[24884] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 7136 Volume: 10
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Tue Sep 14 14:12:05 2004
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:10:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Perl-Users Digest <Perl-Users-Request@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU>
To: Perl-Users@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Perl-Users Digest Tue, 14 Sep 2004 Volume: 10 Number: 7136
Today's topics:
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <albalmer@att.net>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <bm@acm.org>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <roo@try-removing-this.darkboong.demon.co.uk>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism (Anno Siegel)
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <roo@try-removing-this.darkboong.demon.co.uk>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <cbeck@mercury.bc.ca>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <kkt@drizzle.com>
Re: Xah Lee's Unixism <kkt@drizzle.com>
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 6 Apr 01) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 08:14:24 -0700
From: Alan Balmer <albalmer@att.net>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <ji2ek05rgnqspm0gncsvjhvj13htnrsdfv@4ax.com>
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 02:50:40 -0000, SM Ryan
<wyrmwif@tango-sierra-oscar-foxtrot-tango.fake.org> wrote:
>Taliban is regaining control in Afghanistan after the USA abandonned the
>war on terrorism to seek oil profits.
Well, I'll be damned! There actually *was* someone who believed the
recent Al Qaeda propaganda video!
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
removebalmerconsultingthis@att.net
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 19:13:41 +0300
From: Bulent Murtezaoglu <bm@acm.org>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <873c1k7rre.fsf@p4.internal>
>>>>> "GM" == Greg Menke <gregm-news@toadmail.com> writes:
[on the 'crusade' faux pas]
GM> You may or may not be right about the dumbness of language,
GM> but thats not germane. What is important are the conclusions
GM> people in the middle east draw from it.
I think the retraction/clarification came out in less than a day if
not in hours. People who'd report this to further their agenda are also
the kind of people who shamelessly lie regardless of who says what
anyway, so I doubt he did any major damage. But of course it couldn't
have helped.
[...]
GM> What if what if what if. The problem is we're stuck in a
GM> hugely expensive, poorly planned and strategically stupid
GM> situation. We weren't before we invaded.
I'll tell you what's worse: if the guys who got you into this
situation aren't duly punished at the polls, we may well see more of
it. Not that the replacement would be any better necessarily (indeed
he might be worse in many ways), but this kind of poor judgement needs
to have political consequences domestically. With the Soviets gone,
the only force that can keep the US gov't in check right now is the
reaction of the US voter. That or the unwillingness of the world to
bankroll these adventures with loans will restrain them in the short
term. (The US gets to borrow with US$ denominated paper, if that
weren't true and with the US$ getting weaker by about 20-50% against
major currencies in the past 3-4 years, the true cost of these
adventures would have been obvious by now. But then again, what
do I know?)
[...]
GM> One problem with the situation was Dubya & Co succeeded in
GM> strongly hinting that disagreement was akin to treason.
So it seems.
GM> There was simply no policital room for debate after 9/11. [...]
Yeah that's probably why people didn't point and laugh at the officials
who implied the treason bit above. Now, I suppose it will be having the
armed forces stuck in hostile territory that'll be used for this
purpose.
cheers,
BM
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:27:13 +0100
From: Rupert Pigott <roo@try-removing-this.darkboong.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <1095179233.182133@teapot.planet.gong>
Chuck Dillon wrote:
> actions like 9/11. It underscores it because Iraq was the largest Arab
> military power in the region.
... 15 years ago maybe, 2 years ago - no fucking way.
--
Cheers,
Rupert
------------------------------
Date: 14 Sep 2004 16:32:37 GMT
From: anno4000@lublin.zrz.tu-berlin.de (Anno Siegel)
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <ci76f5$dgj$2@mamenchi.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE>
Bulent Murtezaoglu <bm@acm.org> wrote in comp.lang.perl.misc:
[snipped]
This thread is becoming a nuisance in at least some of the groups
it is crossposted to. I suggest taking out at least the comp.lang.
groups.
Anno
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:34:54 +0100
From: Rupert Pigott <roo@try-removing-this.darkboong.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <1095179694.511730@teapot.planet.gong>
Bulent Murtezaoglu wrote:
> reaction of the US voter. That or the unwillingness of the world to
> bankroll these adventures with loans will restrain them in the short
> term. (The US gets to borrow with US$ denominated paper, if that
I think there is about as much chance of that happening as
there was of Deutsche Bank saying "No" to the Nazis in WWII.
