wrote:

Dave Hinz wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:46:27 -0400, George George@least wrote:

Except, of course, the pyramids were _not_ built by slave labor,

Did the people building them know that? We don't even know what the
mechanism was for moving the blocks, and you claim we know the
motivation.

Evidence from the worker's city and worker's burial site provides
insight into who the workers were. In particular, it appears that
the food was provided by a large number of independant vendors
suggesting that the workers were paid a wage.

Yeah, I've figured it was a lot like a really, really big WPA
project...

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 02:03:40 GMT, Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz wrote:

Did the people building them know that? We don't even know what the
mechanism was for moving the blocks, and you claim we know the
motivation?

I read an interesting theory a number of years ago. If memory serves, it was a
letter to the editor of Omni magazine, from a chemical engineer. Seems that
the guy went to Egypt on vacation with his wife, and while climbing the
pyramids he examined the blocks and concluded that it's _not_natural_stone_.
He says it's actually _concrete_ and they were cast in place.

Well, couple of thoughts. (1) Omni Magazine. Nuff said. (2) If it was
concrete, I _think_ that someone might have noticed that over the last
few thousand years.

Not so far-fetched as it might seem, either: somewhere around 400 AD, the
ancient Romans developed a concrete that would harden under water; when Rome
fell, the secret of making it was lost. Care to guess when it was
rediscovered? Not until 1789. And to this day, nobody knows for sure just
*what* Greek fire really was.

That is a fascinating tidbit, isn't it? Was the description accurate,
and if so, why can't we reverse-engineer it? We know what materials
they had access to, after all. Maybe it's actions were overstated.

It's easy to forget that the ancients were just
as smart as we are. Maybe smarter - they didn't have modern technology as a
crutch, and were forced to use their heads.

Sure, but I just think that concrete could be distinguished from natural
rock, and that theory doesn't change the fact that you still have to get
that mass up to the casting location, which doesn't change the problem
very much.

Dave Hinz

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 06:10:40 -0400, George George@least wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Did the people building them know that? We don't even know what the
mechanism was for moving the blocks, and you claim we know the
motivation?

I don't see how a slave to a king-god is any different than a slave to a
dictator or whatever.

Okay, Davey, believe what you like in defiance of reality.

Um, you seem to have confused "theory" with "reality", George.

Have a nice day.

Oh, I will. I am. I do.

In article , Dave Hinz wrote:

Sure, but I just think that concrete could be distinguished from natural
rock, and that theory doesn't change the fact that you still have to get
that mass up to the casting location, which doesn't change the problem
very much.

Well, the guy didn't say it was _modern_ concrete... I suppose there are other
things besides Portland cement that could work as binders. And I think that a
priori assumptions may play a part, too: if one simply takes it for granted
that the stones *must* be natural, one might tend to overlook or misinterpret
evidence that points the other way. I'm not saying that guy is right, just
that he has an interesting theory that does manage to answer the question of
how they managed to move those blocks weighing twenty thousand tons (or
whatever) all that distance -- in baskets, fifty pounds at a time.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 17:33:43 GMT, Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz wrote:

Sure, but I just think that concrete could be distinguished from natural
rock, and that theory doesn't change the fact that you still have to get
that mass up to the casting location, which doesn't change the problem
very much.

Well, the guy didn't say it was _modern_ concrete... I suppose there are other
things besides Portland cement that could work as binders. And I think that a
priori assumptions may play a part, too: if one simply takes it for granted
that the stones *must* be natural, one might tend to overlook or misinterpret
evidence that points the other way.

OK, but as others have mentioned, we've got quarries with part-finished
blocks, in native limestone.

I'm not saying that guy is right, just
that he has an interesting theory that does manage to answer the question of
how they managed to move those blocks weighing twenty thousand tons (or
whatever) all that distance -- in baskets, fifty pounds at a time.

I've been mentally playing with the problem of getting the blocks up the
sides for a while, off and on. If _I_ needed to do it, I'd build wooden
tripods. Two symmetrical legs to go onto the level the block is on, a
long leg going down a row or four. Rope from the apex of the 3 legs,
down to and around the block. When the long bottom leg is low, the rope
is fastened around the block - the block is lifted by raising that leg.
Block goes up, swings in; lather - rinse - repeat. No need for ramps
(which would have more volume than the pyramids). Then again, the
"ramps" might have been a spiral series of blocks not put in until last.

But, if they were some sort of concrete, I think someone would have
noticed. I also have a mental image of grain in some of the stones, but
can't find the corresponding photo to point you to.

Dave Hinz

Doug Miller wrote:
:
: Exactly how many al Qaida terrorists did "Blow Job" Clinton manage to arrest
: or kill?


How many American soldiers died or were maimed in a war justified to the
American people, and to Congress, on the basis of false information, in the
Clinton years?

-- Andy Barss

In article , Andrew Barss wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
:
: Exactly how many al Qaida terrorists did "Blow Job" Clinton manage to arrest
: or kill?


How many American soldiers died or were maimed in a war justified to the
American people, and to Congress, on the basis of false information, in the
Clinton years?

Sorry, I don't have statistics on our losses in Bosnia, Kosovo, or Somalia
right at hand, but I'm sure you can tell me.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Hey Andy, were's my $50.00?

