JayB

"The Cosmic Code: Quantum Physics as the Language of Nature" A profound and poetic book that Heinz Pagels wrote before falling to his death on Pyramid Peak ( He was both a physicist and a climber) in the 80's. Here's the last paragraph: "I often dream about falling. Such dreams are commonplace to the ambitious or those who climb mountains. Lately I dreamed I was clutching at the face of the rock but it would not hold. Gravel gave way. I grasped for a shrub, but it pulled loose, and in cold terror I fell into the abyss. Suddenly I realized that my fall was relative; there was no bottom and no end. A feeling of pleasure came over me. I realized that what I embody, the principle of life, cannot be destroyed. It is written into the cosmic code, the order of the universe. As I continued to fall in the dark void, embraced by the vault of the heavens, I sang to the beauty of the stars and made my peace with the darkness."

I think this is Scotterx's attempt at humor. Scoteryx! Scratching head. Too random to have actually happened, too devoid of any obvious punchline to be a joke....

Yup. The partial pressure of O2 is the key. Fat cells in which the fat vacuole has been entirely exhausted aren't going to make someone a whole lot heavier than fat cells which have ceased to exist altogether, two fat cells with X/2 units of fat in them will not make you any fatter than 1 fat cell containing X units of fat, etc, so I'd be less worried about controlling the number of fat cells in my body and more worried about the quantity of fat in the said cells. Spending three weeks with a pack on your back in the mountains should take care of that as well as anything, short of a month-long hunger-strike in a sauna, though.

The case of the Left and Uncle Joe, (or Mao, or Pol Pot, or Ho Chi Minh) was merely an analogy to illustrate the tendency of the reactionary Left to abandon it's nominal causes - freedom from oppression, want, fear, starvation - whenever doing so would necessarily conflict with the more important tasks of demonizing the US and the economic system it champions. The comparison here is apt, even if you have distanced yourself from your fellow travellers with respect to Stalin/Mao/etc. Until the day comes when it is necessary for me to invent strawmen that could acutally discredit the radical Left any more effectively than "The Movement's" current actions and extended history already have, you'll do just fine. Happy Bouldering,

Politics does indeed make strange bedfellows. The Catholic Church has certainly been a catalyst for progressive causes in this century, and all previous centuries for that matter, so it totally makes sense that the Left would leverage that impressive track record, along with the Church's well known agitation on behalf of reproductive rights, women's rights, and other favorite Left wing causes on behalf of those opposing the war to remove Saddam from power. Besides, the previous Pope was certainly steadfast in his opposition to the Nazis - wasn't he? Every Jew has a picture of that guy in his living room in remembrance of his courageous actions on behalf of the Jewish people during the Holocaust. Of course, the current Pope was alive then, and that guy was at least as vocal in his opposition to the German Army's actions then as he has been against the US's now. Wasn't he? No?

Yeah - the International Herald Tribune is a state controlled paper known for uncritical recitation of US propoganda. Good analogy. And I wasn't dodging the assertion you made, SC - but as I've said before I tend to think that people are more inclined to speak their minds when doing so will not get them tortured or killed, and the Iraqis who are in that position seem to have a much lower opinion of the current regime than you do. Again - show me the masses of Iraqi's who are not subject to immediate retribution from the Ba'athist regime rising up in support of Saddam Hussein. And speaking of Iraqi dissidents, what behavior, pray tell, is likely to make someone unwelcome in Saddam's Iraq? Voicing their displeasure after their family has been murdered? Agitating for democracy? Human rights? For any and all of the things that the pampered parlor leftists take for granted in the US and Western Europe? It's not like we are talking about the German expatriate population in South America circa 1946 here, compadre. The people who fled Iraq most likely did so for agitating on behalf of causes that you claim to support, but if you believe that their having done so, along with the fact that they have actually lived in the country makes them unqualified to speak on behalf of their own people, fine. Remind me - again- how it is that you claim to be opposing the war out of concern for their well-being. It will be necessary for you to claim that the Iraqi people were better off under Saddam. While you are doing that, imagine yourself making the same arugments to the faces of the people in any of the towns that have been liberated thus far, and their reaction. For bonus points, try to make that argument without contravening the very principles that you claim to be arguing on behalf of - not supporting dictators, regimes that torture their people, suppress dissent, etc. Whenever these crises errupt, I'm on always on the verge of being surprised by the reactionary Leftist's ability to jettison the causes that supposedly matter to them - freedom from repression, from want, from hunger, from fear - in favor of the causes that really matter to them - strident opposition to the US, capitalism, etc - no matter what the result is for the people who's well-being that they claim to be interested in protecting. Then I remember the Cold War and the manner in which the Left agitated on behalf of the various totalitarian states that were slaughtering and brutally subjugating their people in the name the Left's pet political fantasy of the moment - Communism - for the entirety of the Cold War, despite the fact that the true nature of these regimes was readily apparent to anyone with even a passing interest in the facts. Then I can understand how the far Left can see any developments like those currently underway in Iraq - such as any rejoicing on the part of the Iraqi people when they no longer have to live in fear of Saddam - as absolutely detrimental to the causes that they really care about, like reflexively denouncing the US. Then it all makes sense. In any event, I suspect this is one of the last posts I'll ever have to make on this issue as the events unfolding in that country will discredit your arguments much more forcefully than anything I have to say ever could. Ciao

