MtnGoat

"so if I follow your argument, invading Iraq to take out Saddam (and killing 1000's of muslims in the process) will diminish the threat of having a small group of muslim extremists (who are still pissed off about the crusades) getting inside the US?" No, it will diminish the chances the ones who do inevitably get in will have nukes, nerve gas, and bioweapons. I do not tie 911 to the Saddam issue by causality, I think he probably had a hand in it, but he's slick so I can't prove it. Fine. The real issue is these nutcakes, are out there right now. Saddam is the most likely source of strategic weapons. Wether or not he uses them is not a primary concern, because IMO he is enough of a bastard to wait years on end and *then* slip one out to be used by someone else. Given the depravity shown in the 911 attacks, I defy anyone to tell me that wouldn't have been a much larger weapon had they only had one. I support taking out the most likely armory for precisely the people who do intend to kill us. Related to 911, but not because I think Saddam did it, because he is *known* to train and arm Islamic radicals.

First off let me start by saying this has been pretty entertaining thread, and it's fun to have some folks who disagree to this extent having it out, Just felt like making sure during a rowdy and direct thread, you folks knew I appreciate the back and forth going on here. That said, I'll dig in. Had a late 420 recently so you are in for it. j_b I believe: _______________________________________________ Why don't you humor us and explain how say, the social impact of affirmative action (or whatever you prefer) is comparable to that of waging war? ________________________________________________ It's very simple. Presumably you are objecting to the fact I want to pay someone to go point guns at other people, and shoot them if necessary. The rock bottom reason affirmative action functions, is because to enforce it, you pay people to do the exact same thing. Unenforced laws do not do anything. When you make me hire a person I don't want to hire, by law, you are threatening me with the same act you don't want me threatening Iraqis with. You don't want me aiming guns at them, but you support aiming guns at me. You pay for it, you say it's right, you support it, and you support jail time, right? IMO the 3rd ultimate coercion, the loss of control of irreplaceable time from an individuals life. Made possible by the 2nd level coercion, the physical coercion and bodily threat of men with guns who come to take me. The ultimate coercion of course, is death, the backer of all the lower coercions. Just like atoms make up molecules, the threat we back to enforce laws makes up the legal system at it's rawest base. So I find it comparable to say you want to pay people to aim guns at people, for whatever reason, just as I do, for others. I pay my taxes like you, vote for coercion, just like you, which supports it in the collective manner which democracy indicates. My support of war is every bit the level as your support of affirmative action. The reasons for each differ, but the raw implementation, where the rubber meets the road, is the fear of what the men with guns will do when they come for you. Coercion is what drives laws on all levels. If we cannot admit this openly, we cannot examine how the systems we coexist with really operate either. I recognize the evils of coercion, the loss of basic liberty. I also recognize the damnable need for it in some cases. I realize the violates the purity of principle one hopes for. This is why I judge each case of social "good" by the fact that I will only get that "good", by aiming guns at the people around me. I don't like it, and seek to do so as sparingly as possible. Which is unfortunate,as in this case, it is you who stand aiming a gun at me on this issue of AA, while I refuse to aim one at you for it. I agree with it's intent and act that way in my life with what I control and do, but I cannot be so sure of myself I'll threaten others to act the same. Wars are a different case for me. I know we disagree on this issue, but I believe there are people who have very bad intent towards us. It could be many, it could be few, but I damned well know they are there, they've shown me they are there, they *say* they are there, what more do I need? I am not obligated by my aversion to coercion to allow people to come and kill me. With this in mind, I allow myself to support my proxies in going forth to use those damned guns for me. For me to support this by proxy, I must be convinced I am in need of bodily protection from violence. For you to support your armed men by proxy, you need to feel that your moral standpoint on hiring overrides anyone elses personal feelings, control of their actions, decisions. l_b_____________________________________________ are you sure that volunteerism is the only thing in play here? funny how our military is not representative of all socio-economic strata of society. _______________________________________________ Are we operating from an unknown standard where we assume all races sexes or groups or religions will randomly distibute themselves perfectly into every area of life? If there is no draft, people are entering voluntarily. The inducements of differing kinds of lifes, decisions, values, etc on any one person and these pressures must be borne, by them. Sure, a demographic represents something about those choosing to enter it and the forces on them exterally. But there is no causality to show discrimination in the entry process. _______________________________________________ If I go up to a cop and tell him I'm going to shoot someone at the restauarant, do they have to wait until I do? Don't I have free speech? __________________________________________ L_B: if you really think this is what they said you have problems with reading" This is not what I think they said. What I thought you were saying is acting on peoples free speech when it is threatening is oppression or something. __________________________ me: "nor freedom from investigation if you threaten people with harm" l_b: "again do you have evidence of this?you keep making my case about your lack of steadfastness in sustaining your proclaimed values" you have lost me now, evidence of what? If you think this indicates something is wrong, we do not understand each other here. When did making threatening statements become protected to the extent they cannot be investigated? l_b_____________________________________________ you mean calling the cops whenever a strange character approches me amounts to "a modicum of caution" _______________________________________________ Who said anything about cops? You don't pay closer attention to someone, avoid eye contact, etc? talk about hyperbolic leaps! l_b____________________________________________ yeah right, we all know kids want to go to McD because they like the food (sarcasm). That's also why they give away toys, have playrooms and market their product with a clown _________________________________________________ They go because they want to. They filter what McDonalds offers them through the decisions of their parents and all decide why to go to McDonalds. The people at Mcdonalds *also* in a free world and are perfectly within their rights to use non coercive means to convince people they want mcdonalds. Politicians create needs for people too, and activist groups generate a need for their ideas, and so on. The world is a mass of influences all offering things. However a want or need is generated, as long as coercion is absent it's fair ground. I am not qualified to judge the wants of others, they can do that for themselves. They have their own values I do not know, they have their own logic I do not know, they have their lives I do not know.