"Andrew Barss" wrote in message
...
Doug Miller wrote:
:
: Exactly how many al Qaida terrorists did "Blow Job" Clinton manage to
arrest
: or kill?


How many American soldiers died or were maimed in a war justified to the
American people, and to Congress, on the basis of false information, in
the
Clinton years?

-- Andy Barss

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , Andrew Barss
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
:
: Exactly how many al Qaida terrorists did "Blow Job" Clinton manage to
arrest
: or kill?


How many American soldiers died or were maimed in a war justified to the
American people, and to Congress, on the basis of false information, in
the
Clinton years?

Sorry, I don't have statistics on our losses in Bosnia, Kosovo, or Somalia
right at hand, but I'm sure you can tell me.

And of course, if Billy the Twit had taken Bin Laden when he had the
opportunity, much may have been prevented.

Dave Hinz wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 02:03:40 GMT, Doug Miller wrote:

Not so far-fetched as it might seem, either: somewhere around 400 AD, the
ancient Romans developed a concrete that would harden under water; when Rome
fell, the secret of making it was lost. Care to guess when it was
rediscovered? Not until 1789. And to this day, nobody knows for sure just
*what* Greek fire really was.

Concrete had been around for hundreds, if not thousands of years
before the Romans. The Greeks had concrete. The Romans improved
on earlier formulations when they found that concrete made with
volcanic soil from Puozzoli hardend much faster than previous
versions. The Greek concrete could take years to cure. Nowadays,
materials added into concrete to make it harden fast are called
possolins.


That is a fascinating tidbit, isn't it? Was the description accurate,
and if so, why can't we reverse-engineer it? We know what materials
they had access to, after all. Maybe it's actions were overstated.


There are pleny of ways to make something that behaves as
described, the only real problem is figuring out how the
Byzantines actually did it using materials they were known
to have, which one presumes did not include reduced sodium
metal.

--

FF

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Andrew Barss wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
:
: Exactly how many al Qaida terrorists did "Blow Job" Clinton manage to arrest
: or kill?


How many American soldiers died or were maimed in a war justified to the
American people, and to Congress, on the basis of false information, in the
Clinton years?

Sorry, I don't have statistics on our losses in Bosnia, Kosovo, or Somalia
right at hand, but I'm sure you can tell me.


First, how about if you tell us what false information was
presented by Clinton to justify intervention in Bosnia, and Kosovo,
and by Bush to justify intervention in Somalia?

--

FF

CW wrote:
...
And of course, if Billy the Twit had taken Bin Laden when he had the
opportunity, much may have been prevented.

You mean, like, when Clinton had him trapped along the Afghanistan-
Pakistan border and then declared that he didn't know where or care
where bin Laden was, and then went and invade Iraq instead of finishing
off bin Laden? Oh, wait a minute, that was Bush.

So, what do you mean?

--

FF

was, and didn't care

anus detector on

Shall we move this to a newsgroup where it is on-topic?

Doug Miller wrote:
...

Exactly how many al Qaida terrorists did "Blow Job" Clinton manage to arrest
or kill?


I got really sick and tired of you people through the later half
of the Clinton years. "Ken Starr spent all that money and got
nothing for it." is what people like you kept saying despite
the score of concvictions the IC had obtained under Starr.
That's the probelm with people like you, you don't pay any
damn attention to the news and then you claim that nothing
has happened, instead of admitting that you weren't paying
attention.

So if you have now developed an interest in these matters maybe
you should head on down to a library and review the newpapers
from the era in question. Here is a little information to get
you started:

On February 26, 1993, just a month after Clinton took office,
before his nonminees had taken over their cabinet positions,
IOW while Bush's people were still running the national security
aparatus a combined truck bomb and poison gas attack was made on
the World Trade Center in New York with six fatalities.

Under the Clinton Adinistration, the perpetrators of that attack
were aprehended and convicted. That was also the last significant
attack, on US soil, by foreign paramilitary organizations.

However, on AUgust 8, 1998 two American embassies in East Africa
were bombed. Four perpetrators of those attacks were Appreneded
abroad, extradited to the US, convicted and sentenced to life
in prison.

Don't trust me, check it out for yourself. Let us know what you
find.

The Clinton Administration identifed bin Laden as the mastermind
and tried to get him exradited from Afghanistan:

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/...-albright.html

--

FF

In article . com, wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Andrew Barss
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
:
: Exactly how many al Qaida terrorists did "Blow Job" Clinton manage to
arrest
: or kill?


How many American soldiers died or were maimed in a war justified to the
American people, and to Congress, on the basis of false information, in the
Clinton years?

Sorry, I don't have statistics on our losses in Bosnia, Kosovo, or Somalia
right at hand, but I'm sure you can tell me.


First, how about if you tell us what false information was
presented by Clinton to justify intervention in Bosnia, and Kosovo,
and by Bush to justify intervention in Somalia?

We could start with the notion presented that there was actually some *reason*
for us to be there...

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article .com, wrote:

CW wrote:
...
And of course, if Billy the Twit had taken Bin Laden when he had the
opportunity, much may have been prevented.

