SFF Net Newsgroup Archive
sff.discuss.heinlein-forum 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 2003
http://www.sff.net/

Archive of:   sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Archive desc: The Internet home for the Heinlein Forum
Archived by:  webnews@sff.net
Archive date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 05:24:02
============================================================

Article 21785
From: Charles Graft 
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 07:39:17 -0500
Subject: Throw out another one.......
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

 In the panic after September 11, we have seen laws passed and policies
adopted that allow the government to hold suspects without warrants, try
them in secret military courts, spy on law-abiding groups and
individuals, and harass innocent "persons of interest" with no evidence
against them of any crime.  Most of the targets of these policies so far
have been Arabs or Muslims.  Now, with the help of people like Kristof,
the ground is being prepared for the same powers to be deployed against
Americans simply because of their opinions about politics, race and
religion.

Samuel Francis, copyright 2002, Creators Syndicate

Fair use doctrine is deemed to apply.

Comment.  Nicholas Kristof is a New York Times columnist who seems to
contend that there is little difference between Al Qaeda and an American
minister who preaches that interracial marriage is a sin.

--
<<Big Charlie>>

"Democracy is a form of worship.  It is the worship of jackals by
jackasses." --  H. L. Menken



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21786
From: Michael P. Calligaro" 
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 20:27:54 -0700
Subject: Re: Air Powered Car
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Wow, that really is radically cool.  A car that's less polluting that mine,
but can be filled up about as quickly.  The 3 minute charge is a killer
benefit over pure electric cars.  And there's something just hellaciously
neat about a car that actively cleans up the air as you drive it.  If
something like this were to take off, in 50 years we'd have people start
complaining that the air quality is too good...

Only thing I'm curious about (and I note that they didn't go into it) is the
amount of energy that goes into charging a tank, either by the compressed
air method or the "plug it into the wall at night" method.  They say that
it's extremely efficient, but don't give numbers for us to see HOW
efficient.  How many watt hours does it take to fill up?  What's that cost
at today's rates?  Is it less than 3 gallons of gas (which is what mine
would burn to go 120 miles)?

bytor

"Geo Rule" <georule@civilwarstlouis.com> wrote in message
news:g2lnouo8eq5475qcs2eevedjguncmvfl54@4ax.com...
> Now this is pretty kewl. . .
> http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/wo_harney091902.asp
> Geo Rule




------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21787
From: Michael P. Calligaro" 
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 19:39:13 -0700
Subject: Greece has backed down on the "no videogames" ban
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Apparently they DO have a constitution and a court system that protects it.
Two guys were arrested for helping some people play chess online, and they
took the case to court and got the law declared unconstitutional.

http://news.com.com/2100-1040-959365.html?tag=fd_top

bytor



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21788
From: Gordon G. Sollars 
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 23:39:30 -0400
Subject: Re: A Quote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <rnmvougrkvsicf75vpl166aagclsm1u0vj@4ax.com>, Geo Rule 
writes...
> On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 15:49:44 -0400, "Gordon Sollars" wrote:
> >
> >What I am curious about is why - if this matter goes back to the Gulf War
> >and before, it was not an issue in the last Presidential campaign.  And how
> >many speaches by members of Congress during the nineties calling for
> >Hussein's removal were there?
> 
> <From my Iraq Resolution post>
> Whereas Congress in 1998 concluded that Iraq was then in
....
> And there is more history thru the nineties included in that
> resolution.  So I don't agree that this hasn't been ongoing, and that
> there is anything "suddenly" about it.

Oh, the /government/ has been involved for some time. It is "sudden" in 
terms of public opinion - for better or worse, the ultimate arbiter in a 
democracy.  The public knows nothing of most Congressional resolutions - 
they were not what I was referring to by "speeches".  The only related 
issue that captured the public's attention during this period was 
Clinton's use of cruise missiles to blow up some tents in Afghanistan and 
a pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan - in order to take the public's 
attention from Monica Lewinsky.   

I have not had anything like the time yet for a careful study and point-
by-point response to the Resolution.  However, glancing at it, it seems 
to reference pre-existing Congressional resolutions that actually make it 
unnecessary.  Unnecessary, that is, unless public opinion is "suddenly" 
needed, and then sought by announcing /this/ resolution with great 
fanfare and rhetoric.   

....
> Now, having said all that  --I don't know what I don't know because
> they haven't told us.  I do know that the ex-head of the Iraqi nuclear
> effort recently said that he believed that Saddam could have a nuclear
> weapon in as little as three months.  But he defected in *1994*, so
> how plugged in can he be to what is happening right now?

