sexual_chocolate

Exactly. When will the world's largest superpower figger it out? (Hint: They don't wanna.)

Well, I suppose Saddam's sanity is really a question of subjective interpretation, no? I consider him to be as sane as any other major player in international gamesmanship, and even quite a good player at that. I also consider him to be a tyrant, unbelievably vicious, yet does this give us grounds to attack? Of course not. We have allies who are almost as bad, and that's probably why we're not playing that card as heavily, cuz the duplicity would be even more apparent. Iraq poses absolutely no threat to us or its neighbors. Any major military build-up would be evident, even without inspections. And they'd never consider exporting "terrorism"; they can't afford takign the chance, unless they are attacked and subdued. Terrorism is a multi-headed Hydra, and I truly believe that much of our efforts to deal with it will only inflame it. Doesn't anyone here follow the Israeli situation? Tighten the clamps, and even more attacks begin. Stability comes from diplomacy, honest and sincere diplomacy. Without it, you open the gates of hell.

And not only is the UW rock the best climbing in town, it has a plethora of new routes being developed, mainly in the V7 and up category, cuz that's really the only direction for development: harder.

Your last point first: Pre-'91 Iraq enjoyed one of the highest, if not the highest, standards of living in any Arab middle-east country! It was quite socialized, with most enjoying the benefits of a rather substantial oil reserve. It had a sizable middle class, modern infrastrucures, a working economy. This flies in the face of your assertion that lifting the sanctions wouldn't benefit average Iraqis; it is the sanctions and only the sanctions that have decimated the country (without getting into the argument as to who's responsible). Regarding your penultimate point: As addressed by our French diplomat, Iraq was 95% disarmed by the initial inspections, as stated by the American weapons inspector. We want 100% disarmament (in accordance with UN protocols), which is either fair or not fair, based on one's viewpoint. Regarding this last issue, a formidable argument can be made that the draconian requirements of the Treaty of Versailles led directly to the rise of Hitler. I would suggest that the draconian requirements and sanctions concerning Iraq will lead to forms of blowback yet unknown. Perhaps 9/11 was one example? Ths doesn't even address the morality of what we have done to Iraq, post-'91. As far as the morality of Iraq's Kuwaiti invasion: It had as much validity as did our invasion of Panama, Grenada, Nicaragua, and countless other maneuvers. When are we going to disarm?

God muffy, you are so pro-war. What's up with that?

Nice, Trask, you leftist hippie.

Hey, likewise.

Certain economic indicators that are trumpeted by neo-liberals as signs of great success are often, upon closer inspection, nothing but smoke-screens, hiding continuing disparities behind such terms as "GNP", "GDP", etc.. Many of the indicators used have very little to do with the actual living conditions of the majority of the people, as was the case in S. America when it was a favorite pet of the IMF and World Bank during the last decade. Even in the US, the last decade was heralded as a period of incredible growth, and that it was, for a few. We saw an unbelievably large movement of wealth into the hands of a few, with most people seeing a DECLINE in general standard of living indicators. If I remember correctly, never since such stats have been kept, has such a small percentage of people controlled such a large percentage of total wealth in the US. Of course this can be seen not as a failure of our system, but as a necessary consequence during a time of incredible technological growth, but when free-market capitalism has a history of repeating this cycle over and over again (putting most of the wealth into the hands of very few), it seems we have a problem. (And now some push for tax cuts, further exacerbating the problem! "More growth, more growth!" they yell, as if economic growth can be infinite within a finite time-frame.... I'm not terribly familiar with the "asian tiger" phenomenon. I remember a massive amount of wealth being generated in southeast asia, but I really don't know how that wealth spread itself throughout the population, something that I would expect to be a major component when analyzing the success of any economic system. When any economic structure fails to deliver for the "people", then calls for its replacement will be heard. Capitalism hears this call, rightfully and understandably so, as communistic state-run economies hear this call. This will continue to be the case, even in successful examples of both systems, such as Sweden (socialistic), or the US (more free-market driven). Oh, and I'm not familiar with Chile either. What kind of turn-around did they experience with the institution of neo-liberal fiscal policy? My understanding was that they had followed an economic path with similarities to our own, under the close tutelage of US economic support....? Cuz they had been an ally for quite a while, enjoying liberal trade priveledges....? Ever since Pinochet....? Again, I'm not very familiar.