You mean, like, when Clinton had him trapped along the Afghanistan-
Pakistan border and then declared that he didn't know where or care
where bin Laden was, and then went and invade Iraq instead of finishing
off bin Laden? Oh, wait a minute, that was Bush.

So, what do you mean?

Sounds like he's referring to the fact that Sudan offered bin Laden to the
United States -- TWICE -- and Clinton refused the offer each time.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

anus detector on

Shall we move this to a newsgroup where it is on-topic?

Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com, wrote:

CW wrote:
...
And of course, if Billy the Twit had taken Bin Laden when he had the
opportunity, much may have been prevented.

You mean, like, when Clinton had him trapped along the Afghanistan-
Pakistan border and then declared that he didn't know where or care
where bin Laden was, and then went and invade Iraq instead of finishing
off bin Laden? Oh, wait a minute, that was Bush.

So, what do you mean?

Sounds like he's referring to the fact that Sudan offered bin Laden to the
United States -- TWICE -- and Clinton refused the offer each time.


Does he have any evidence to support that? Last I read, the 'offer'
was made by a person who had failed to deliver on a previous offer
though he did NOT refund the bribe. One wonders what he did with the
money we were paying him, perhaps he was donating it to AL Queda?

Didn't Bin Laden leave the Sudan for Afghanistan befor the US had
implicated him in the WTC bombing, and befor the embassy bombings
in East Africa had been executed meaning the US didn't have
evidence to charge him with a crime?

--

FF

anus detector on

Shall we move this, er, discussion to a newsgroup where it is on-topic?

Doug Miller wrote:
In article . com, wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Andrew Barss
...

How many American soldiers died or were maimed in a war justified to the
American people, and to Congress, on the basis of false information, in the
Clinton years?

Sorry, I don't have statistics on our losses in Bosnia, Kosovo, or Somalia
right at hand, but I'm sure you can tell me.


First, how about if you tell us what false information was
presented by Clinton to justify intervention in Bosnia, and Kosovo,
and by Bush to justify intervention in Somalia?

We could start with the notion presented that there was actually some *reason*
for us to be there...

No, I'll start with the notion that you had no *valid* reason
for your accusation.

Can you present to us, false information was presented by Clinton
to justify intervention in Bosnia, and Kosovo, or by Bush to justify
intervention in Somalia?

--

FF

If you are really interested, there is a sci.archaeology
newsgroup where this may be discussed with people who
actually know a burro from a burrow.

Dave Hinz wrote:


... No need for ramps
(which would have more volume than the pyramids). Then again, the
"ramps" might have been a spiral series of blocks not put in until last.

Current theory is that the ramps were make
of rubble from the quarry and local soil, a
combination called, IIFC tufla, which spiraled
around the pyramid to keep its volume to a
minimum. According to this model after the
last of the supporting (interior) blocks were
laid the casing stones were laid from the top
down, cantelevering the outer edge of each out
from the interior stones so that the next layer
down could slide in underneath. As the casing
stones were laid, the ramp was disassembled.

At any rate, there is considerable evidence
for the existance of a ramp in the form of a
layer of tufla, which is subtantially different
from the natural soil, spread out over the
surface at Giza.

--

FF



But, if they were some sort of concrete, I think someone would have
noticed. I also have a mental image of grain in some of the stones, but
can't find the corresponding photo to point you to.

Additionally some of the stones were put
into place using mortar, not really necessary
if the blocks were cast in place next to each
other.

Besides, if they were casting in situ, you'd
think that they would have cast the concrete
in long horizontal layers instead of discrete
blocks, right?

Rather than a letter to the editors in that
crappy rag Omni (_The Magazine of Fantasy and
Science Fiction_ was _so_ much better than
Omni it was really pathetic) I recall the
'concrete' notion being advanced by a French
chemical engineer, though maybe it was the
same guy. 'Twas the French guy who appeard
in _This Old Pyramid_ on PBS.

--

FF

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 00:01:27 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
:
: Exactly how many al Qaida terrorists did "Blow Job" Clinton manage to arrest
: or kill?


How many American soldiers died or were maimed in a war justified to the
American people, and to Congress, on the basis of false information, in the
Clinton years?

Your democrats were telling an awful lot of those "lies", Andrew.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 11:39:02 GMT, Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com, wrote:

You mean, like, when Clinton had him trapped along the Afghanistan-
Pakistan border and then declared that he didn't know where or care
where bin Laden was,

Fred can't show that quote, because it's made up. Fred has been told
that. Fred will now email me and I will continue not to bother.

and then went and invade Iraq instead of finishing
off bin Laden? Oh, wait a minute, that was Bush.

Show me the quote, Fred. Show us all the quote, Fred, or retract your
lie in public, where you wrote your lie.

So, what do you mean?

Sounds like he's referring to the fact that Sudan offered bin Laden to the
United States -- TWICE -- and Clinton refused the offer each time.

Yes, well, for some reason, we're not supposed to blame Clinton for
9/11, even though his inactions, and his actions, contributed.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com, wrote:


Doug Miller wrote:
...
Yes, and we were winning the war under Nixon, too, until the
Democrat-controlled Congress cut him off at the knees.


Nixon self-destructed.

