
Satellite comms? Not far, if at all, behind.
Base photographer? Using a new combo 35mm/digital Nikon.
Pass & ID office? Using standard, new PC's, with digital imaging, just like
the DMV.
Hospital equipment? In many areas, military hospitals *are* the cutting
edge.
Tanks? Sure they're old. And still the best.
Aircraft? F-15/16/18 being upgraded all the time. And the new F-22 coming
online now.
Aircraft carriers? Of course they're old. They're built to last decades.

Does the military use old equipment? Sure. But for the most part, well
maintained. But then...you'd bitch if they bought new stuff every year.
Older equipment is proven to work. I'd rather have an old whatever, that i
*know* works, than a new something or other which may crack at a crucial
moment. And the procurement cycle is a long one.

Which jobs do you speak of?
Infantry? well no.....there isn't much call for that.
Aircraft armament? Boeing and United doesn't fly a whole lot of bombs
around. At least I hope they don't.

Specifically, what old equipment do you refer to?

Pete

[Pete]

"Kevan Smith" /\/\> wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 02:39:01 GMT, "Pete" > from Road Runner
High
> Speed Online http://www.rr.com wrote:
>
> >Specifically, what old equipment do you refer to?
>
> Well, the B-52 comes to mind, but that has also given more service than
ever
> planned for and looks to do so for the next 47 years, too.

Yes, the BUFF is old, but pretty much the only *old* part is the airframe.
The avionics have been vastly and routinely upgraded, and there is a
perennial proposal to swap the 8 engines for 4 new ones.

The aircraft may be old, but tactics and maintenance techniques are very up
to date, and tools for the BUFF are continuously being upgraded.

Still, 80 productive years is damn impressive. And damn

>
> Anyway, there's this:
>
> JOB SKILLS TRAINING
>
> Veterans Earn Less than Non-Veterans
>
> Perhaps one of the best measures of the economic impact of joining the
military
> is the analysis of whether a person who enters the military, on average,
earns
> more or less than a comparable non-veteran. In a comprehensive overview of
14
> studies which analyzed this question, Stephen R. Barley of the School of
> Industrial and Labor Relations at Cornell U. found that the average
post-Vietnam
> War-era veteran will earn between 11% (Crane and Wise 1987) and 19% (Rosen
and
> Taubman, 1982) less than non-veterans from comparable socioeconomic
backgrounds.
> According to a 1990 study by Bryant and Wilhite, the average veteran will
earn
> 85 cents less per hour (about $1700 less per year) than non-veteran peers.

Well...All I can say is..I'm glad I'm on the other side of that scale....;)

>
> Military Training is Primarily for Military Jobs

I can think of a whole lot that are pretty generic. My NCO Academy class. 20
people. Only 2 in really military specific jobs. Me, and another guy.
Others? Procurement, civil engineering, general office work, med tech, etc,
etc. The first day, we actually commented on the fact that so few were
actually in some sort of direct USAF combat stuff.


> Bryant and Wilhite found that veterans averaged only 1.78 months of
training in
> 31 months of active duty.

I find that *very* hard to believe.
Formal training in my first 4 years: (aircraft armament specialist)
Tech school - 80 days
OJT - 3 hours/day for ~100 days, but really was all day/ every day
Recurring training - 2 days a month for 3.5 years
Training outside my speciality - maybe 20 days total

Total....9.5 months in 48 months.
And I know I'm forgetting some stuff.

> Mangum and Ball, Ohio State researchers who received
> funding from the military, found that only 12% of male veterans and 6% of
female
> veterans surveyed made any use of skills learned in the military in their
> civilian jobs.

And that goes back to...what jobs do they look for when they get out? Would
a motor pool guy necessarily go to a dealer body shop for a job? Maybe not.
But he *has* learned valuable people skills. Stuff he did not know when the
principal handed him that diploma.