I still haven't tracked down the quotes from the experts at Janes.  But 
many counties already have nuclear weapons.  It is much easier to detect 
their construction than to predict when a revolution might occur.  One, 
say, in Pakistan that could put nuclear weapons into the hands of a 
reconstituted Taliban.

I don't think that Hussein will use WMD against the U.S. for the same 
reason that the Soviet Union did not - we know where he lives.  The Cold 
War gives us evidence that MAD works.  Overturning a tradition against 
preemptive attacks to keep one more country from getting nuclear weapons 
is problematic.  All the more so if the attack is not supported by 
Europe, or even the non-Islamic parts of Asia.    

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21789
From: Ed Johnson 
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 22:31:02 -0400
Subject: Re: Greece has backed down on the "no videogames" ban
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

There is a lesson to be learned here.  Unchallenged; this oppressive
law was being enforced across the whole of Greece.  

Ed J       The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 19:39:13 -0700, "Michael P. Calligaro"
<bytor@mystikeep.com> wrote:

>Apparently they DO have a constitution and a court system that protects it.
>Two guys were arrested for helping some people play chess online, and they
>took the case to court and got the law declared unconstitutional.
>
>http://news.com.com/2100-1040-959365.html?tag=fd_top
>
>bytor
>


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21790
From: William J. Keaton" 
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 00:53:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Greece has backed down on the "no videogames" ban
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


"Ed Johnson" <eljohn2@comcast.spamthis.net > wrote in message
news:69pcpu0im5bpukujnv01bcghh5pf1bln5i@4ax.com...
> There is a lesson to be learned here.  Unchallenged; this oppressive
> law was being enforced across the whole of Greece.
>

Hmmm, I've been following this story through several tech news websites
(www.theregus.com is my favorite) and as far as I had heard, this law was
roundly and publically critized at the time of its passage. The case in
question was filed the very next day, and the result is now in. I hardly
think this law went unchallenged, nor did I hear of any widespread
enforcement. (I have only heard of the one case.)

Ooops, I stand corrected. There are other cases, but they involve machines
that pay cash. Which seemed to be the intent of the law, even though it got
twisted into its current grotesque form.

WJaKe

> Ed J       The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
>
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 19:39:13 -0700, "Michael P. Calligaro"
> <bytor@mystikeep.com> wrote:
>
> >Apparently they DO have a constitution and a court system that protects
it.
> >Two guys were arrested for helping some people play chess online, and
they
> >took the case to court and got the law declared unconstitutional.
> >
> >http://news.com.com/2100-1040-959365.html?tag=fd_top
> >
> >bytor
> >
>



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21791
From: Wayne Morgan 
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 16:24:51 -0500
Subject: Re: September Tornados
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

We were extremely lucky. Over 500 structures damaged in our county alone.
Estimated $38M in damages. 76 injuries reported - all slight.  I can't
remember a time when a tornado outbreak this extensive didn't leave at least
some dead behind, but no one was killed, including at least three persons who
were reportedly picked up in their vehicles by the tornadoes and dropped some
distance away essentially unharmed.

Wayne Morgan

SpaceCadet wrote:

> BC,
>
> I'm glad you're all ok.  Did you get to see any funnel
> clouds?
>
> Carol
>
> Charles Graft wrote:
> >
> > All--
> >      Yes, major tornadoes today on the south (and east) sides of
> > Indianapolis.  Greg, Teresa (Doc's sister in law) and I were out to
> > lunch about five miles away when they hit.  It took us 2 1/2 hours to
> > drive home -- power lines down, trees down, vehicles actually picked up
> > and thrown -- it was quite a mess.  Telephone service is slower than
> > molasses, but is still functional.
> >
> >      No damage to our new house, our old house, or to Greg and Beth's
> > home.
> >
> > --
> > <<Big Charlie>>
> >
> > "Democracy is a form of worship.  It is the worship of jackals by
> > jackasses." --  H. L. Menken


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21792
From: Wayne Morgan 
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 16:44:18 -0500
Subject: Re: A Quote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

We have published reports that Al Quaida members are working with the Iraqis and
have received bio-chem warfare training from them. Hype? Don't know, but it's not
beyond belief since AQ chem-bio attacks with Iraqi-made materials are "deniable".
the folks who will be increasing carrying the fight against AQ are Special
Operations (Delta, , SEAL Team 6, Special Forces) who are heavily into
intelligence gathering and covert operations.  Armored and Airmobile units will
take and hold the ground in an Iraq invasion; special ops types will be used as
well, but I don't think it will be "taking resources away" from going after AQ.