True, but that had nothing to do with the war (except to the extent that his
political destruction enabled Congress to prevent us actually winning the war,
as we were doing).

The (Democratically-controlled) Congress cut off support for South
Viet Nam under Ford.

Technically true, but misleading, and scarcely relevant, as the South was
already in deep s**t by that time. The Paris peace accords decreed a
cease-fire in January 1973. The position of the US at that time was that if
the North violated the cease-fire agreement, we would resume bombing of North
Viet Nam. In August 1973, Congress voted to require the President to obtain
their approval before resuming bombing; the North invaded the South a few
weeks later. That was a *year* before Ford took office. My statement stands:
the Democrat-controlled Congress cut Nixon off at the knees.


I'll agree that weakened Nixon's ablity to
threaten North Vietnam, but the absence of
US air support was not the deciding factor
that lost the war. It was the loss of US
funding to South Vietnam that led to the
collapse of their military.

Perhaps more accurately, it was the gross
incompetence, abject irresponsibility and
rife corruption of the South Vietnamese
government that lost them the war. Though
at the time I still thought they were less
oppressive and bloodthirsty than the communists.
In retrospect, perhaps they were just not
as well organized.

--

FF

In article .com, wrote:
anus detector on

Shall we move this, er, discussion to a newsgroup where it is on-topic?

Doug Miller wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Andrew Barss
...

How many American soldiers died or were maimed in a war justified to the
American people, and to Congress, on the basis of false information, in
the
Clinton years?

Sorry, I don't have statistics on our losses in Bosnia, Kosovo, or Somalia
right at hand, but I'm sure you can tell me.


First, how about if you tell us what false information was
presented by Clinton to justify intervention in Bosnia, and Kosovo,
and by Bush to justify intervention in Somalia?

We could start with the notion presented that there was actually some
*reason*
for us to be there...

No, I'll start with the notion that you had no *valid* reason
for your accusation.

Can you present to us, false information was presented by Clinton
to justify intervention in Bosnia, and Kosovo, or by Bush to justify
intervention in Somalia?

Certainly - the false information was the claim that we needed to go there.
There was *no* national interest of the United States at stake in Bosnia or
Kosovo, and only a tenuous interest, at best, in Somalia.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article .com, wrote:
anus detector on

Shall we move this to a newsgroup where it is on-topic?

Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

CW wrote:
...
And of course, if Billy the Twit had taken Bin Laden when he had the
opportunity, much may have been prevented.

You mean, like, when Clinton had him trapped along the Afghanistan-
Pakistan border and then declared that he didn't know where or care
where bin Laden was, and then went and invade Iraq instead of finishing
off bin Laden? Oh, wait a minute, that was Bush.

So, what do you mean?

Sounds like he's referring to the fact that Sudan offered bin Laden to the
United States -- TWICE -- and Clinton refused the offer each time.


Does he have any evidence to support that?

It's been well documented.

Didn't Bin Laden leave the Sudan for Afghanistan befor the US had
implicated him in the WTC bombing, and befor the embassy bombings
in East Africa had been executed meaning the US didn't have
evidence to charge him with a crime?

And that, right there, is the heart of the Clinton administration's failure in
combating terror: treating it as a law enforcement problem, instead of a
military problem.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article . com, wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:


Doug Miller wrote:
...
Yes, and we were winning the war under Nixon, too, until the
Democrat-controlled Congress cut him off at the knees.


Nixon self-destructed.

True, but that had nothing to do with the war (except to the extent that his
political destruction enabled Congress to prevent us actually winning the
war,
as we were doing).

The (Democratically-controlled) Congress cut off support for South
Viet Nam under Ford.

Technically true, but misleading, and scarcely relevant, as the South was
already in deep s**t by that time. The Paris peace accords decreed a
cease-fire in January 1973. The position of the US at that time was that if
the North violated the cease-fire agreement, we would resume bombing of North
Viet Nam. In August 1973, Congress voted to require the President to obtain
their approval before resuming bombing; the North invaded the South a few
weeks later. That was a *year* before Ford took office. My statement stands:
the Democrat-controlled Congress cut Nixon off at the knees.


I'll agree that weakened Nixon's ablity to
threaten North Vietnam, but the absence of
US air support was not the deciding factor
that lost the war. It was the loss of US
funding to South Vietnam that led to the
collapse of their military.

Wrong. As noted above, the cutoff of US bombing raids against the North in
August '73 resulted in an invasion of the South only a few weeks later. That
invasion led to the collapse of the South. The funding cutoff was simply the
final nail in the coffin.

Perhaps more accurately, it was the gross
incompetence, abject irresponsibility and
rife corruption of the South Vietnamese
government that lost them the war. Though
at the time I still thought they were less
oppressive and bloodthirsty than the communists.
In retrospect, perhaps they were just not
as well organized.

In retrospect it's very clear that the communists were *far* more oppressive
and bloodthirsty than any of the governments of the South, corrupt as they
were.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Yep.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. ..
In article .com,
wrote:

CW wrote:
...
And of course, if Billy the Twit had taken Bin Laden when he had the
opportunity, much may have been prevented.