I've said it before, but it bears repeating. The US goes attacks Iraq and the Iraqi people are no longer ruled by Saddam Hussein. The US does not attack and the Iraqi people continue to be ruled by Saddam Hussein. Unless you believe that the people of Iraq will be better off under Saddam Hussein, you are not protesting on their behalf, and you are certainly not on a crusade for peace, as that word is not consistent with the conditions under which the Iraqi people have been living at any time for the past 20 years. Read the story below, or any of the infinite number of related stories you'll be reading in the coming days and months, then tell me again why you've been protesting. "Iraqi border village is the first to fall SAFWAN, Iraq Happiness and dread rose together Friday from this desolate border village, where some of the first Iraqis to encounter American and British troops found the joy of their deliverance muted by the fear that it was too good to last. . As hundreds of troops swept in here just after dawn, the heartache of a town that has felt some of the hardest edges of Saddam Hussein’s rule seemed to burst forth, with villagers running into the streets to celebrate in a kind of grim ecstasy, laughing and weeping in long guttural cries. . ‘‘Ooooooh, peace be upon you, peace be upon you, peace you, ooooooh,’’ Zahra Khafi, a 68-year-old resident, cried to a group of American and British visitors who came to the town shortly after Saddam’s army had appeared to melt away. ‘‘I’m not afraid of Saddam anymore.’’ . Two years ago, Khafi said, her 39-year son, Masood, was murdered by Saddam’s men for a crime no greater than devotion to the Shiite branch of Islam, which is out of official favor in Iraq. As Khafi told her story, her joy gave way to gloom, and she began to weep, and then to moan, and finally she pleaded with her visitors to stay and protect her. . ‘‘Should I be afraid?’’ Khafi said, mumbling and wiping her eyes. ‘‘Is Saddam coming back?’’ " Source However, I'm sure that the people in this village would have their joy muted if they only had one of our local activists there to scold them for their joy, and explain how dissapointing it is to see them validating the scourge of American militarism. Or how they should be marching in protest because the millitary action was not sanctioned by the UN, and is therefore immoral. Pack up a few of your signs, march into Safwan, and set them straight. I'm sure that you'll be welcome.