The probable linkup between AQ and Saddam is, IMO, the primary reason to take Iraq
out now.

Wayne Morgan

"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:

> In article <rnmvougrkvsicf75vpl166aagclsm1u0vj@4ax.com>, Geo Rule
> writes...
> > On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 15:49:44 -0400, "Gordon Sollars" wrote:
> > >
> > >What I am curious about is why - if this matter goes back to the Gulf War
> > >and before, it was not an issue in the last Presidential campaign.  And how
> > >many speaches by members of Congress during the nineties calling for
> > >Hussein's removal were there?
> >
> > <From my Iraq Resolution post>
> > Whereas Congress in 1998 concluded that Iraq was then in
> ...
> > And there is more history thru the nineties included in that
> > resolution.  So I don't agree that this hasn't been ongoing, and that
> > there is anything "suddenly" about it.
>
> Oh, the /government/ has been involved for some time. It is "sudden" in
> terms of public opinion - for better or worse, the ultimate arbiter in a
> democracy.  The public knows nothing of most Congressional resolutions -
> they were not what I was referring to by "speeches".  The only related
> issue that captured the public's attention during this period was
> Clinton's use of cruise missiles to blow up some tents in Afghanistan and
> a pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan - in order to take the public's
> attention from Monica Lewinsky.
>
> I have not had anything like the time yet for a careful study and point-
> by-point response to the Resolution.  However, glancing at it, it seems
> to reference pre-existing Congressional resolutions that actually make it
> unnecessary.  Unnecessary, that is, unless public opinion is "suddenly"
> needed, and then sought by announcing /this/ resolution with great
> fanfare and rhetoric.
>
> ...
> > Now, having said all that  --I don't know what I don't know because
> > they haven't told us.  I do know that the ex-head of the Iraqi nuclear
> > effort recently said that he believed that Saddam could have a nuclear
> > weapon in as little as three months.  But he defected in *1994*, so
> > how plugged in can he be to what is happening right now?
>
> I still haven't tracked down the quotes from the experts at Janes.  But
> many counties already have nuclear weapons.  It is much easier to detect
> their construction than to predict when a revolution might occur.  One,
> say, in Pakistan that could put nuclear weapons into the hands of a
> reconstituted Taliban.
>
> I don't think that Hussein will use WMD against the U.S. for the same
> reason that the Soviet Union did not - we know where he lives.  The Cold
> War gives us evidence that MAD works.  Overturning a tradition against
> preemptive attacks to keep one more country from getting nuclear weapons
> is problematic.  All the more so if the attack is not supported by
> Europe, or even the non-Islamic parts of Asia.
>
> --
> Gordon Sollars
> gsollars@pobox.com


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21793
From: Geo Rule 
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 15:22:25 -0700
Subject: Re: A Quote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 23:39:30 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:



>
>I don't think that Hussein will use WMD against the U.S. for the same 
>reason that the Soviet Union did not - we know where he lives.  The Cold 
>War gives us evidence that MAD works.  

    The biggest problem with MAD is that it presupposes rationality on
the part of your opponent. There is great doubt in many people's minds
(including my own), based on the last twenty years, that Saddam should
be considered rationale.  Further, generations of Soviet leadership
were trained on "correlation of forces", "historical inevitability"
and such.  I think that played a role in their unwillingess to role
the dice on one grand risk unless they were nearly certain of winning
--and they never got there, so it never happened.

    Was the Taliban leadership rational?

Geo Rule

www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21794
From: Wayne Morgan 
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 21:29:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Out of Control?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



"William J. Keaton" wrote:

> "Eli Hestermann" <ehestermann@tmlp.com> wrote
>
> > This is not necessarily intended as a criticism of the Clinton
> administration,
> > because the world has changed in other ways since then as well.  Following
> last
> > September's terrorist attacks, there's much more support, both
> domestically and
> > internationally, for dealing with "rogue" nations.
> >
> I'm not seeing that support! Sure, there was support for taking out the
> Taliban in Afghanistan, but that was a small, relatively unimportant
> country, with a unsophisticated opponent.
>
> If you are defining Iraq as a "rogue" nation, then were is your support?
> Especially internationally!
>
> WJaKe

Afghanistan doesn't have oil fields and hasn't bought billions of dollars worth
of equipment and weapons from say, France or Russia.  Could that, perhaps, be
the reason some European countries don't want to see a change of regime in Iraq?

Wayne Morgan


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21795
From: Gordon G. Sollars 
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 23:32:10 -0400
Subject: Re: A Quote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <eouepugvnkb5h6hblo7dhqvelk67invc81@4ax.com>, Geo Rule 
writes...