I've been there. Raw recruit....and up to training/teaching other raw
recruits. I've seen the transition from scared teenager to competent adult.

Aircraft Armament Specialist. I did that for 16 years. Seemingly useless out
in the real world. But the basic mechanics are invaluable. How to turn a
wrench. How to troubleshoot a problem. How to interact with the boss.

> Barley concludes, "The evidence on rates of return to training
> and the probability of finding a job in one's chosen occupation, strongly
> suggests that, all else being equal, young people should look to sources
of
> training other than the military if they wish to optimize their careers."

One of the things they seemingly ignore is paid experience.
A HS grad, fresh out of school, is prepared for what? Very few jobs.
Med tech? Aircraft maintenance? Plumbing? Paralegal? Not a chance.

All of those start at $2000 minimum for a basic course. At the end, you have
a certificate stating you have passed course X.
No job, no nothing. You are cast out among all the other "no experience"
dudes.

For a kid who, for whatever reason, decides to go to the military....s/he
can come out after a few years with training and solid experience.

What law firm would take a brand new HS grad, and provide paralegal training
and give them a job? Or a dentist office for a dental tech?

>
> Economic Opportunity?
>
> Army Times reports that over 50,000 unemployed veterans are on the waiting
list
> for the military's "retraining" program. The VA estimates that 1/3 of
homeless
> people are vets.

50,000. A huge number. Currently, how many people are out looking for jobs?
The economy sucks. Unemployment is near a high. Even experienced, high tech
people are scrambling. College tech grads are flipping burgers.

1/3 of homeless are vets. Possibly. From what era? Vietnam? The draft, and
subsequent enforced combat, brought severe problems. Along with all the
other problems of the 60's generation.

How many Desert Sstorm vets are among the homeless? Sure, there might be a
few....but I'll bet the ratio is tiny. Even 10 years from now.

Draft vs volunteer is huge.

I'm not saying the military is, or should be, a jobs program. But it *can*
provide training, while the repient provides a vital fnction.

What was your military experience? IIRC, you were a med tech. How many
days/months of training did you receive?

Pete

[mccool]

Hey guys - I happened across this thread while not being able to sleep
tonight so I figure I will lend my opinion on this all as well. Right
now i'm in the Navy working as a electrician in the nuclear field -
meaning I am trained in all the theory of Reactor plants ( heat
exchangers / pumps / etc etc ) and work on the various electrical
machines that work to make a reactor powered propulsion system work.

> Military Training is Primarily for Military Jobs
While that can be true for some Military jobs.. ( just like you can find
specifics in all job markets ) my training is widely sought after in
nuclear power plants and even general coal burning plants. i'm also a
certified electrician by trade now as well due to my experience in the
Navy and can therefore easily join a union out in the civilian world and
work as a electrical contractor of some sort. Also - Navy nukes are
sought after b/c of the training we go through.. if a someone can go
through the nuke pipeline ( the training in all it's rigors ) they can
be trained to do most anything in the real world and are looked upon as
a solid investment - even if they have to teach that person a new job.


> 12% of male veterans and 6% of female veterans surveyed made any use
> of skills learned in the military > in their civilian jobs.
i find that # very hard to believe and can also agree w/ what Pete said
about the things a person learns while working in the military. There is
so much more learned that just a technical skill of somesort.


> Barley concludes, "The evidence on rates of return to training and
> the probability of finding a job in one's chosen occupation,
> strongly suggests that, all else being equal, young people should
> look to sources
of
> training other than the military if they wish to optimize their
> careers."