Googlism for: jay jay is the best jay is a founder and chairman of jay is ugly jay is coming to melbourne jay is not god jay is gonna kill me for this but jay is our hero jay is going to sytlandtaw jay is one heck of an actor jay is a great actor jay is not a mod here anymore jay is sooooooo cool jay is 100% straight jay is batboy? jay is correct jay is canadian jay is the man jay is it is a year 3 student from uwic jay is a nerd jay is right jay is talking about jay is like jay is switching to will's decaf jay is a founder and chairman of the scientific advisory board of nanomed pharmaceuticals jay is the best ever jay is so ugly jay is great jay is between 9 and 12 inches long jay is also ranked as a 6th dan in judo jay is slowly but surely getting his strength back jay is more then just a sexy stud jay is canadian continue to the non jay is a guy who knows how to use the modern to serve the past jay is a common jay is currently the resident lighting designer for the everyman theatre in baltimore and a freelance designer in the baltimore jay is also highly variable jay is clearly a techno by his appearance because he wears the techno "uniform" of black clothes jay is dead jay is a common and conspicuous denizen of the west jay is right posted by jb on july 05 jay is 42 degrees fahrenheit with a july temperature average of 80 degrees jay is probably not the greatest skater of all time jay is the coolest roadie in the world and now he has a fan club jay is as/w jay is the author of several articles on unix/linux security jay is available from davidfryerstudios jay is perhaps best known for his show "ricky jay and his 52 assistants jay is also is director of the five college tibetan studies in india program jay is my favorite playground jay is second to none by bear on may jay is 29 jay is a symbol of the proper use of power jay is an animated instructor who makes his classes fun and entertaining as well as educational jay is a jay is here now jay is a big mountain; it may not have as many 'trails' as other places jay is a bird all its own jay is the most colorful representative of its otherwise dull family in europe jay is a heterosexual jay is about of the size of the jackdaw jay is the founder of conscious action jay is found from east to west as far as north as the tree limit and south to where the northern evergreen forests end jay is the only bird endemic to florida jay is a senior at our local high school jay is one of the world's great sleight jay is open about the poems being not even representative of the poets themselves jay is connected to the following things jay is tall kay is tall elle is tall subject predicate object jay is taller than kay kay is taller than elle elle is taller than jay jay is common in suburbs jay is the culprit who is doing this mischief and is the root of harassment jay is recognized as one of the most adept manipulators of playing cards in the world jay is just the right combination of unquenchable curiosity and high jay is a storekeeper ii in the bureau of information services and he is truly a “jack jay is a real estate agent that is known in the community of pocatello for their dedicated client service jay is a loud jay is proud to have served america in countries our adversaries operated from jay is a slave to fashion trends jay is also invite as a monthly recident dj at on in off corso jay is a fully paid up member of the following organisations jay is veering too deeply into the philosophical jay is committed to keeping his knowledge of fitness training and nutrition current jay is a native of lake mahopac jay is also the fiefdom of bill stenger jay is very common and is our only bright blue bird with a prominent crest jay is a complex and unique individual jay is way up in northernvermont jay is also designing and carving two nine foot in diameter brick circles that flank the entrance jay is over 18 jay is happy to offer workshops on christian vocation and spirituality jay is similar in colour jay is also active in international oil and gas matters jay is teammates with his younger brother johnny jay is the blue jay's northerly cousin jay is a founder and chairman of jay is gone jay is a very friendly guy jay is a painter jay is going to sytlandtaw jay is not a mod here anymore jay is sooooooo cool jay is also casual jay is most likely to regress jay is like jay is 'the master of disco scratch' jay is the man jay is a nerd jay is a dumbass jay is geboren jay is canadian jay is a horrific thing to happen to the hip jay is a founder and chairman of the scientific advisory board of nanomed pharmaceuticals jay is not jay is probably not the greatest skater of all time jay is the best jay is a founder and chairman of jay is the best ever jay is ugly jay is not god jay is going to sytlandtaw jay is one heck of an actor jay is jay is a great eight track recording package that is so easy to use e jay is between 9 and 12 inches long jay is correct jay is caught jay is also ranked as a 6th dan in judo jay is slowly but surely getting his strength back jay is relocating jay is stuck in an artistic straitjacket of his own making jay is most jay is a relative of the raven and the crow jay is now a second year university student and he's studying to be a pharmacist jay is 'the master of disco scratch' friday jay is more then just a sexy stud jay is a top jay is also is director of the five college tibetan studies in india program jay is a common and conspicuous denizen of the west jay is clearly a techno by his appearance because he wears the techno "uniform" of black clothes jay is a very pretty bird that doesn't seem to be particularly shy of people jay is also highly variable jay is a common jay is 29 jay is a renowned sleight jay is a long jay is datng alison name jay is the author of several articles on unix/linux security jay is the founder of conscious action jay is the most colorful representative of its otherwise dull family in europe jay is a big mountain; it may not have as many 'trails' as other places jay is as/w jay is currently the resident lighting designer for the everyman theatre in baltimore and a freelance designer in the baltimore jay is 42 degrees fahrenheit with a july temperature average of 80 degrees jay is one of the few men in the world to ever receive this award and is also the youngest person to ever be nominated and win jay is a bird all its own jay is perhaps best known for his show "ricky jay and his 52 assistants jay is the best jay is a founder and chairman of jay is ugly jay is coming to melbourne jay is not god jay is gonna kill me for this but jay is our hero jay is jay is development coordinator with the northampton group jay is generally protected by provincial legislation jay is found from east to west as far as north as the tree limit and south to where the northern evergreen forests end jay is about of the size of the jackdaw jay is a senior at our local high school jay is open about the poems being not even representative of the poets themselves jay is a handsome but noisy bird jay is the only bird endemic to florida jay is it my cactus ? jay is one of the world's great sleight jay is common in suburbs jay is that he loves to tell stories jay is a loud jay is tall kay is tall elle is tall subject predicate object jay is taller than kay kay is taller than elle elle is taller than jay jay is like stepping into another world jay is a real estate agent that is known in the community of pocatello for their dedicated client service jay is hiphop jay is available from davidfryerstudios jay is way up in northern vermont jay is the most productive ally of the crime family jay is just the right combination of unquenchable curiosity and high jay is a slave to fashion trends jay is canadian continue to the non jay is the culprit who is doing this mischief and is the root of harassment jay is recognized as one of the most adept manipulators of playing cards in the world jay is an animated instructor who makes his classes fun and entertaining as well as educational jay is a trial attorney with particular experience in patent litigation jay is veering too deeply into the philosophical jay is trying not to paint himself into a corner jay is also invite as a monthly recident dj at on in off corso jay is the only western jay species with a crest jay is also the fiefdom of bill stenger jay is terrible