"So if they feel we're replacing their culture with a bunch of vapid, prefab, plastic American pseudoculture crap that is wholly counter to their values, couldn't we head off this whole issue by not shipping our shit into their countries?" They could head it off perfectly if they didn't want it. Since little of our advertising culture is permitted in these nations and the sales of jeans, coke, and other items continues unabated, it's clear the demand is driven by people simply deciding they like this stuff. I know it's popular and all to go on about vapid this and plastic that, but as long as people like it, that's all that matters. I'll repeat one more time, the fact that the culture which supposedly tricks and bamboozles people here into buying these things is not present in many of these nations, the idea that media drives consumption instead of consumers deciding what they value, is shown for the crock that it is. They are perfectly capable of deciding what is counter to their values and not buying it. What I see is someone *other* than these consumers *claiming* these products don't meet their personal values, which they may not, but they obviously do not speak for those purchasing them. This is like the greens at the earth conference complaining that indigenous cultures are destroyed when they have access to electricity. That may be the case, but those people, being human, own the right to decide what they value more, their culture and dying in the mud at 30, or electricity and vapid plastic coke, not western moralists infatuated with the romance of tribalism they don't have to live in. And a "connection" to the earth that sounds great and all except it means subsistence farming, disease, malnutrition, oppression by tribal structure and all the rest. "God forbid companies like Coke and MTV should make a few million fewer dollars per year." If they do so because some third party injects itself into the free decisions between them and those who want their products, yes god forbid. Humans are not the tools of others who decide they should get to figure who wants what in civil exchange of goods by choice. [ 09-19-2002, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