>     The biggest problem with MAD is that it presupposes rationality on
> the part of your opponent. There is great doubt in many people's minds
> (including my own), based on the last twenty years, that Saddam should
> be considered rationale.  Further, generations of Soviet leadership
> were trained on "correlation of forces", "historical inevitability"
> and such.  I think that played a role in their unwillingess to role
> the dice on one grand risk unless they were nearly certain of winning
> --and they never got there, so it never happened.
> 
>     Was the Taliban leadership rational?

At this point I always tell my story about "Vent Man", a man who lived in 
the underground ventilation system at the University of Pennsylvania 
while I was a graduate student there.  Vent Man could be seen at his 
favorite location in front of the law school on most sunny days.  Why the 
law school?  I conjecture that it was because the law students (or 
perhaps the professors) were willing to defend Vent Man's "right to 
assemble" against the University police - something students (and 
professors) at the business school would not have done.

Whatever the truth of that, Vent Man could often be seen talking to 
bushes and trees.  However, whenever he wanted a cup of coffee, Vent Man 
went, not to his friends the trees, but to the coffee shop across the 
street and asked in a clear voice for a cup of coffee.  Nor did he try to 
pay for it with, say, rocks, but rather with the small change he had 
panhandled.

In my view, Vent Man was rational - he picked the best way he knew to 
achieve his goals (don't get hassled by cops, get coffee), even though he 
was a crazy old coot.  The same is true, I think, for Hussein.  He does 
not want to go to Paradise any time soon.  But if we give him no choice, 
he will try to go to Paradise in the best way (for him) that he can.

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21796
From: Gordon G. Sollars 
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 23:57:23 -0400
Subject: Re: A Quote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3D977432.C3CE4CA2@indy.net>, Wayne Morgan writes...
> We have published reports that Al Quaida members are working with the Iraqis and
> have received bio-chem warfare training from them. Hype? Don't know, but it's not
> beyond belief since AQ chem-bio attacks with Iraqi-made materials are "deniable".

I am curious on one level what sort of chem-bio attacks against the U.S. 
do you have in mind.  But, look, everything is "deniable" - except 
anthrax that traces back to the U.S.'s own program.  Right now Hussein is 
denying he has any WMD, and we are talking war anyway.

> the folks who will be increasing carrying the fight against AQ are Special
> Operations (Delta, , SEAL Team 6, Special Forces) who are heavily into
> intelligence gathering and covert operations.  Armored and Airmobile units will
> take and hold the ground in an Iraq invasion; special ops types will be used as
> well, but I don't think it will be "taking resources away" from going after AQ.

You are quite right to point out that in the short-run the U.S. has 
"fixed" resources that are better deployed in one operation than another.  
But I was thinking of very high-level planning and decision making 
resources.  Perhaps even there the U.S. has considerable redundancy.  If 
we fight a war with Iraq and end it quickly, then perhaps my concern over 
misplaced resources is misplaced. 
 
> The probable linkup between AQ and Saddam is, IMO, the primary reason to take Iraq
> out now.

Given the differences in religious temperament, I find it hard to believe 
that there is much love to be lost between AQ and Hussein.  If they have 
an alliance it is for convenience against a common enemy.  But I'm not 
sure how much of an enemy Hussein would be if we simply let him sell all 
the oil he wants.

Of course, some people argue that the U.S. has "vital interests" to 
protect in the Middle East - but these are usually code words for 
defending Israel or the interests of U.S. oil companies.
 
-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21797
From: Gordon G. Sollars 
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 00:00:26 -0400
Subject: Re: Out of Control?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3D99089B.5EDD8010@indy.net>, Wayne Morgan writes...
>  
> "William J. Keaton" wrote:
....
> > If you are defining Iraq as a "rogue" nation, then were is your support?
> > Especially internationally!
>
> Afghanistan doesn't have oil fields and hasn't bought billions of dollars worth
> of equipment and weapons from say, France or Russia.  Could that, perhaps, be
> the reason some European countries don't want to see a change of regime in Iraq?

Yes, and perhaps the lack of that business going to the U.S. could be the 
reason Bush wants to see a regime change in Iraq.

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21798
From: Geo Rule 
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 21:25:56 -0700
Subject: Re: A Quote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 23:32:10 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:


>
>In my view, Vent Man was rational - he picked the best way he knew to 
>achieve his goals (don't get hassled by cops, get coffee), even though he 
>was a crazy old coot.  The same is true, I think, for Hussein.  He does 
>not want to go to Paradise any time soon.  But if we give him no choice, 
>he will try to go to Paradise in the best way (for him) that he can.