Take a look at the guff that erupted when Deutsche found
some chump change in their back pocket and decided to buy
Banker's Trust (circa 1998-1999).
Cheers,
Rupert
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 16:46:08 GMT
From: "Coby Beck" <cbeck@mercury.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <kfF1d.15568$KU5.12456@edtnps89>
"Greg Menke" <gregm-news@toadmail.com> wrote in message
news:m3pt4qc57f.fsf@europa.pienet...
> Chuck Dillon <spam@nimblegen.com> writes:
>
> > However, to answer your question: How does regime change in Iraq help
> > avoid another 9/11...
> > 1) It removes one of the states that might consider sponsing
> > such a future attach.
>
> Wouldn't it have made more sense to invade Saudi Arabia? Thats where
> the terrorist money and terrorist leadership is from. Iraq is chump
> change on that account- heck, even Iran or Syria would've made a much
> better target on this basis. Or are we such bullies that we'll pick
> the weakest kid to beat up to show how strong we are?
I think Iraq provided a tempting combination of circumstances. It was an
easy military target, it saw an easy sell to the American public and the
American congress, it was a valuable target in terms of regional strategies
and it has very lucrative natural resources. All the other justifications
are very transparent propoganda, and the furious debating (was there WMD,
wasn't there) and hand-ringing (should we have, shouldn't we have..) are a
part of the accidental genius of the American media's opinion construction
machine.
> > 2) It removes a state with the expertise of producing (not
> > developing) WMD that might be used in such an attack. We've found no
> > WMD stockpiles but we *have* found proof that Iraq retained the
> > expertise to produce WMD in the future. We still don't know if there
> > are stockpiles.
>
> I'm sure there are lots of countries that have the expertise & the
> will- how many countries should we invade before that approach starts
> looking like a bad idea? I think we should also invade Pakistan right
> away- they have working nuclear weapons & real live terrorists, not
> just half-baked piles of rusty junk scattered around the country and
> half buried under a decade & a half of 3rd world style bureaucratic
> corruption & desert sand.
There are of course dozens of countries with these kinds of weapons. And I
think it is extremely unlikely that Iraq's WMD programs will now be halted
under US control. And it is equaly unlikely that UN inspectors will be
allowed back in as long as the US or a US backed gov't is in power there.
But of course that is acceptable for a client state.
> > 3) It demonstrates to other states in the region that they
> > could have a regime change in about a month's time if they allow
> > themselves to be in the position of being held accountable for any
> > future attack.
>
> Don't you mean "if they are ever placed on the Axis Of Evil?"
Indeed, it takes more than supporting terrorism. As you pointed out, Saudi
Arabia and its ruling royal family has verified and direct financial and
operational connections to Al Qaeda and related Islamic extremist groups,
yet they are not in any immediate danger of US invasion. Again it is much
more a question specific regional strategies, the "War on Terror" is just
the excuse to sell this violence to those of us "to squemish" to understand
the unpleasant realities of foriegn affairs. ("You can't handle the
truth!")
> > 4) Look at a map of the middle east. It provides us with a
> > base of operations in the center of the region. We probably won't
> > have to ask for access to bases and airspace in future operations,
> > which hopefully will never have to happen.
>
> So now we're back to being an imperial power? I thought we were in
> Iraq for humanitarian reasons- I guess I didn't get the memo.
Wars are never fought for humanitarian reasons. This war, like all others,
is about economic positioning and power. Believing that the US would spend
100's of billions of dollars just to "liberate" the population of a foreign
nation is laughable except for the fact that so many otherwise intelligent
people actually believe it. Reason 4 above is the only one that can hold an
ounce of water.
> > 5) It provides us with a second (ref: Afghanistan) shot at
> > establishing a pseudo-democracy in the region.
>
> Don't you think it would be a good idea to practice this sort of thing
> before imposing it elsewhere?
>
>
> > 6) It underscores that 9/11 should go into the "bad idea"
> > category for future planners of Islamic extremist operations.
>
> Afganistan taught that. Iraq teaches the Islamic world that we're
> crazy.
Iraq teaches the Islamic world that the US is indeed their biggest enemy and
lends credibility to the lunacy being preached by the likes of Bin Laden and
Al Zawqari.