"They are free to speak as they wish and yet, you reserve yourself the right to submit them to an ordeal and potentially worse." Yes, that's called life. One is responsible for ones actions, are we not? Are we not supposed to listen to what people say and hold them at their word? If I go up to a cop and tell him I'm going to shoot someone at the restauarant, do they have to wait until I do? Don't I have free speech? Every single citizen is subject to the risk of an "ordeal" depending on our words, depending on our situation. If I discuss bombs at the airport, I am subject to an ordeal. If I threaten an elected official, I am subject to an ordeal. There is any number of things that could make me subject to an ordeal, because civil society is a mix of people and situations and it is up to each of us to judge what we call humor and decide if it can be construed as threatening. If we wish to risk such speech in public, even if harmless, we also risk the attendant ordeal we have justified against ourselves by making comments others can construe as immediate harm. As for the "potentially worse", I am not sure what is potentially worse, unless they are actually doing something dangerous to others in which case they *should* be subject to something worse. "the issue is not whether you should use your sense of observation to spot trouble but whether you use incomplete information before you take counter action" how much more information is this woman supposed to get? Hindsight is perfect, in real life it is considerably more messy. Waiting for complete information is harmless if the situation is harmless, considerably more dangerous if that completeness is turning out to show a real threat. How is she supposed to get complete information? ... "Excuse me sir, I think you are a terrorist who is about to slaughter unknown numbers of people, can you give me some background to make a decision"? Is she supposed to do this? What are you suggesting completes information when she heard what she heard? As it turns out today, these harmless fellows told the police two or three stories, and the first one was admission that they *had* done this with the intention of messing with her. Playing a joke is not illegal, they are not charged, but they have reaped what they set in motion. Go to the airport, excercise your free speech, and declare you have plastique in your shoes as a joke. And enjoy the process of the authorities getting complete information based on the little you volunteered. "and how this reflect on little steadfastness in sustaining the values you claim to have (freedom, free speech, etc ...)." These fellows excercised all these and maintain freedom to this day. Freedom does not imply freedom from responsibility from your actions, nor freedom from investigation if you threaten people with harm. Your assertion of my lack of steadfastness does not take this into account. "Why is it that we acknowledge our wrong w.r.t. Japanese Americans and appear to be ready to repeat them toward another ethnic group?" Do we appear so? I see nothing about resettlement camps, nothing about mass deportations. As for judging by appearances in leiu of complete information, I am curious how you conduct your personal behaviour downtown alone on a late night. Do you simply assume everyone you meet, no matter what their appearance, is just the same as everyone else, or excercise a modicum of caution? I suspect it's the latter, maybe not. [ 09-19-2002, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

"Or is it that you pay enough taxes for someone else to do your deed?" That's very clever. Shall we discuss wether you feel paying your taxes means *your* deeds shall be done by others as well? Which social goals do you support imposition of onto others with laws you pay for and oppression you support? I'm sure there's one or two. The difference is, everyone in the military now is a volunteer and they know when they join they are risking their lives, by choice, for the likes of us taxpayers. They choose to sign up for those "deeds". Conversely, those folks you pay to oppress, simply live here as citizens, and other than those who beat, rob, or steal from other citizens, are oppressed for no other reason than you feel their lives and wants are less important than your plan for society. Wether all of "society" agrees or not, because of your willingness to threaten these other citizens with jail or fines. Something to condsider while you take the tack on someone else that they are paying a third party to do their deeds. So do you. [ 09-19-2002, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

"Estimates suggest that in excess of 1,000,000 Iraqi children have died since the "end" of "Operation Desert Storm", due to US led embargos. " So you disagree with the embargoes, yet think UN sanctions over weapons inspections, which include the embargoes, should be given time to work? Which is it? And need I point out that Iraq takes in hundreds of millions of dollars, if not the billion range, for it's permitted oil sales for food and medical supplies? There is plenty of money going to Iraq even with the embargo. That money is directed by it's dictator. When a dictators people starve because he does not spend the money on them, the responsibility for same falls on said dictator. These deaths are due to Saddams choice of where the money goes, not anyone else.

now there's a great example of someone who probably claims to "care" about all kinds of people in abstract, but when it comes to particulars is hyper abusive of those who disagree. Unfortunately a common species.