    Great story.  But Vent Man of Babylon seems less rationale by
comparison. If he only responds at the last second to overwhelming
threat, then the only way to get him to act rationale is to provide
that overwhelming threat.  We've seen at least a little of that
recently with his overtures to the UN.  Thing is, we can't make those
kinds of threats unless we are willing to back them up.

    Hell, he could have joined Idi Amin in some opulent corner of
Saudi Arabia at pretty much anytime he wanted over the last 12 years.
But he didn't.  So it is a willingness to use overwhelming force or
nothing.  A lousy pair of choices, but I'm not seeing a third one.



Geo Rule

www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21799
From: Geo Rule 
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 22:16:09 -0700
Subject: Re: A Quote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 23:32:10 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:


>
>In my view, Vent Man was rational - he picked the best way he knew to 
>achieve his goals (don't get hassled by cops, get coffee), even though he 
>was a crazy old coot.  The same is true, I think, for Hussein.  He does 
>not want to go to Paradise any time soon.  But if we give him no choice, 
>he will try to go to Paradise in the best way (for him) that he can.


Let's compare Vent Man West & Babylon a little more:

Vent Man PA correctly identified who would protect him, avoiding those
who would hassle him, and got his coffee in an effective hassle-free
manner.

Now let's look at Vent Man Babylon over the last twenty years:

1981:  Let's take on Iran; we'll kick their ass no problem.

1986: Sure, we're signatories to the anti-chemical weapon conventions,
but it turns out those damn Iranian "human waves" are a pain in the
butt after all, so let's use mustard gas anyway; no one will know.

1990: Damn oil-stealing Kuwaitis; let's take 'em down, all the way.
Then let's threaten Saudi Arabia. Maybe we'll get sanctions, but
nothing else. [Btw, compare this to the "rational" meglomaniac action
--rolling thirty miles into Kuwait, over most of the oil fields (but
few of the people), and *stopping*.]

1990:  Hmm.  Americans seemed pissed, and so does old Iron Balls
Thatcher.  I know, let's grab a bunch of visiting Americans and Euros
and hold them hostage at our high-value targets.  That'll calm things
down in a hurry!

1991: Damn, all that got us was Jesse Jackson!  Not to worry, however,
our Arab brothers will never turn on us, and our old buddy Russia will
*never* allow a vote approving force out of the Security Council.

1991:  Well, by golly, let's get some chem weapons out to the
battlefield just in case we want to use them. [He actually got away
with this one: It is unclear whether they were ever ordered used, but
last I heard there is general agreement that at least some were there
and some chemicals were released  --possibly by our own bombing of the
stores tho].

1991:  Well, crap!  Let's use missiles on Israel; that will unify our
Arab brethren in our defense! [Barely got away with this one; he's
damn lucky the Israelis waited long enuf to determine that they were
conventional warheads and not chem.  Short fuses those Israelis.]

1991:  Hmm.  Thoroughly ass-kicked, but the stupid Americans stopped
without taking me out!  Let's declare victory!!  Par-tay!  Business as
usual at the nuke and chem plants!  No one will know.

1991:  Heh-heh.  Never said anything about "helicopters". [Result,
Iraq effectively partioned into thirds with a no-fly zone in north and
south].

1993:  So Bush thinks he can take a victory tour, does he?  Well, he
ain't Prez anymore and no one will know it was me. 

1994-2002:  What UN Sec. Council resolutions?  What cease-fire
agreement conditions?


So I think I can more readily agree with you about U of PA Vent Man
than the Vent Man of Babylon. Particularly all those bad bets on "no
one will know". What rational decisions will he make in the future?

2003:  Heh.  If it is a "terrorist" who uses the Islamic Bomb, no one
will know it was me.  Those crazy f**ks will do anything; nice to have
around when you need one.

2003:  Hmm, if I threaten to nuke *Kuwait* or *Saudi Arabia*, then the
Americans MAD won't come into play. The Americans are a bunch of
wusses anyway.  Pop just one nuke and everyone will back down.  Worse
case I lose Baghdad, but so what  --my hole is deep enough.



Geo Rule

www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21800
From: Charles Graft 
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 01:50:53 -0500
Subject: Re: September Tornados
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

All--
     And Wayne should know.  I imagine he was professionally involved
for some days.

--
<<Big Charlie>>

"Democracy is a form of worship.  It is the worship of jackals by
jackasses." --  H. L. Menken



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21801
From: Gordon G. Sollars 
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 10:30:38 -0400
Subject: Re: A Quote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <nn9ipugkaou4k667r62oulkiln501d7lpa@4ax.com>, Geo Rule 
writes...