Before i joined the military i lived and worked in Denver, CO. I was
working for a new and exciting company that dealt w/ fiber optics - at
the time i was your typical kid that was the best in computers - but
also w/ what Pete stated - the economy as of lately has been horrible
and to credit that statement further, i was laid off from my company and
w/ the 1000's of others in the greater Denver area, I could find no
work. This and other reasons drove me to the nuclear field in the Navy.
A steady job which has allowed me to learn a great deal of information
and yet still have time to ride my bike!! :) a plus


As for furthering my career - i will hopefully soon be a comissioned
officer and will be able to climb the pay scale a bit. And after that
happens, the opportunities for me to use my Navy learned skills will
increase greatly out in the civilian world.

sorry the bad sentences - i'm sleepy and a math major :)



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Steve McDonald]

McCool wrote:

As for furthering my career - i will hopefully soon be a
comissioned officer and will be able to climb the pay scale a bit. And
after that happens, the opportunities for me to use my Navy learned
skills will increase greatly out in the civilian world.
sorry the bad sentences - i'm sleepy and a math major :)
---------------------------------------------------------------

That's good-----bad writing and communication skills are required
to become an officer. If the orders you give are perfectly clear,
where's the deniability element when things go south? Like in the
direction of China.

Steve McDonald

[David Kerber]

In article >,
says...
>
> "Kevan Smith" /\/\> wrote in message
> ...
> > On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 18:33:38 -0400, Rick Onanian > from
> The
> > Esoteric c0wz' Society wrote:
> >
> > >In fact, the technology and structure
> > >of the modern US military is such that deficient people are useless,
> > >and certainly not worth the large cost of having them.
> >
> > The "modern military" for the most part is about 10 to 30 years behind the
> > civilian world in terms of high tech. There are a few high-profile
> exceptions,
> > but the vast majority of military personnel work on equipment that is
> obsolete.
> > They call it job training, but the jobs they are trained to do simply
> don't
> > exist anymore in the civilian economy.
>
> How do you figure?
>
> Aircraft mechanics? KC-10 and C-17 are the equal to just about any recent
> civilian aircraft
> Plumbers? New buildings go up every day. Same construction techniques as
> eveywhere else.
> Satellite comms? Not far, if at all, behind.
> Base photographer? Using a new combo 35mm/digital Nikon.
> Pass & ID office? Using standard, new PC's, with digital imaging, just like
> the DMV.
> Hospital equipment? In many areas, military hospitals *are* the cutting
> edge.
> Tanks? Sure they're old. And still the best.
> Aircraft? F-15/16/18 being upgraded all the time. And the new F-22 coming
> online now.
> Aircraft carriers? Of course they're old. They're built to last decades.

And constantly updated, especially in the communications and
electronics. The engineering plant is an older, well-proven and
understood deign because it's incredibly expensive to have to replace a
many-ton piece of equipment buried 100ft inside the ship.


.....


--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

[David Kerber]

In article >, usenet-
says...
> Hey guys - I happened across this thread while not being able to sleep
> tonight so I figure I will lend my opinion on this all as well. Right
> now i'm in the Navy working as a electrician in the nuclear field -
> meaning I am trained in all the theory of Reactor plants ( heat
> exchangers / pumps / etc etc ) and work on the various electrical
> machines that work to make a reactor powered propulsion system work.
>
> > Military Training is Primarily for Military Jobs
> While that can be true for some Military jobs.. ( just like you can find
> specifics in all job markets ) my training is widely sought after in
> nuclear power plants and even general coal burning plants. i'm also a
> certified electrician by trade now as well due to my experience in the
> Navy and can therefore easily join a union out in the civilian world and
> work as a electrical contractor of some sort. Also - Navy nukes are
> sought after b/c of the training we go through.. if a someone can go
> through the nuke pipeline ( the training in all it's rigors ) they can
> be trained to do most anything in the real world and are looked upon as
> a solid investment - even if they have to teach that person a new job.
>
>
> > 12% of male veterans and 6% of female veterans surveyed made any use
> > of skills learned in the military > in their civilian jobs.
> i find that # very hard to believe and can also agree w/ what Pete said
> about the things a person learns while working in the military. There is
> so much more learned that just a technical skill of somesort.
>
>
> > Barley concludes, "The evidence on rates of return to training and
> > the probability of finding a job in one's chosen occupation,
> > strongly suggests that, all else being equal, young people should
> > look to sources
> of
> > training other than the military if they wish to optimize their
> > careers."
>
> Before i joined the military i lived and worked in Denver, CO. I was
> working for a new and exciting company that dealt w/ fiber optics - at
> the time i was your typical kid that was the best in computers - but
> also w/ what Pete stated - the economy as of lately has been horrible
> and to credit that statement further, i was laid off from my company and
> w/ the 1000's of others in the greater Denver area, I could find no
> work. This and other reasons drove me to the nuclear field in the Navy.
> A steady job which has allowed me to learn a great deal of information
> and yet still have time to ride my bike!! :) a plus
>
>
> As for furthering my career - i will hopefully soon be a comissioned
> officer and will be able to climb the pay scale a bit. And after that
> happens, the opportunities for me to use my Navy learned skills will
> increase greatly out in the civilian world.
>
> sorry the bad sentences - i'm sleepy and a math major :)