That's cool, I understand where you're coming from long posts can be a pain. As for the guy saying we should just kill everyone and not care, that's real cynical and all, but the reality is a bit different. Not one person I am aware of thinks this is acceptable, not Bush, not I, not anyone.

these issues cannot be discussed by sound bite and pithy paragraphs. In a free society you are of course free to not read a bit of my long winded posts.

"But after I've been jumped (or held up), my immediate response wouldn't necessarily be a movement towards revenge (it wasn't after i had a gun to my head)!" I'm not what you think my reasons are for making sure someone such as Saddam does not obtain nukes, but revenge is not one of them. "I sure as hell would want to find out what the cat was all about, damn." In his case we already know what he's all about. He's left the evidence of it for years, written statements, actions, atrocities. I find it difficult to believe anyone could feel we don't know enough of what he's about. "I wouldn't go shooting up his whole family, thinking that would solve the problem." I'm not sure who is proposing shooting up his entire family. "So hopefully I would have the humility to go beyond my anger and pain and hurt and actually try to talk. I know this isn't a very popular position, but that would hopefully be my response." We have talked and talked, we have talked for 11 years now. At what point does one decide the other player is using that talk to gain time to do what your talk is trying to prevent? At what point does one begin to suspect that someone who cares so little for his own family he has them shot, is only talking for *your* benefit while he seeks advantage while you feel like you're talking? I have no problem with diplomatic solutions where they are possible. What I want to know is when the decision is made that the other side in a deal is using the talking to stall for time to gain a military advantage? Is 11 years long enough? "I fully believe that it will make the world a much more dangerous place for years to come, ESPECIALLY if we want to travel" Allowing fanatics who have sworn to kill you, to exist does not make life safer for you. Capitulation to their demands, does not make life safer for you. They hate us because they hate the west, modernity, and our plurality, and no amount of talk from us is going to make them disregard what they consider holy instructions from their god. We know these things not because I claim they think them, but because *they* tell us this, they themselves. Do you not think they know better what they hate and why, since they are the ones telling us why they hate us? "(plus, you CAN'T keep "them foreigners" out. Look at Israel, for god's sake, and they are a TINY country of 5 mil)." You are correct. That is why one does not try to keep "them foreigners" out, one goes to the source and fixes the problem. This does not mean military means necessarily. When they claim they are poor because of us, it must be shown that they are poor because their rulers keep them poor. They have no rights because their religion does not recognize the rights of individuals, only their direct and specific obligation to serve God with every thought and action, no matter how trivial. The Christian religion grew to include the idea of free will, Islam denies free will in all it's forms as a form of decadence. These root issues shape the problems we are facing, combined with poor practices in US foreign policy in the past and present. We can and should change our policies, but that is only part of the problem, the flawed views of a region which is stuck in the 14th century is a much deeper one. They have a right to their own beliefs, if they wish to serve Allah as they have been, they will have to come to grips with the idea that if they intend to do so while not recognizing modern ideas, they will remain poor and backwards. If they wish to oppress their women and each other and call that justice, I disagree and feel bad for them but it's their homeland. When however they come to kill us, kill *innocent* people by design and intent as primary targets, this will not be permitted, ever. There can be no coexistance with this idea because coexistence takes two and they do not recognize any innocents among infidels. Whatever mistakes we have made, and the list is long, murdering innocents here will not be tolerated. The modern world only works because of it's plurality and acceptance of same, and if this is not to be accepted the complex economic models we have will not function. They (the most fundanmentalist factions) must choose between service of their classical views and entry into a different age, because they cannot have both a complex economy and ideas which prohibit this from occurring.