The only problem is that what has happened in practice is that the poor and oppressed became both more impoverished and more intensely subjugated after the implementation of these policies. Good intentions are nice, but the true measure of any political philosophy are the results it produces. No other political philosophy in history has century has produced a more impressive catalogue of misery, suffering, and repression (China, Russia, North Vietnam, North Korea, Cambodia, etc, etc) than the "sharing" at gunpoint that you seem to be in favor of. It is one thing to have supported such policies prior to the 80-100 million odd deaths that are a direct consequence of their implementation, but to do so now suggests a startling willingess to disregard facts that run counter to one's ideological fantasies. In Venezuela now, as with the examples cited above, the folks in charge seize control of the capital and the productive resources in the name of helping the poor, when what is really happening, of course, is that they are merely consolidating their power. Once the new regime has assumed power over the economy, they have all of the power that they need to effectively control every aspect of political life in that country, as any citizen who opposes them is likely to lose his livelihood, and any corporation that resists state domination can be overtaken by decree. Once this happens you can set your watch and observe the new regime squander what's left of the nation's hard currency reserves and industrial capital, missallocate the state's productive resources, and the population begin their slow death spiral into abject subjugation and poverty. For Venezuelans, unlike the ideological voyeurs cheering on Chavez in this country, these are not mere abstractions but concrete realities that they are staring in the face, and that is what they were striking to prevent. If you were really concerned with the well-being of the poor and downtrodden in that country, you'd be on their side. Actually, I think we have to disagree on this one. You mentioned totalitarian regimes, and Hugo was democratically elected. I think the opposition should simply wait 'til the legally mandated recall election in August. And you seem to keep forgetting he was elected? I believe around %70 of the people live below the poverty line. Sheesh. Neo-liberal capitalist reform didn't do much to solve their problems, did it? Nor has it done anything to solve the problems of most Latin countries. And one more thing, most governments, including ours, are a blend of free-market capitalism and socialism. I really don't think it could be anything else, even though some staunch ideologues are pushing harder and harder. I believe that mindless free-market capitalism is just as dangerous and destructive as totalitarian socialism. Oh, and did I mention Hugo was democratically elected?

That's fucked up. Really. I think the people who shot should be tried and prosecuted, all the way up the chain of complicity, if evidence indicates the need for such. I also have to say I don't know the particulars of the case either. What do you think about this matter, and the entire presidency of Chavez?

com·mu·ni·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-myn-t) n. pl. com·mu·ni·ties A group of people living in the same locality and under the same government. The district or locality in which such a group lives. A group of people having common interests: the scientific community; the international business community. A group viewed as forming a distinct segment of society: the gay community; the community of color. Similarity or identity: a community of interests. Sharing, participation, and fellowship. Actually, as we see above, the word "community" DOES denote some of the implications intended in the post you were replying to. Just trying to keep our semantics clear. Anything else I can help you with? Oh, there was one more thing: In your zeal to label socialism an intrusive politics of oppression, you conveniently forgot to mention the conditions it has often tried to correct-a condition supremely indifferent to the rights of certain individuals, often the poor and oppressed. This still goes on, in many countries that call themselves progressive and egalitarian. Sharing means caring, even if I have to hold a gun to your head, you greedy bastard! Have a nice day! (Meant towards no one in particular....)

Whatcha talking 'bout, Jay? Ya talking 'bout the strike, or sumpthin'?

You are absolutely correct, and that's why I made the comment about Fairweather. His anti-socialist slant runs so strong that he can't even assess the facts surrounding many issues. This issue in particular was the legitimacy of Hugo Chavez' presidency. I consider his presidency to be entirely legitimate, based on all the information I have gleaned from various sources; Fairweather considers his presidency illegitimate, based on what I can only assume to be ideological differences. Fairweather seems to be concerned only with the fact that Chavez is more of a socialist than he would like, while ignoring the larger context of Chavez' legal standing. Observing this type of behaviour repeatedly allows me to make the claim that I did-namely-that Fairweather cannot see past his ideology. Only because Fairweather's arguments were scientifically unverifiable or observable was I able to make the assertion I did. See above for refutation. The fact that I tend to disagree with Fairweather's philosophy and/or demagoguery has nothing to do with the facts regarding a particular case. I think I argued this quite clearly in my refutation of his views regarding Chavez. This is an interesting topic for me. I would actually venture forth the idea that indeed "bad" does cause "good", and vice-versa. First of all, as you say, there needs to exist both nodes for reference; without "bad", we'd have no idea what "good" was, at least in any meaningful way. Morality as modifier of human behaviour would cease to exist (not without its own perils!). So in this context, I'd say that human behaviour is certainly modified by both the signifier ("good" or "bad"), as well as the signified (the action denoted by the signifier). The pressures a humanoid faces when growing up in any society are almost entirely defined by codified expectancies inherent in the dualities presented by the "good" vs. "bad" schema that all culture has as its backbone. If this can be accepted, then we must accept that "good" causes "bad", and "bad" causes "good"; otherwise we must deny the reality of culture itself, a rather heady proposition! I believe Osama would be in full agreement with Plato's views on justice. I think we simply need to ask him: Hey Fairweather, are you uncomfortable thinking of yourself in the role of your enemy? I kinda like "Do unto others...."