It's sunny. Ditch work early and climb. If you are working on a sick problem and need some aggravation to send it, I will supply long, tiresome political rants to bring about the necessary agitation. I will be there at around 4:00, and will likely be the only one with a shaved head. Introduce yourself.

let me translate this for you people: hurling 3000 missiles in 24 hours, 10,000lbs bombs, depleted uranium, etc ... is the 'judicious use of force' that will save orders of magnitude more lives than weapon inspections. Not what I was saying, and you know it. More civilians will die as a result of any sanctions regime (indefinite, vigorously enforced) capable of containing Saddam than will be killed in a war to remove him, as he has shown that the suffering of his own people is of little consequence to him. Unless a power other than the Baath regime is incontrol, which is will not happen unless Saddam is removed by force, the Baath regime will continue to inflict still more suffering on the Iraqis, until the world has seen enough, capitulates, withdraws both the inspectors and the sanction, and leaves him in power. It is a fact that Saddam will not let inspectors work unless compelled to by force, the force in question being the US millitary. Once we left there would, of course, nothing preventing him from re-arming once we left, thus rendering the entire inspections excercise utterly futile. Maybe in your world a Saddam that had endured systematic humiliation at gunpoint for several years would take up poetry and watercolors instead of rearming and seeking his vengance. Before I let this thread die, I'll say that although I couldn'tpossibly disagree more with your conclusions concerning what's best for Iraq, I do believe that you do, in fact, want that very thing - what is best for the Iraqi people, and respect the convictions that have led you to argue on behalf of those beliefs. Adios,