"the basis of guilt is not consistent with judging someone on appearances and truncated discourse. I quoted you to show that you did all the above in the course of this thread." I take it you are referring to the commentary on those folks in the diner, so..... It depends on how you define guilt. I did not say they should be in jail, I made no statements that is it not their right to speak as they wish, I didn't say they were "guilty" of anything in particular, though I will claim now they were guilty (in the sense of being responsible for their actions) of using very poor judgement. At such time I maintain they are guilty of a crime of some kind on the basis of appearance or statements, I would have to agree with you. Since what they did is not a crime and they are not being prosecuted, on appearance or statements, the only "guilt" I can see here is a person who thought she heard something very bad and took action. Am I to understand if you heard what she claims to have heard, you would just walk away and take your chances? Besides, like it or not, appearances count in this world. I have a hard time accepting that no one should ever pay attention to appearances, because we all judge others by appearance in all kinds of ways, every day. Wether or not we use personal standards and biases to judge a particular appearance in one way or another is one angle, but the fact that we do so nonetheless is merely a survivial instinct which remains valuable to this day. [ 09-18-2002, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

Muir obviously has a comment, perhaps he could spell it out for us slower folk!

So j_b, I meant to ask, when you listed those quotes from me, what was your intention? Is it your contention there is some hypocrasy in my position I am not aware of, or??

"Violence is the most naive response to violence; it just keeps the cycle intact." I see. So people about to be killed should not be naive, just dead, lest they continue the cycle. Whenever someone tells me violence is naive or ineffective, I ask them what they suggest a woman about to be raped do. Or a man about to be beaten. Just how far to giving up one's life and rights to an assailant, does this deeply held belief in naivete of violence extend? The "cycle" of violence as a reality everywhere, is a load. Sometimes there are cycles, sometimes there are not. Sometimes violence is appropriate and the only option, sometimes not. Saying violence is naive is in itself as naive as naive gets, IMO. Like everything else, it depends on the conditions surrounding it. "But I think that's what alot want, anyways." I'm sure that's what you think, but thinking others want something, in the place of knowing what they want, because it makes a nice argument is a very, very common assertion. Perhaps you can tell us who in *their* own words wants violence to continue. Not *your* assertion, not another third party about yet another third party. I am not interested in interpretations by someone of someone elses behavior, who claims to know what they want.

"So it occurred to DFA to wonder why you would support war, which seems to the Doctor to be the ultimate manifestation of imposing your will on someone else;" It's a very good question. Basically it comes down to the fact that while it it not permissible to be an initiating aggressor, once one is attacked it is permissible to defend oneself even if this means offensive actions. Now of course this can be taken any number of ways, I can only defend my implementation of it. In this case, "imposing my will" would be the will not to die or let someone else kill me, the most basic right any living being has. That the aggressor has chosen to risk their right to same to deny mine indicates how they view my life, and I am not obligated to allow them to survive to threaten me again. No one educated person wants wanton destruction or mass death, but sometimes, unfortunately, it is necessary. "The Doctor does not understand how you can justify killing as a means to get ones way but not the inconvenience of something like a law you may find to be limiting." The limiting laws are not generally involving deadly physical threat, but civil acts between consenting adults and their self determination. War, like criminal assault and murder, carries with it different circumstances. The initiator of violence is responsible for their choice of causing harm, and responsible for choosing to risk the resulting actions they have innately OK'd by making that kind of interaction their chosen one. It's pretty simple, really. If you have a problem with me, don't buy from me, don't sell to me, don't talk to me, don't help me, don't obstruct me, just stay out of my way and I'll stay out of yours. Because though I don't like it when folks don't get along, I can live with it. I don't have the right to tell someone how to live or who to like or for what reasons. I expect regular people with normal intelligence and a reasonable education to see that cooperation is it's own reward and we're better of working together than hating each other even if we disagree. But you decide to come and kill me, hurt me, etc, all the bets are off. You have proven you do not see our coexistence as possible, proven you do not view my life as my right, and proven you are a physical danger. On each of these issues the assailant has made it clear what their choice is, of their own free will. At that point our interaction is changed, by them, from one of mutual coexistence, to kill or be killed. I do not prefer that arena as it is wasteful of life, respect, and resources, and a source of sorrow, trouble, pain, misery, death and hurt. [ 09-18-2002, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