> Let's compare Vent Man West & Babylon a little more:
> 
> Vent Man PA correctly identified who would protect him, avoiding those
> who would hassle him, and got his coffee in an effective hassle-free
> manner.

Nice chronology, Geo.  I don't have time now, nor might I be able (I'm 
not claiming infallibility here), to counter each of your points.  
However, I think you need to consider that Vent Man had much simpler 
goals than Hussein.  Being the undisputed dictator of a medium-sized 
country with the second highest proved oil reserves is a lot more 
difficult and risky than dodging campus cops and getting coffee.  Some of 
the things that you try to do to stay on top are just not going to work 
out, but not trying those things might have been worse.

For example, no one in the Arab world thinks that Iraq can defeat the 
U.S., but just being willing to piss us off gets him respect in many 
quarters.  Now, the cost of getting that respect /might/ prove too high 
for him, but the cost of not having it is also very high.   

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21802
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 19:07:25 GMT
Subject: Re: Out of Control?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 13:50:03 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:

>My understanding is that the U.S. has tradition that does not support 
>preemptive attack.  Am I wrong, or is the tradition?   

You are wrong.  US military is well trained and always prepared for
preemptive strike orders.  And depending on how you define
"preemptive," there are a number of cases where preemptive military
intervention has been used.  Starting with, probably, the Philippines.

Perhaps the policy of preemption has never been articulated in the
top-level national security documents--I'm not sure.  But I do know
the US has always, formally and in writing, reserved the right to
first use of nuclear weapons.  That sounds pretty "preemptive" to me.
Of course, we haven't had to exercise that right in the last 50 years.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21803
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 19:54:01 GMT
Subject: Re: Out of Control?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 19:09:31 -0400, "Gordon Sollars"
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:

>"Jai Johnson-Pickett" <hf_jai@prodigy.net> wrote
>> Very clever to take each offense and ask, aren't there other nations
>> guilty of the same thing?  But can you think of ANY other nation
>> guilty of ALL of those?  And more besides?  It is a case where the
>> whole is more than the sum of the parts, not that the sum isn't bad
>> enough.  Or in other words, put them all together and they DO indeed
>> spell "mother," but not in the way one traditionally thinks.
>
>North Korea might qualify - I am not up to speed with U.N. resolutions
>regarding that country.

I don't believe there have been any UN resolutions against North Korea
since the 1950s.  I could be wrong.

It is also a fallacy that all UN resolutions are created equal.  As I
understand the system, only Security Council resolutions are binding
on the member nations, and only Chapter VII resolutions can be
enforced militarily, according to the UN Charter.  All the resolutions
against Iraq are Chapter VII resolutions (as opposed, for example, to
the two SC Resolutions against Israel, which are Chapter VI, and which
btw, require actions by Israel's neighbors which have never come to
pass).

>I take it your position is that any country that meets these three
>conditions should be preemptively attacked, if possible?  

No, I didn't say that.  And besides, you ignore my, "And more else
besides?"  Of the nations which have WMD, which to some extent is
almost all of them, only Iraq has actually used them, afaik, in the
recent past.  Only Iraq has invaded one neighbor and rained missiles
down on another with whom it was not formally at war, again in the
recent past,  Only Iraq, afaik, has attempted to assassinate a US
president, a clear act of war by international law, and fired upon US
military forces enforcing a settlement to which Iraq agreed.

My position is that, if we must indeed have a war against Iraq, and
I'm pretty sure we must, then it makes sense, to save lives on both
sides, but especially ours, to do it before he has nuclear weapsons
and better means of delivering any WMD.

>If so, why wasn't
>such an attack a major issue, say, two years ago?  Or five years ago?  I
>think the reasons have more to do with election politics and oil than any
>other factors.  And, I would like to be shown that I am wrong.

I don't doubt that oil and election politics are factors.  Perhaps the
main or even only ones to some people.  But IF (and I mean do mean IF)
the president and his men are only proposing this for all the wrong
reasons, does NOT mean there aren't very good reasons to do it anyway.

>> >What /are/ Bush's reasons?  He has not been able to link Iraq to 9/11.
>>
>> I don't know how you can be so sure of that.  But in any case the
>> issue is terrorism "of global reach", not just 9/11.
>
>"All I know is what I read in the papers."

There is much more to the world than what you read in the papers.

>If you have special sources of
>information, please share them.