Your original point, I believe, was that removing Saddam by force would be pointless because the regime that followed would be at least as bad, or worse, because no regime that the US has ever installed after a war has ever been anything but an unmitigated disaster for the inhabitants of those nations. This is, in fact a false statement, as my examples showed. Iraq will not be instantaneously transformed into utopia no matter who comes to power, or how much money they spend. Duh. This is hardly grounds for claiming that the Iraqis will be better off if Saddam stays in power, but you can believe that if you wish, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and the testimony of the Iraqi people themselves. *Yes - tell me about the American invasion of Chile, and the manner in which our invading forces installed him as president aginst the fierce resistance of every citizen in that country. No Chileans had any role in either bringing Pinochet to power or keeping him there for 17 years. Please. There certainly weren't any dictators in South America before the CIA started meddling in their affairs, nor was there corruption, incompetence, and misrule. Brief History of Pinochet Era: In June 1973 he was made commander-in-chief, again because President Allende thought he could be trusted. Only a few months later, in September 1973, President Allende discovered how wrong he had been. He lost his life in the coup led by General Pinochet, who headed a military junta representing all branches of Chile's armed forces. But very quickly it was General Pinochet who came to represent the military regime, and it was he who ordered many of the purges that saw more than 3,000 supporters of the Allende regime killed, thousands more tortured, and many thousands more again forced into exile. Saw himself as a patriot The general is a hero to many He closed down the Chilean Parliament, banned all political and trade union activity, and in 1974 appointed himself president. General Pinochet has always defended his actions as those of a patriot who rescued his country from chaos and the threat of Communism.It seems that the general underestimated the extent of this discontent against his regime. The 1980 national constitution brought in by his military government set a timetable for the election of a president. It allowed for a referendum on whether or not Pinochet should be the only candidate. Much to his surprise and dismay, this proposal was rejected, and General Pinochet found himself having to allow the return of civilians to government. So in 1990 he reluctantly stepped down as president. He did however remain as commander-in-chief of the army, a position he frequently used to ensure both that there were no prosecutions against any members of the security forces suspected of human rights abuses during the 17-year military regime, and to block any radical political initiatives. In 1998 General Pinochet finally relinquished his post as commander-in-chief. The very next day, he took up a seat in parliament as a senator-for-life, another position he had created for himself in the 1980 constitution. Since then, he has insisted that his role as senator would be to promote reconciliation in Chilean society. But as events since his arrest have shown, General Pinochet is a figure who instantly polarises opinion not only in Chile but throughout the world. In the 1970s, many Chileans appeared to support this point of view, particularly as the economy recovered and stability returned to towns and countryside. But there was always opposition to his rule. By the mid-1980s the left-wing parties had re-grouped and organised protests that attracted increasing numbers, while in 1986 the armed groups fighting his rule narrowly failed in an assassination attempt. Popular backlash It seems that the general underestimated the extent of this discontent against his regime. The 1980 national constitution brought in by his military government set a timetable for the election of a president. It allowed for a referendum on whether or not Pinochet should be the only candidate. Much to his surprise and dismay, this proposal was rejected, and General Pinochet found himself having to allow the return of civilians to government. So in 1990 he reluctantly stepped down as president. He did however remain as commander-in-chief of the army, a position he frequently used to ensure both that there were no prosecutions against any members of the security forces suspected of human rights abuses during the 17-year military regime, and to block any radical political initiatives. In 1998 General Pinochet finally relinquished his post as commander-in-chief. The very next day, he took up a seat in parliament as a senator-for-life, another position he had created for himself in the 1980 constitution. Since then, he has insisted that his role as senator would be to promote reconciliation in Chilean society. But as events since his arrest have shown, General Pinochet is a figure who instantly polarises opinion not only in Chile but throughout the world. Source

The present administration in Germany is better than the one that preceded it, as is the regime in Japan, as is the regime in Panama. You are referring to regimes that the US supported, rather than governments that the US directly installed after deposing the previous regimes by force. There is a difference, and the US's history is much more successful in this regard than you have acknowledged. Further, it would scarcely be possible for a worse regime than the present one to materialize in Iraq in any realistic scenario, which explains why the Iraqis who are free to speak on the matter declare themselves willing to take this risk.