You mean, like, when Clinton had him trapped along the Afghanistan-
Pakistan border and then declared that he didn't know where or care
where bin Laden was, and then went and invade Iraq instead of finishing
off bin Laden? Oh, wait a minute, that was Bush.

So, what do you mean?

Sounds like he's referring to the fact that Sudan offered bin Laden to the
United States -- TWICE -- and Clinton refused the offer each time.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

anus detector on

Shall we move this to a newsgroup where it is on-topic?

Doug Miller wrote:
In article . com, wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
...
The Paris peace accords decreed a
cease-fire in January 1973. The position of the US at that time was that if
the North violated the cease-fire agreement, we would resume bombing of North
Viet Nam. In August 1973, Congress voted to require the President to obtain
their approval before resuming bombing; the North invaded the South a few
weeks later. That was a *year* before Ford took office. My statement stands:
the Democrat-controlled Congress cut Nixon off at the knees.


I'll agree that weakened Nixon's ablity to
threaten North Vietnam, but the absence of
US air support was not the deciding factor
that lost the war. It was the loss of US
funding to South Vietnam that led to the
collapse of their military.

Wrong. As noted above, the cutoff of US bombing raids against the North in
August '73 resulted in an invasion of the South only a few weeks later. That
invasion led to the collapse of the South. The funding cutoff was simply the
final nail in the coffin.


First of all, there already were communist troops in
South Vietnam. The Cease-fire allowed parts of South
Vietnam to remain under their control. At the time
hostilities were renewed both sides accused the other
of violating the cease-fire. By then the Viet Cong
had nearly been obliterated by the US miltary, US
bombing had taken its toll on the North, South Vietnam
stil have about twice the population of the North and
the US had been 'Vietnamizing' the war for a number of
years. The idea that South Veitnam could not fend off
an invasion simply because it did not have US air support
doesn't hold up.

This is also reflected by the fact that it took two more
years of fighting before the North Vietnamese were
able to take Saigon to end the war.


Perhaps more accurately, it was the gross
incompetence, abject irresponsibility and
rife corruption of the South Vietnamese
government that lost them the war. Though
at the time I still thought they were less
oppressive and bloodthirsty than the communists.
In retrospect, perhaps they were just not
as well organized.

In retrospect it's very clear that the communists were *far* more oppressive
and bloodthirsty than any of the governments of the South, corrupt as they
were.

There is no question that they did inflict far more suffering.

--

FF

anus detector on

Shall we move this to a newsgroup where it is on-topic?

Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com, wrote:

No, I'll start with the notion that you had no *valid* reason
for your accusation.

Can you present to us, false information was presented by Clinton
to justify intervention in Bosnia, and Kosovo, or by Bush to justify
intervention in Somalia?

Certainly - the false information was the claim that we needed to go there.
There was *no* national interest of the United States at stake in Bosnia or
Kosovo, and only a tenuous interest, at best, in Somalia.


Remember World War I? Don't you think that peace in Europe is in
the best interest of the US?

Regardless of how compelling the US interest was, Clinton should
have been impeached for violating the War Powers Act.

I'm lookig for an official casualty statement for the three.
If you find one, let me know, OK?

What US interest was there in Somalia? My guess is that you're
weaseling on Somalia because I reminded you that it was Bush
who sent US troops there and left them without an exit strategy.
ISTM that the US had a stronger interest in the former Yugoslavia
though everyone has an interest anywhere in the world where there
is starvation, genocide or war.

--

FF

anus detector on

Shall we move this to a newsgroup where it is on-topic?

Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com, wrote:

No, I'll start with the notion that you had no *valid* reason
for your accusation.

Can you present to us, false information was presented by Clinton
to justify intervention in Bosnia, and Kosovo, or by Bush to justify
intervention in Somalia?

Certainly - the false information was the claim that we needed to go there.
There was *no* national interest of the United States at stake in Bosnia or
Kosovo, and only a tenuous interest, at best, in Somalia.


Remember World War I? Don't you think that peace in Europe is in
the best interest of the US?

Regardless of how compelling the US interest was, Clinton should
have been impeached for violating the War Powers Act.

I'm lookig for an official casualty statement for the three.
If you find one, let me know, OK?

What US interest was there in Somalia? My guess is that you're
weaseling on Somalia because I reminded you that it was Bush
who sent US troops there and left them without an exit strategy.
ISTM that the US had a stronger interest in the former Yugoslavia
though everyone has an interest anywhere in the world where there
is starvation, genocide or war.

--

FF

Doug Miller (in ) said:

| There was *no* national interest of the United States at stake in
| Bosnia or Kosovo, and only a tenuous interest, at best, in Somalia.

[USA-centric]

When a usenet discussion devolves to a contest about who's right, it
becomes fairly tiresome to a captive audience. While I care about
cause and effect, events and consequences, and the effects on both
participants and bystanders; I'd be much more interested in reading
about what you guys *agree* on...

Perhaps I have a latent hippie streak; but one of my favorite lines
from a song goes something like: "When they're saying who ain't free,
then they're saying it right to me." I *believe* that all persons
should be equal before the law - and that *all* persons everywhere
have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

I detest bullies and murderers and find it not in *my* best interest
to allow them to deprive others of life or liberty or pursuit of
happiness. My observation is that such thugs seem to have endless
appetite for destruction and I'm convinced that the removal of such
people from power is essential if humanity is to thrive - be they in
Belgrade, Baghdad, Mogadishu, or Washington.

