Another reason economists are dorks!

"Mark Hickey" wrote in message
news
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.

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

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

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.

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

"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.

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...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

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

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

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/Da...art000908.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 he 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/Re...sDefenses.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/.../29/46516.html
http://indymedia.org.nz/features.cgi?screen=edit&ID=168
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/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