I have to compliment you on your vigorous efforts to justify the use of the word hogwash in reference to my arguments, but if you are going to go to all of the trouble of constructing a counterargument, your efforts would be better directed against the arguments that I have acutally made. Since I am a generous guy, I'll both repeat and clarify what I actually said so that your next round of counterarguments will not be in vain. The French are free to do whatever they wish, and they have availed themselves of this freedom on many occaisions, such as deploying troops to prop up the Hutu regime while they were literally slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Tutsis, suppressing colonial revolts around the globe, sinking the "Rainbow Warrior," detonating their nukes in the South Pacific, wailing about the aggressive cultural imperialism that manifested itself in the form of "EuroDisney," etc, etc. I have never said that they should always do what we want them to. What I have said, again, is that anyone who believes that the French are opposing war in Iraq for any reasons that even bear a vague resemblance to humanitarian reasons must have only a passing aquaintance with reality, and the history of their conduct proves as much. As a helpful hint, I suggest that you come up with factual examples that refute the claims that I have made if you really want to argue against what I have actually been saying. I have also argued that the if the French succeed in preventing an American led attack on Iraq, it is certain that the Iraqi people will continue to live under the Baath regime. I have also said that if the US does go to war with Iraq the Iraqis will not be ruled by Saddam Hussein. So, again - unless you are prepared to argue that in the long term the Iraqi people will be better off under Saddam Hussein, you are not opposing the war for their sake. See above. Repeat if necessary. The reason that Iraqi opinion cannot be quantified is because the prospect of death by torture makes them a bit less inclined to offer opinions that might be construed as uncharitable by Saddam. When they are free to speak their mind, e.g. when the find themselves out of Iraq and beyond Saddam's reach, there are very few voices indeed that sing the praises of the Baath regime. Are you aware of any organized efforts on the part of Iraqi refugees anywhere in the world to keep Saddam in Power? Is it a coincidence that every organized group of Iraqi refugees has the removal of Saddam from power by any means available to them as their primary objective? I would agree that many Iraqis view the US invasion of their country as a necessary evil that will serve the purpose of ridding them of Saddam Hussein, and they will quickly grow tired of our presence if we wear out our welcome, but that is something altogether different than actually opposing the invasion. Not true. It was merely one of many examples in which pacifism led several orders of magnitude more death and destruction than the judicious use of force would have, and when Europeans in general, and the French in particular saw considered it more moral condone murder in the name of pacificism than to actually prevent it by means of war. The situation merely illustrates one of many situtations in which pacifism was not an ethically defensible position, nothing more. I will concede that you did an admirable job of demolishing several claims and/or arguments that I never made. Keep working, Comrade. You can do better.

I'll let the Iraqi's themselves reply for me here: "One Iraqi American had a message he hoped protesters would hear: "If you want to protest that it's not okay to send your kids to fight, that's okay. But please don't claim to speak for the Iraqis. We've seen 5 million people protesting, but none of them were Iraqis. They don't know what's going on inside Iraq. France and whoever else, please shut up." Source " Source When I asked the Iraqis in exile about dire predictions from some humanitarian and anti-war organizations that tens of thousands or more might die in an attack, they had several responses. First they said that people were already dying today under Saddam. Secondly they said that, from their experience of the last war, precision-guided missiles were, on the whole, accurate, and as for long-term postwar consequences this did not seem to worry them either. Jamila told me that the people she spoke to on the phone or who had just arrived from Baghdad "think the war is going to be very short." If that is the case, she said, then the country would rapidly be opened up for aid and reconstruction. She also told me that people she spoke to said they feared what Saddam might do to them following an attack—i.e., he might create a humanitarian crisis for the sake of a propaganda coup, beyond what American or British bombs could do. As for the huge anti-war demonstrations in the West and the fact that most Arabs and Muslims are also against a war, they said simply, and bitterly, that it was easy for them since they didn't have to live under Saddam. " See above. There's more where that came from. As I stated above, I understand this reluctance, but refusing to even consider using force no matter how great the evil it would avert, and how many lives it would save is not a defensible ethical posture, no matter how traumatized one may be. Exhibit A - The German invasion of the Rhineland in 1939 with battalion level strength. This was a test of French nerve, which they failed, despite the fact that they had dozens of divisions massed along the border and the Germans had left their Southern Flank dangerously exposed to any French offensive by massing their forces along the border with the Sudetenland in an effort to intimidate the Czechs. Had the French acted with resolve in this instance or honored their treaty obligations to defend Czechloslovakia, the untold millions that perished in Europe during that war might have lived. The fact that this is how some people obtain their ethics does not mean that the beliefs that they derive in this manner are legitimate or defensible. By this logic we would have to refrain from criticizing the ethics of someone raised to be a Neo-Nazi, Skinhead, or Klansmen because they were derived from their life experience. We have specific treaty arrangements that oblige us to protect them in the event that they are attacked, e.g. NATO. While the Europeans put armies in the field in an effort to defend themselves, it surely was not a paralyzing fear of open conflict with the Belgian Army that kept the Russians in check for the duration of the Cold War. A defacto protectorate rather than an official protectorate to be sure, but a protectorate all the same. Anyway, the fact of the matter is that we have not told the French or the Europeans to take any active measures to assist us - we have objected to their efforts to constrain us. There is a difference. Tell me what other realistic options you have in mind. Sanctions? Actually, it was the specific absence of any overwhelming strategic interest that kept the US from deploying forces to stop these slaughters sooner. Not a proud moment for the US in my book, but it was the US who did, in fact, stop the carnage eventually. What strategic interest did we have in Somalia? Haiti? Sometimes we have acted for strategic reasons, sometimes our actions have been motivated by higher purposes, although many on the lunatic fringe of the left wing have attempted to evade this simple truth. One thing at a time. Simply because it is not within our power a magic wand and end all human suffering in an instant does not mean that we should not use the power we have to do what we can, where we can. The reality is that most of the time it will take a compelling strategic interest to generate the political will to act. In the best of all possible worlds, this would not be the case - but that is not the world that we live in. BTW my political beliefs have quite a bit more in common with those held by European Liberals than American conservatives, at least when it comes to God, Guns, Greenery, Gays, etc.