I'm willing to concede that /my/ best interest is not necessarily the
/nation's/ best interest - but I am one of many individuals who make
up my nation. Perhaps a statement by each participant of their own
"best interest" would be worthwhile in any discussion of "national
interest"?

One of the problems might be the difficulty in reaching agreement as
to when behavior crosses the line into the "unacceptable" range.

Another problem will almost certainly be the difficulty in reaching
agreement as to what should be done once there is general (majority?)
agreement that a person/group/nation has crossed that line.

Only the truly naive and chronically incompetent can believe that any
such problem would be solved by kicking the "bad guys" out and handing
power to "good guys" (which statement will probably offend politicians
on both sides of the aisle.)

Seems to me that the difference between fools and wise men is that
fools act on "what feels right" and wise men are "consequence-aware".
FWIW, I'm not seeing much that I can recognize as
consequence-awareness in DC of late...

I'm perfectly willing to stipulate that both Clinton and Bush
(both/all of 'em) are well-intentioned (although John Bunyan's
statement about good intentions is to the point) and that they made
both good and bad decisions in terms of the consequences produced.

Ok, here're my challenges to the political monday morning
quarterbacks: [1] Can you guys find anything that you agree on? [2]
Can you identify the political decisions relevant to the events you're
discussing and make constructive commentary as to their wisdom? And
[3] can you deduce a behavior model (action:consequence) that can be
used to deal better with similar situations in the future?

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html

CW wrote:
Yep.


What do you mean, yep? Yep, that the offer was extended, not
by the Sudan, but by a con artist who had already reneged on
one deal with the US?

--

FF

In article . com, wrote:
anus detector on

Shall we move this to a newsgroup where it is on-topic?

Doug Miller wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
...
The Paris peace accords decreed a
cease-fire in January 1973. The position of the US at that time was that
if
the North violated the cease-fire agreement, we would resume bombing of
North
Viet Nam. In August 1973, Congress voted to require the President to
obtain
their approval before resuming bombing; the North invaded the South a few
weeks later. That was a *year* before Ford took office. My statement
stands:
the Democrat-controlled Congress cut Nixon off at the knees.


I'll agree that weakened Nixon's ablity to
threaten North Vietnam, but the absence of
US air support was not the deciding factor
that lost the war. It was the loss of US
funding to South Vietnam that led to the
collapse of their military.

Wrong. As noted above, the cutoff of US bombing raids against the North in
August '73 resulted in an invasion of the South only a few weeks later. That
invasion led to the collapse of the South. The funding cutoff was simply the
final nail in the coffin.


First of all, there already were communist troops in
South Vietnam. The Cease-fire allowed parts of South
Vietnam to remain under their control. At the time
hostilities were renewed both sides accused the other
of violating the cease-fire. By then the Viet Cong
had nearly been obliterated by the US miltary, US
bombing had taken its toll on the North, South Vietnam
stil have about twice the population of the North and
the US had been 'Vietnamizing' the war for a number of
years. The idea that South Veitnam could not fend off
an invasion simply because it did not have US air support
oesn't hold up.

Obviously that idea *does* "hold up", as the tide of the war shifted shortly
thereafter.

This is also reflected by the fact that it took two more
years of fighting before the North Vietnamese were
able to take Saigon to end the war.

Prior to that point, they had been losing. After that, they began winning. And
that makes your point how?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com, wrote:
anus detector on

Shall we move this to a newsgroup where it is on-topic?

Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

CW wrote:
...
And of course, if Billy the Twit had taken Bin Laden when he had the
opportunity, much may have been prevented.

You mean, like, when Clinton had him trapped along the Afghanistan-
Pakistan border and then declared that he didn't know where or care
where bin Laden was, and then went and invade Iraq instead of finishing
off bin Laden? Oh, wait a minute, that was Bush.

So, what do you mean?

Sounds like he's referring to the fact that Sudan offered bin Laden to the
United States -- TWICE -- and Clinton refused the offer each time.


Does he have any evidence to support that?

It's been well documented.


Ah, by 'it' do you mean the well-documented that the offer was not
made by the Sudan but by a con artist who had rippe dus off
previously?



Didn't Bin Laden leave the Sudan for Afghanistan befor the US had
implicated him in the WTC bombing, and befor the embassy bombings
in East Africa had been executed meaning the US didn't have
evidence to charge him with a crime?

And that, right there, is the heart of the Clinton administration's failure in
combating terror: treating it as a law enforcement problem, instead of a
military problem.

Right, Clinton should have invaded the Sudan because we did not
have any evidence implicating bin Laden in any acts comitted against
the US. How does that make sense to you?

One of Bush's problems was ignoring bin Laden, until after
September 11, 2001, a mistake he is now repeating, again leaving
bin Laden at large to kill more Americans. If bin Laden sticks
with his existing pattern, his next attack in the US will happen
during the first year of the next President's first term of office.

--

FF

In article .com, wrote:
anus detector on

Shall we move this to a newsgroup where it is on-topic?

Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

No, I'll start with the notion that you had no *valid* reason
for your accusation.

Can you present to us, false information was presented by Clinton
to justify intervention in Bosnia, and Kosovo, or by Bush to justify
intervention in Somalia?

Certainly - the false information was the claim that we needed to go there.
There was *no* national interest of the United States at stake in Bosnia or
Kosovo, and only a tenuous interest, at best, in Somalia.


Remember World War I? Don't you think that peace in Europe is in
the best interest of the US?

Do you mean to suggest that the conflicts in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 90s
threatened the peace of all Europe?

Regardless of how compelling the US interest was, Clinton should
have been impeached for violating the War Powers Act.

Much as I dislike Clinton, I have to disagree with you here - IMO the War
Powers Act is unconstitutional.

I'm lookig for an official casualty statement for the three.
If you find one, let me know, OK?

What US interest was there in Somalia? My guess is that you're
weaseling on Somalia because I reminded you that it was Bush
who sent US troops there and left them without an exit strategy.
ISTM that the US had a stronger interest in the former Yugoslavia
though everyone has an interest anywhere in the world where there
is starvation, genocide or war.

Fine, I'm willing to stipulate that the US had *no* interest in Somalia
either. I'm no fan of Bush the Elder; in fact, I think he was a terrible
President. I was stunned when Reagan chose him as his running mate.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Shall we move this to a newsgroup where it is on-topic?

Doug Miller wrote:
In article . com, wrote:
anus detector on

Shall we move this to a newsgroup where it is on-topic?

Doug Miller wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
...
The Paris peace accords decreed a
cease-fire in January 1973. The position of the US at that time was that
if
the North violated the cease-fire agreement, we would resume bombing of
North
Viet Nam. In August 1973, Congress voted to require the President to
obtain
their approval before resuming bombing; the North invaded the South a few
weeks later. That was a *year* before Ford took office. My statement
stands:
the Democrat-controlled Congress cut Nixon off at the knees.


I'll agree that weakened Nixon's ablity to
threaten North Vietnam, but the absence of
US air support was not the deciding factor
that lost the war. It was the loss of US
funding to South Vietnam that led to the
collapse of their military.

Wrong. As noted above, the cutoff of US bombing raids against the North in
August '73 resulted in an invasion of the South only a few weeks later. That
invasion led to the collapse of the South. The funding cutoff was simply the
final nail in the coffin.


First of all, there already were communist troops in
South Vietnam. The Cease-fire allowed parts of South
Vietnam to remain under their control. At the time
hostilities were renewed both sides accused the other
of violating the cease-fire. By then the Viet Cong
had nearly been obliterated by the US miltary, US
bombing had taken its toll on the North, South Vietnam
stil have about twice the population of the North and
the US had been 'Vietnamizing' the war for a number of
years. The idea that South Veitnam could not fend off
an invasion simply because it did not have US air support
oesn't hold up.

Obviously that idea *does* "hold up", as the tide of the war shifted shortly
thereafter.

The tide of the war shifted because American GROUND forces were
withdrawn Vietnam and despite the fact that South Vietnam was
capable of defending itself. South Vietnam failed to defend itself
because of the incompetence and corruption of its government.

North Vietnam didn't have any signficant air support for their
troops in South Vietnam, and they were outnumbered in South
Vietnam. So why couldn't South Vietnam hold its own without
American air support.


This is also reflected by the fact that it took two more
years of fighting before the North Vietnamese were
able to take Saigon to end the war.

Prior to that point, they had been losing.
After that, they began winning. And
that makes your point how?


How were they losing prior to the cease fire? They
had held onto the 'Parrot's Beak' even WITH American
ground forces in country and with the North being bombed.
If South Vietnam had a competant, effective, and honest
government the communists would never have won.

--

FF

Shall we move this to a newsgroup where it is on-topic?

Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com, wrote:
anus detector on

...

Remember World War I? Don't you think that peace in Europe is in
the best interest of the US?

Do you mean to suggest that the conflicts in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 90s
threatened the peace of all Europe?

No, that is why I did not ask "Don't you think that
peace in ALL Europe is in the best interest of the US?"

War anywhere in Europe is contrary to the best interests
of the US.


Regardless of how compelling the US interest was, Clinton should
have been impeached for violating the War Powers Act.

Much as I dislike Clinton, I have to disagree with you here - IMO the War
Powers Act is unconstitutional.

Reading how the Constitution divide war powers and the control of
the military between the President and the Congress I agree
that the Congress has the authority to make legislation such as
the War Powers Act, though I dislike specifics of the Act itself.

I suggest you reread those sections.


....

What US interest was there in Somalia? My guess is that you're
weaseling on Somalia because I reminded you that it was Bush
who sent US troops there and left them without an exit strategy.
ISTM that the US had a stronger interest in the former Yugoslavia
though everyone has an interest anywhere in the world where there
is starvation, genocide or war.

Fine, I'm willing to stipulate that the US had *no* interest in Somalia
either.

What did you previously suppose the US interest in Somalia was?