I think this stance is more borne from scientific observation than mere ideology. I've never come across an argument that didn't have more than one view being postulated. Hell, inherent to discursive thought is bifurcation. Thought can never capture the totality of reality (an ideology!); hence, the unattainability of GUT (another ideology!). Exactly. But one must take into account the differing theories, something Fairweather seems to have a hard time doing because of his ideological blinders. Actually, if we are to believe in the notion of "bad people", then absolutely their existence leads to recursion; if everyone was good, then all would be good, right? But, I for one don't believe in the notion of "bad people"; I believe more in the notion of a Platonic ignorance, where all really want justice (an ideology, extended from observation!). Then here in this last part you kind of lost me. Sorry.

Let's not obfuscate. The topic wasn't Gore vs. Bush.

"As demonstrated by WWII, sometimes the quickest way to peace is through war." So this is what you wanted me to respond to? I don't know if I'd agree; WWII went on for 6 years! Although it certainly seems that WWII was necessary (if entirely decontextualized?).

No.

Fairweather. This is getting silly. I support Bush's impeachment because I believe him to be a dangerous man pursuing policies outside the scope of domestic and international law. If he was impeached, he would stand trial and the facts would come out in their entirety. The legality of this process is spelled out by our constitution. Is this much clear? Chavez was elected president by a majority of Venezuelans, mainly the poor. He is simply standing by his commitments to his constituency, and many are having a problem with that. The calls for a re-election don't have legal backing! The Venezuelan constitution does not support Chavez' opposition! Chavez is in the right, completely, within the legal frame-work of Venezuela. Why do you have a hard time accepting this? Because you disagree with his policies? Get over it! He won the election, fair and square. My support of Bush's impeachment and my support of the legitimacy of Chavez' presidency has no double-standard what-so-ever. Both positions are rooted in the legal frame-work of either country. Now if I was demanding that Bush step down, that would be silly, right? This is what Chavez' opposition is demanding in Venezuela.

Alright then, I'll play. What was the question? Something about the relevance of history for understanding the present? Of course of course. But the comparisons must be valid. And I only see a most superficial validity in comparing Saddam and Iraq to Hitler and Germany. Saddam has no expansionist policy. Saddam has no capacity for pursuing an expansionist policy. Saddam has been disarmed, and is making no moves to create the capacity for an expansionist policy. Saddam allows inspections of his country. (By the way, I wonder if you knew that Clinton pressured the UN to pull the inspectors out? Iraq did not kick them out. Just a little side-note, to clarify an oft-repeated error.) Hitler spelled out, quite clearly and early on, what his intentions were. There was no nuclear technology to act as a deterrent back then. Ahh jeez, I can't believe I'm debating this with a John Birch society member. If you can't see the dissimilarities, then you probably don't want to. There is no question you have the right to believe what you want to. Let's just say we disagree, and leave it at that! And: I'm not anti-america. It's just that there's so much going on with the current administration that I disagree with, it only seems I'm entirely anti-america. There are many things beautiful about this country!

I don't have time to address anything beyond your Chavez comment: He was elected, and his constitution obliges him to serve out his term. Why on earth would you have a problem with that? Are you saying that if enough people started rallying for Bush's ouster, he should simply step down? Don't be silly! There are constitutional guide-lines here, just as there are in Venezuela.