> > You are being naive. Complain as loud as you like but there is no
> > question that the ability and demonstrated willingness to defend ones
> > self is the best deterrent to ever having to do so.
> >
>
> So you're talking about a "preemptive defense"?
This is just standard American double-speak whereby a unilateral invasion of
a foriegn nation that *has not* attacked them is self-defense, and where the
delibrate targeting of civilians (as in Fallujah) is referred to as
liberation and where guerilla murderers attacking Nicaragua from another
country are "Freedom fighters" and people resisting an illegitimate foreign
occupying power in Iraq are "terrorists."
And where serious journalists swallow their government's line that foreign
affairs is about "good vs. evil" Again it would be laughable except for its
apathetic acceptance and the horrible cost in human terms that the world
pays.
Us, good, them, evil? No, the world is not so simplistic and Good vs Evil
is a false dichotomy. There are very few truly good forces at play, it is
so much more about personal profit and power. And definitley governments do
not generally place Good and Just above economic advantage.
The US invasion of Iraq is like every other unilateral invasion in human
history, it is about money and power.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ big pond . com")
------------------------------
Date: 14 Sep 2004 09:52:15 -0700
From: Patrick Scheible <kkt@drizzle.com>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <tqm7jqwrdxc.fsf@drizzle.com>
Morten Reistad <firstname@lastname.pr1v.n0> writes:
> I do not agree. Kennedy and Clinton had a lousy foreign-policy
> record. The Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, the Cuba crisis were all
> examples of glorious miscalculations. Ditto Rwanda, Somalia, and
> the
Vietnam was certainly a catastrophe, but the blame goes to Johnson,
not Kennedy. There were only a few thousand U.S. troops in training
and advisory roles in Vietnam by Kennedy's assassination. Johnson
decided to escalate the war and have U.S. forces fight directly.
Even the best presidents can't have nothing but successes. The Bay of
Pigs was a failure, but at least Kennedy didn't compound the mistake
by sending in U.S. troops where Cuban expats failed.
-- Patrick
------------------------------
Date: 14 Sep 2004 10:15:27 -0700
From: Patrick Scheible <kkt@drizzle.com>
Subject: Re: Xah Lee's Unixism
Message-Id: <tqm3c1krcuo.fsf@drizzle.com>
Chuck Dillon <spam@nimblegen.com> writes:
> Coby Beck wrote:
>
> >>
> >>And, of course, entertaining the possibility that his agenda is just
> >>what he says it is, is completely out of the question.
> > Not out of the question, be obviously untrue.
>
> Again, I'll point out that it is naive to put this entirely on the
> administration. We're in Iraq because we effectively declared
> war. The dance with the U.N. went on for some 3 months. It was clear
> where we were headed. Our congress, including Kerry and all of the
^^^
Not all. I'm happy to say my representative and one of my senators
voted against the resolution authorizing the war.
Congress doesn't have its own intelligence service. If the
administration claims to have clear evidence that a country has WMD
there's only so much that a minority party in congress can do to find
out if the administration is lying or engaged in wishful thinking.
-- Patrick
------------------------------
Date: 6 Apr 2001 21:33:47 GMT (Last modified)
From: Perl-Users-Request@ruby.oce.orst.edu (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
Subject: Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 6 Apr 01)
Message-Id: <null>
Administrivia:
#The Perl-Users Digest is a retransmission of the USENET newsgroup
#comp.lang.perl.misc. For subscription or unsubscription requests, send
#the single line:
#
# subscribe perl-users
#or:
# unsubscribe perl-users
#
#to almanac@ruby.oce.orst.edu.
NOTE: due to the current flood of worm email banging on ruby, the smtp
server on ruby has been shut off until further notice.
To submit articles to comp.lang.perl.announce, send your article to
clpa@perl.com.
#To request back copies (available for a week or so), send your request
#to almanac@ruby.oce.orst.edu with the command "send perl-users x.y",
#where x is the volume number and y is the issue number.
#For other requests pertaining to the digest, send mail to
#perl-users-request@ruby.oce.orst.edu. Do not waste your time or mine
#sending perl questions to the -request address, I don't have time to
#answer them even if I did know the answer.
------------------------------
End of Perl-Users Digest V10 Issue 7136
***************************************