Next time you log in bring back the "Smoke Crack and Worship Satan Autosig,"

That was some totally sick usage of the word sick, yo. What about Trip Master %$#ing Monkey?! Has anyone even bothered to look at the damned photo? I'm telling you, that sucker is soooooo sick........

Surely you can piece together a better counterargument than that, Comrade. Best Regards,

The Bachar-Yerian route sounds pretty sick to me. Something like 3 bolts on 120' of dead vertical knobs. Another route that brings the word sick to mind: Trip Master Monkeya 12b offwidth at Vedauwoo.

The French are attempting to prevent a war in Iraq for reasons that have little or nothing to do with the welfare of the Iraqi people. If they succeed the Iraqis will continue to live under Saddam Hussein. Let's assume that the US and Brittain are attempting to wage war in Iraq for reasons that have little or nothing to do with the welfare of the Iraqi people. If they succeed the people of Iraq will not be ruled by Saddam Hussein. Unless you are prepared to argue that the people of Iraq will be better off under Saddam Hussein, it would seem that your opposition to the war is motivated by objections to the US pursuing its interests, rather than what is in the best interests of the Iraqi people. As far as Europe is concerned, I am quite familiar with the history of that continent, especially the period in which WWI and WWII were fought. Understanding how their direct experience of these two wars would lead them to avoid war at any cost is one thing, claiming that this is an ethically defensible stance is quite another. Exhibit A - Kosovo. Exhibit B - Bosnia. Beyond their history, another factor which has influenced the European worldview has been their status as an American protectorate for the past 50 years. Over this time they have come to the mistaken conclusion that the European model of conflict resolution - by committee - is universally valid for all times and all circumstances, and their impotent dithering in the face of the senseless carnage in the former Yugoslavia demonstrates this as forcefully as an example ever could. So Europeans haven't engaged in warfare with one another since America made that impossible, and haven't taken up arms against a foreign threat since America assumed that responsibility for them. This hardly makes them the global champions of human welfare that they claim to be, as their conduct in defense of what was left of their colonial empires showed in the past, and as their abject refusal to use force even to prevent yet another genocide in the heart of their own continent shows now.