Just wait 'til you're writing evals for your people, and see how quickly
your writing improves, to keep your dept head from chewing your ass for
writing bad ones (I know this one from first hand experience).

(Former Nuke Officer on CGN's).

--
Dave Kerber

Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

[Bernie]

"Eric S. Sande" wrote:

> >Is there no political newsgroup somewhere for this discourse? I starve
> >for bicycling content!
>
> Well, I picked a 1975 or so Raleigh Record Ace out of the trash on
> my way home from work, I'll get good use out of the parts, Weinmann
> centerpulls in perfect condition, Raleigh branded Sun Tour ders, a
> nice alloy stem and bars.
>
> No cranks, wheels or seatpost, I think someone was stripping it
> and went home for tools. Some important bolts were missing.
>
> But the real prize is the frame. A lugged 65 cm job in black with
> silver head tube and seat tube panel, really slick with the metal
> head badge and all, a little scratched but no rust.
>
> Lugwork pretty nice, paint ditto, not too heavy for a fixie or
> beater.
>
> Only problem is the size. 65 cm wasn't a typo, yes, its a 25 1/2
> inch frame. I won't be riding this bike soon, but it's just the
> right size for Osama bin Laden.
>
> And you thought this wasn't a political post.
>
> --

Haw! LOL!!
I'm looking for something similar myself all the time. Only in "real
world" size. Something that fits me and (likely) GWBush!
Bernie

[Bernie]

Kevan Smith wrote:

> On 01 Aug 2003 04:41:00 GMT, (R15757) from AOL http://www.aol.com
> wrote:
>
> ><< The bonobo, the closest genetic relative to man, is naturally peaceful and
> >non-aggressive. >>
> >
> >they are constantly f***ing. If Marx wrote about that maybe I woulda gone to
> >class once or twice.
>
> Yep. And if two males fight, they get all guilty and make up by masturbating
> each other.
>
> --
> http://home.sport.rr.com/cuthulu/ human rights = peace
> I hope something GOOD came in the mail today so I have a REASON to live!!
> 12:23:46 AM 1 August 2003

You dont mean humans do you? cuz that never happened when I was in high school!
Bernie

[Bernie]

Zoot Katz wrote:

> Fri, 01 Aug 2003 02:48:21 -0400, >, "Eric
> S. Sande" > wrote:
>
> >If the Falun Gong can hand me leaflets before I have my coffee,
> >my hat's off to them, I absolutely never got even a Christmas card
> >from Jiang Zemin.
>
> Move to Vancouver and you can get it in the ass from Li Ka Shing.
> --
> zk

Zoot
Is that enough incentive for most people to move to Vancouver?
Cuz it's not working for me.
Bernie

[Zippy the Pinhead]

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 20:17:32 -0700, Bernie > wrote:


>
>To ignore history is to ignore your own future.

Those who fail to learn from history are tenured to teach it.