I'll stick with "everyone has an interest anywhere
in the world where there is starvation, genocide or war."
Practical considerations preclude involvement in all the
world's troubled spotsat once. For example, while hunting
bin Laden and Al Quaida it would be imprudent to open up
a new front in a new country against a different, and
dormant which was fading away on its own.

--

FF

On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 21:20:25 -0500, "Morris Dovey"
wrote:

Doug Miller (in ) said:

| There was *no* national interest of the United States at stake in
| Bosnia or Kosovo, and only a tenuous interest, at best, in Somalia.

[USA-centric]

When a usenet discussion devolves to a contest about who's right, it
becomes fairly tiresome to a captive audience. While I care about
cause and effect, events and consequences, and the effects on both
participants and bystanders; I'd be much more interested in reading
about what you guys *agree* on...

Perhaps I have a latent hippie streak; but one of my favorite lines
from a song goes something like: "When they're saying who ain't free,
then they're saying it right to me." I *believe* that all persons
should be equal before the law - and that *all* persons everywhere
have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

I detest bullies and murderers and find it not in *my* best interest
to allow them to deprive others of life or liberty or pursuit of
happiness. My observation is that such thugs seem to have endless
appetite for destruction and I'm convinced that the removal of such
people from power is essential if humanity is to thrive - be they in
Belgrade, Baghdad, Mogadishu, or Washington.

I'm willing to concede that /my/ best interest is not necessarily the
/nation's/ best interest - but I am one of many individuals who make
up my nation. Perhaps a statement by each participant of their own
"best interest" would be worthwhile in any discussion of "national
interest"?

One of the problems might be the difficulty in reaching agreement as
to when behavior crosses the line into the "unacceptable" range.

Another problem will almost certainly be the difficulty in reaching
agreement as to what should be done once there is general (majority?)
agreement that a person/group/nation has crossed that line.

Only the truly naive and chronically incompetent can believe that any
such problem would be solved by kicking the "bad guys" out and handing
power to "good guys" (which statement will probably offend politicians
on both sides of the aisle.)

Seems to me that the difference between fools and wise men is that
fools act on "what feels right" and wise men are "consequence-aware".
FWIW, I'm not seeing much that I can recognize as
consequence-awareness in DC of late...

I'm perfectly willing to stipulate that both Clinton and Bush
(both/all of 'em) are well-intentioned (although John Bunyan's
statement about good intentions is to the point) and that they made
both good and bad decisions in terms of the consequences produced.

Ok, here're my challenges to the political monday morning
quarterbacks: [1] Can you guys find anything that you agree on? [2]
Can you identify the political decisions relevant to the events you're
discussing and make constructive commentary as to their wisdom? And
[3] can you deduce a behavior model (action:consequence) that can be
used to deal better with similar situations in the future?


yes well I have deduced a behavior model (action:consequence) that can
be used to deal better with not only similar situations in the future
but ALL situations that reside in the future. Let me sum it up in
verse.

I'd like to buy the world a home
And furnish it with love
Grow apple trees and honey bees
And snow white turtle doves

(Chorus)
I'd like to teach the world to sing
In perfect harmony
I'd like to buy the world a Coke
And keep it company
That's the real thing

(Repeat Chorus)

(Chorus 2)
What the world wants today
Is the real thing

****
and you are the real thing boyo, if a bit verbose, spaced out,
off-topic, air-head, when you come down it won't sound a third as
profound as when wrote it. @}:-(|)~

Ok, here're my challenges to the political monday morning
quarterbacks: [1] Can you guys find anything that you agree on? [2]
Can you identify the political decisions relevant to the events you're
discussing and make constructive commentary as to their wisdom? And
[3] can you deduce a behavior model (action:consequence) that can be
used to deal better with similar situations in the future?

"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."

"Anyone who wants to be elected, shouldn't be."

I bet even Dave agrees with those :-).

--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever

On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 09:10:47 -0700, lgb wrote:

"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."
"Anyone who wants to be elected, shouldn't be."

I thought it was "Anyone capable of getting themselves elected to
(insert name of political office here) should in no circumstances be
trusted to fill the job."

I bet even Dave agrees with those :-).

Probably, but I bet we disagree on specific examples. But yeah, this
makes more than a couple of times we've agreed lately. I need to
recheck my calibration by taunting the office "aged hippy" to make sure
I'm still where I thought I was.

In article ,
says...
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 09:10:47 -0700, lgb wrote:

"Anyone who wants to be elected, shouldn't be."

I thought it was "Anyone capable of getting themselves elected to
(insert name of political office here) should in no circumstances be
trusted to fill the job."


You'll have to take that up with Will Roger's ghost - I was quoting him
:-).

--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever

Sniffer (in ) said:

| and you are the real thing boyo, if a bit verbose, spaced out,
| off-topic, air-head, when you come down it won't sound a third as
| profound as when wrote it. @}:-(|)~

Off topic - of course (that's why I added OT to the subject.)

Airhead - ok (You're certainly entitled to hold any opinion that feels
good to you.)

Profound - hardly ever - but really tired of intelligent people
fighting the same battles over and over without finding (or sharing)
any solutions to the problems discussed. You may find the
recriminations informative (or amusing in some way) but I expect
better from these particular participants.

And no, I won't lower my expectations just for you.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html