I have no current access to "special" information, and if I did, I
couldn't share it.  But I can say that we know, for a fact, from the
papers, that Iraq supports Islamic terrorist groups.  We also know,
for a fact, from the papers (and books, etc) that ALL of the Islamic
terrorists are interconnected for funding, weapons, and logistical
support.  Putting the two together is more than plausible.  The
president, nsa, or secdef telling me it is so makes it MORE plausible,
not less.  You may argue that they should not be believed because they
have alterior motives.  Seems to me you are the one who rejects valid
information because it doesn't fit what you WISH to be true.

>As I suggested in my post, I am tired of
>nothing but F.U.D. from the Bush Administration.  In what ways is Iraq's
>"global reach" the most troublesome of all the possibilities?

Assuming I understand what you're asking, anyone's "global" reach is
"the most troublesome."  But in any case, imho, 9/11 proved that all
terrorists have global reach.  Period.  I wish the current
administration would recognize that fact, but for whatever reasons,
they seem to focus more on intentions than capabilities.  That's a
dangerous precedent, but I will admit that Iraq has demonstrated
hostile intentions.  And to an extent that dwarfs most of the rest.

>> >He has not been able to show much evidence of weapons of mass destruction
>> >(WMD) in Iraq or any evidence that such weapons if they existed could be
>> >used against the U.S., as opposed to, say, Israel. <snip>
>>
>> Depends what you call "WMD" and what you call "much."  If you mean
>> nuclear weapons, you should just say so.
>
>I use the term "WMD" for convenience, as is common is such discussions.

Well, you use it incorrectly.  And fwiw, I don't believe I've heard
anyone use the term when they didn't mean chem & bio too.  That's sort
of the point.

>>  But by all means, let's wait until he has "the bomb" too.
>> Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
>
>It seems to make sense to, say, France, Germany, Russia, and China.  But
>perhaps all these countries have irrational leaders who prefer to be the
>targets of WMD, while only the clear-thinking members of the Bush Marketing
>Team... I mean Administration... see the real dangers?

I am not a fan or even supporter of Mr Bush, except in the sense that
he is commander-in-chief and president.  I probably wouldn't even vote
for him tomorrow, if he were running and depending who was running
against him.  But I see the "real dangers."  I don't even understand
your point about the rest of the nuclear neighborhood.  Altho I will
point out, Germany does not, afaik, have nucs.  Great Britain does, as
does Pakistan and India.  I don't think there are any others.  Except
maybe Israel, but they don't admit it--probably because they want the
Arabs to think they do, without having to disclose what and how much.

>In general, there isn't.  I believe in trade with all nations and alliances
>with none.  This policy is not perfect (no policy is), but it does not take
>great genius to implement - a required quality obviously missing from past
>U.S. foreign policy: support for the Shah of Iran, support for Iraq(!) over
>Iran, etc.

Do you think government action should only be taken if it can be
administered without error, and with 20/20 hindsight, every time?

Besides, for all that Sadaam is evil, I'm not convinced we weren't
correct to support him, such as it was, against Iran.  Given the
circumstances at the time.  Actually, the same goes for the Shah.

>Indeed, if we're going to "have to" fight Iraq, then no one's reasons mean a
>damn.  But reasons are useful in understanding why someone thinks we "have
>to".

And why we don't as well.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21804
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 20:07:28 GMT
Subject: Re: A Quote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 15:49:44 -0400, "Gordon Sollars"
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:

>North Korea has admitted to kidnapping Japanese citizens who "just happened"
>to die.  Are our good allies the Japanese of less consequence than murdered
>Iranians and Iraqis?  North Korea already has nuclear weapons.  But North
>Korea does not have any oil.  That is a lucky thing if you want to avoid
>being invaded by the U.S.

Ummm..., unless something has changed in the last couple of years,
North Korea does NOT have nuclear weapons.  I don't think they're even
particularly close to having them, altho I could certainly be wrong
about that.  They do have some other rather nasty WMD, and some pretty
big-ass missiles.  But they also have no money (because they have no,
or more correctly very little oil; they are rich in other mineral
resources, but lack the means to exploit them), so there is some doubt
as to whether they can keep their weapons operational.  In any case,
lately, NK has been playing pretty nice, allowing reunions of families
split between North and South.  Admitting, without any outside
pressure that I know of, about transgressions in the past--I'd be
surprised if they weren't getting some payback for that.  But it's
still a far shot from Iraq's recent record.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21805
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 20:15:20 GMT
Subject: Re: A Quote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 23:57:23 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:

<snip>
>Of course, some people argue that the U.S. has "vital interests" to 
>protect in the Middle East - but these are usually code words for 
>defending Israel or the interests of U.S. oil companies.