E-rock....if you are attempting to refer to me, I have nothing to retract or concede. I've just reread my original post in light of the ones that follow and I stand by my comments. Perhaps you are referring to yourself in your quote. I accept your apology. No hard feelings....have a beer and some sausage: "frustrated" Allison: there is no anger here. On the other hand, I have no interest in discussing anything controversial with you. The first time we ever met you started that up and I'm not interested in repeating the experience (and it ain't because I felt you had the upper hand.) I think we get along better talking about things that don't have to do directly with the outdoors or climbing. Muffster: I ain't upset. THIS IS SPRAY, to which you contribute at least your fair share. Listen to catbirdseat...If you don't like my opinion, you can always ignore me. I ignore you 99% of the time. But don't expect everyone to agree with your views. Relax, who the hell cares what Dwayner thinks? Take it or leave it. It's a doggone internet spray parlor!Again, if you're going to resort to name calling, at least check your spelling. It's "horse's ass". Here...Dwayner's gonna buy Muffy a beer: I hope you like it....it's Mickey's, and a lot of people enjoy it if you don't tell them what it is or show them the bottle. Kind of like Spam.... "what's in this here sandwich? It's good!" Why it's Spam! "But I don't like Spam!" Have you ever tried it? "No. But I don't like Spam!" Then call it something else and you'll feel better about it. So here's a Spam sando to go with the Mickey's: mmmmm good! Enjoy your weekend and keep on sprayin. Really! Sexy-Cocoa.......ah, never mind....I'm not even going to dignify you with anything more than "keep on Moon-Dancing", whatever the heck that is. Jon...I hate to admit it, but you're right. This thread, which was meant as a semi-provocative/semi-humorous Spray topic (Just consider the title!), has taken a number of obnoxious turns. Yes, the shark has been jumped here. Not once, but perhaps three or four times. If anything positive has come out of this, it would be the thread-drifters who posted the cool photos of El-Cap and "Canary" on Castle Rock. - Dwayner Hmmm.... Just a little too transparent, if'n you ask me. But I think he convinced himself, though, at least partially!

Sexual Chamberlain, I propose that you are THE LAST person on this board who should call another here "santimonious". Who, ME? But you can't deny that the kettle is black!

Glacierdog: We can't go kicking out every leader we disagree with, agreed? In the Saudi regime (our ally!), public executions occur, I believe amputation as punishment occurs, de-tongueings, public stonings, etc.. Everything we accuse Saddam of doing. In Egypt, the regime (our ally!) is accused of numerous human rights abuses. In pakistan (our ally!), Musharref is accused of multiple human rights abuses, including the torture of the president he illegally ousted! Did you know that in Iran, the CIA helped overthrow a democratically elected leader, replacing him with a dictator (the Shah), who was then a leading human rights abuser? Ever heard of Pinochet? He killed THOUSANDS of his own people, all with the backing of the US. We turn a blind eye to Syria, and now we support a dictator in I believe Tajikistan, who is erecting statues of himself in public areas, and is accused of multiple human rights abuses. I can go on and on.... In Afghanistan, we have allowed the warlords to take back the countryside, with all the resultant chaos (rape, robbery, murder, extortion, bribery, etc.), all unchecked.What do you thin kwe accomplished there? I'll tell you: Nothing! So as bad as Saddam might be- and he IS bad- don't for a second believe that we are trying to go in because he's a bad guy; that has NOTHING to do with it. If he was supporting our cause, he'd be back on our side instantly, no matter WHAT his human rights record was. Remember, he WAS our ally through the '80's, even shaking Rumsfeld's hand. Reagan even gave him an old revolver as a gift, if I remember right. His human rights record was actively worse back then. Shoot, was else can I say? I think the record speaks for itself. Now tell me, what do you think about all this, if you accept what I say as fact? (Investigate it all on your own. I think you owe it to yourself, especially if you're gonna be fighting for these crooks.)

Allowing the UN weapons inspections to continue is not ignoring the problem. Israel poses a much greater threat to world stability than does Iraq.

Oh, and the rally was awesome. It was cool to see so many people from all walks of life, participating in what they think is so important. I personally felt pretty somber, but definitely psyched by all the involvement. The rally must have stretched from the Center all the way to the INS. Dwayner, you would have especially enjoyed the street puppeteers, although there weren't more than a couple; mainly just average run-of-the-mill folk demonstrating against mindless unjustified violence. I hope that all of you who care feel inspired by the events. 1 million marched in Rome, almost a million in London (does that give the British leadership something to think about?), and countless thousands in major cities around the world. I'm somber, but also hopeful that all this opposition will put the brakes on Bush's war plans. Cheers!