. True - where it applies. In this case it doesn't. The US hasn't told France to do anything. They may object to the US telling Iraq what to do in this case, but as both their history - recall the case of the Suez Canal (old)and their recent conduct in Africa (current) -and Chirac's threats to withold EU membership from the prospective entrants from the Eastern Block for their pro-US stance on this matter demonstrate, they are are in no position to claim that telling others what to do is a unique shortcoming on the US's part. My point in highlighting both the historical and current shortcomings of French conduct was not to suggest that the worst stereotypes of the French are true, but simply to illustrate the point that anyone that thinks that the French are attempting to prevent an attack on Iraq for humanitarian reasons (Rwanda - see above), to maintain the integrity of international law/agreements (nuclear testing in the Pacific) or for any reason that extends beyond naked self interest is delusional - and both Chirac's personal actions during this crisis and France's longstanding history of using whatever means that they have at their disposal to constrain the US demonstrate this as clearly as anything possibly could. Name a French PM since DeGaul who hasn't made restoring/maintaining French influence the centerpiece of their foreign policy. Take your time on this one. Moreover, the fact that a particular claim has widespread appeal amongst conservatives doesn't invalidate the claim anymore than left-wingers promulgating it would. The statements about the Arabs and the Germans don't resemble anything I've ever said about either of these peoples. The Arabs have many historical reasons for resenting the West, most of which have to do with their continually declining power with respect to/colonization by various Western powers. IMO the Arabs resent the US specifically because of the fact that various strategic imperatives like that little Cold War thingy compelled us - and all of Europe - to lend our support to quite a number of terrible regimes in the Middle East, of which Saddam's Baath party was just one, and our ongoing support for Israel. I think that of the two the former reason makes more sense, but have made it a point to remind anyone that I have discussed this issue with that the cases of Iran, Libya, and Syria show that Arabs are quite capable of bringing brutal tyrants to power and subjugating themselves without any help from us. Moreover, as far the vast majority of the "Arab Street" is concerned, Israel could cease to exist tomorrow and that wouldn't change their political/economic situation one iota. The Germans have become systematically pacifist as a reaction to their history, which I can understand, but having brought one of the more despicable regimes in human history into being is not an excuse for leaving another such regime in place. If they want to be at peace with their history, exerting themselves on behalf of removing Saddam from power would serve that end much better than engaging in efforts that will effectively keep such a man in place.

These principled objections to to telling anyone what to do (which of course you must have if you object to receiving any such instruction yourself) of course explains why they deployed their troops to enforce a massively unpopular treaty in the Ivory Coast. The term "Hogwash" certainly is an effective substitute for a well constructed counterargument, though. You win.

His recent pronuncements have made it clear that any moral or humanitarian concerns he may have had about the use of force in Iraq are secondary to his primary objective, which is to constrain US power by any means at his disposal - the French seat on the UN security council in this case - and thereby enhance what's left of France's significance of a global power. This of course is consistent with the strategy that guided French diplomacy for the majority of the Cold War, in which France attempted to establish itself as the leader of the "Non-Aligned" nations and thereby serve as a counterweight to both the US and the Soviet Union. The problem with this stance is that is that it is predicated on the delusion that the US and the Soviet Union were morally equivalent, and that a victory for either would be equally disastrous for humanity. Not even the French believed that, but it served as a passable rationale for them to continue masqeurading as a global power despite the fact their status as such has been in steady decline relative to the rest of the world since Waterloo, as their shameful capitulation in WWII made abundantly clear. The US has its own sins to answer for, but those were necessitated by the perogatives of the Cold War rather than a naked desperation to restore a long faded glory. Further, I challenge anyone who is under the delusion that France is opposed to an attack on Iraq for humanitarian reasons to take a close look at French history, beginning with their conduct in the wars they waged to maintain control of their overseas colonies. Start with Algeria and work towards the present. More recent highlights include sending forces to buttress the Hutu regime responsible for slaughtering one million Tutsi's (more in "We Wish to Inform You that Tommorrow We Will be Killed Along With Our Families," by Phillip Gourevitch) and thereby thwarting band of Rwandan rebels who were attempting to arrest the carnage, and fraternizing with Robert Mugabe even as he engineers a famine for his political opponents in Zimbabwe. Whatever rationale they may claim for their actions, they certainly cannot claim that the either the future or the security of anyone rested on them. They have never felt obliged to have the UN Security Council's endorsement prior to deploying their own troops - exhibit A being their current involvement in the Ivory Coast- and they are certainly in no position to demand that the US do so. BTW - anyone remember Kosovo? Remember the UN resolution authorizing the use of force to end the slaughter there?

I couldn't agree more. This is why we: 1)Didn't seize control of the oilfields in 1991 when we had 500,000 troops sitting on top of them. 2)Didn't just unilaterally end the sanctions on Saddam and buy all of the oil that he could pump. 3)Are proposing to make expenditures necessary to overthrow the Baath Regime by force, then rebuild the entire country, that are well in excess of any net revenues that selling Iraq's oil would generate, even if they were directly controlled by the US government in their entirety.

Ditto on the Kudos for the TR. Thanks for putting in the effort and sharing those killer photos.

That Sucks Jordop. I almost bought some stuff from that store. The only thing stopping me was a lingering suspicion that if anything happened to my order the only recourse that I would have would be French Customer Service ....