I don't think there's any "code word" aspect involved.  There is
written national security policy that defines "vital interests" and
they include both of those.  Perhaps the words used are "allies" and
democracies" vs Israel, and "resources" instead of "oil."  But it
doesn't take a rocket scientist to connect the dots (oooh... two
hackneyed cliches in one sentence! <g>)

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21806
From: Gordon Sollars" 
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 16:54:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Out of Control?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


"Jai Johnson-Pickett" <hf_jai@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3d99f146.11009363@news.sff.net...
> On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 13:50:03 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
> <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >My understanding is that the U.S. has tradition that does not support
> >preemptive attack.  Am I wrong, or is the tradition?
>
> You are wrong.  US military is well trained and always prepared for
> preemptive strike orders.

The U.S. military is not the same as the U.S government.  Hopefully, the
U.S. military is well trained and prepared to do many things that it will
never be called on to do.

> And depending on how you define
> "preemptive," there are a number of cases where preemptive military
> intervention has been used.  Starting with, probably, the Philippines.

Do you think that a single case undermines a tradition, or do you have
others in mind?  I am willing to take "preemptive" somewhat broadly so as
not to be unfair regarding the burden of proof.

> Perhaps the policy of preemption has never been articulated in the
> top-level national security documents--I'm not sure.  But I do know
> the US has always, formally and in writing, reserved the right to
> first use of nuclear weapons.  That sounds pretty "preemptive" to me.
> Of course, we haven't had to exercise that right in the last 50 years.

I would not call reserving the right to use a particular weapon "preemptive"
if it would be used only after an initial attack.  Thus, the use of atomic
weapons against Japan - quite literally the real "first use" - was not
preemptive.  With regard to M.A.D., stability was achieved by each side
/threatening/ to use nuclear weapons, not by their actual use, first or
otherwise.




------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21807
From: John Paul Vrolyk 
Date: 1 Oct 2002 22:23:15 GMT
Subject: Re: Out of Control?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Lorrita Morgan <lorrita-m@prodigy.net> wrote:
> We have been focused mainly on the old "Silk Road" and not looking at the
> rest of the world.  We're playing the race/religion profile and not looking
> at the homegrown jerks who might be even more deadly.

> The border to the north isn't much better
> and Canada has some interesting groups that I wouldn't want to see down
> here.

You've made me curious here.  Which Canadians have you scared?

I've heard that some of those "Silk Road"-types like to use Canada
(and it's more lenient immigration policy) as a stepping stone to
the United States, but it doesn't sound like that's what you meant.

[thinking...] There's pot smokers, polygamists, the Quebec
separatists, the Western separatists, the Newies...  I'm having a
hard time imagining any of those as threats to the security of the
United States.

There's a fair number of anti-capitalist, anti-World-Bank, anti-GATT,
etc., types, but the US has even more "homegrown" of those, so I
don't see how the Canadian ones in particular would be a problem.

-- 
John Paul Vrolyk
jp@vrolyk.org

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21808
From: Eli Hestermann 
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 08:48:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Out of Control?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Another $0.02:

Gordon Sollars wrote:

> "Jai Johnson-Pickett" <hf_jai@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:3d99f146.11009363@news.sff.net...
>
> > And depending on how you define
> > "preemptive," there are a number of cases where preemptive military
> > intervention has been used.  Starting with, probably, the Philippines.
>
> Do you think that a single case undermines a tradition, or do you have
> others in mind?  I am willing to take "preemptive" somewhat broadly so as
> not to be unfair regarding the burden of proof.

Panama comes to mind, twice actually: once with the threat of force to get
Columbia to give it up, and the second time an invasion to "extradite" the head
of state.  I'd bet there are others; these just sprung to mind.

--
Eli V. Hestermann
Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa."  -Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21809
Article no longer available
------------------------------------------------------------

Article 21810
From: fader555@aol.com (Fader)
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 12:09:55 GMT
Subject: Re: Very Interesting.......
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Spam spill ????

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21811
From: webnews@sff.net
Date: 3 Oct 2002 13:15:02 GMT
Subject: SpamGuard
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

One or more articles in this newsgroup have been cancelled by the sysops
for being spammed across multiple newsgroups, being commercial adverts,
or for violating SFF Net's Policies and Procedures.

To avoid seeing this notice in the future, set your newsreader to filter
out articles with SpamGuard in the subject.

------------------------------------------------------------

============================================================
Archive of:   sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Archive desc: The Internet home for the Heinlein Forum
Archived by:  webnews@sff.net
Archive date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 05:24:02
First article in this archive:  21785
Last article in this archive:   21811
Oldest article in this archive: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 07:39:17 -0500
Newest article in this archive: 4 Oct 2002 14:29:22 GMT