"i don't think she deliberately lied, maybe just made a mistake. " I'm not sure how one mistakenly hears multiple incriminating statements! One, maybe, but a conversation? "but i don't know. we'll never know for certain what the students really said, i think she probably did the right thing to report what she thought she heard - better safe than sorry." I agree. They may have been messing with her but they did so in a spectacularly bad manner. "but on the other hand mtn goat, are you willing to acknowledge that the students might have been talking about buying are car like they said?" not particularly, but then I wasn't there. If it is a mistake, it really sucks for them, but I agree with you that it was correct to check it out.

"But, you didn't answer the question: What is it they said? I for one haven't heard." Yes, I did answer the question, look back a couple posts!

she claims they made comments like the following: do we have enough to bring it down? If we do not I have contacts who can supply as much as we need. look at everyone upset over sept 11, I wonder what they will be thinking after sept 13? Now I cannot claim to have been there and listening, no one can. But watching the two groups of people, I get the impression that yeah, she's pissed, pissed because these guys are now lying about what they said. And they seem awful calm and gee lets just put it behind us for folks who claim they were lied about in a very bad way, if it was the case. Anybody who says she's lying simply because she's white and from a different background as them is being just as racist as some accuse her of being. I tend to believe her and think yes, they may have been playing a joke on her, but she cannot be blamed for acting as she did.

"So objectivism will show you the Truth! and provide you with a unified field theory for making moral and rational judgements when it comes to eveything besides climbing?" Sort of. It provides the tools and structure for identifying what is verifiable and what is not. Condensing all of a philosophy into a pithy sentence (I love the unified field comment!) makes it appear like a big claim, but then one could do this with any philosphy and it would come out the same. Every single person on Earth has a set of personal rules they use to evaluate what they feel is real and valuable, after all. Picking out Objectivism for the sarcasm treatment is as valid a funny as anything else, but of course doesn't really touch on the substance of why it is worthwhile to learn about. Your list of questions is pretty darned good, if I have time I'll work on a couple for you.

She made no mistake, the dumbsh*ts messing with her made the mistake. Would *you* simply allow someone to go on their merry way after hearing comments like she heard? I wouldn't. If they don't like what their shitty comments get them, they should be more careful. In a perfect world, it wouldn't matter what they say. In this one however, it does and if they're not cognizant of that, they're not as smart as they look no matter how they come across on TV. [ 09-18-2002, 09:34 AM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

"MtnGoat is the master of the point/counter-point argument technique." Thank you. "All of your counterpoints can be refuted in the same manner as you have just done to the previous arguments. Not that I care to get into that..." too bad. I invite you to toss your hat into the ring. refute away! How can people of good will expect to have meaningful discussions about substantive issues if they will not engage in spirited debate?

"Hey, you were just arguing that nothing gnarly happens to people at the hands of America. Now who's changing their story? " Not I. I never argued that. If you doubt, go back and find me my quote. A major problem in these discussions is the injection of points not made by a poster but held to be true by a respondent. lets address that here. I *NEVER* stated nothing bad happens to people at the hands of Americans. I said Saddam was bad and we are better, which should not be contentious, but apparently it is. I am not making wholesale defenses of lousy acts by the US, I am saying our country is right to defend itself against one that is worse. So are you going to find where I argued nothing bad happens to people because of Americans, or concede you were wrong... or not? "if we're truly going after Saddam because he's a potential threat to people, then we're hypocrites (see previous statement regarding fucking hypocrites)." No, we're going after him because he's a worse, less principled threat than we are. Different situations demand different responses, and we are different from Saddam. Saying we're the same and he's the same so we are hypocrites is only true if you refuse to accept that we are different. Are we or aren't we? Your call. "Also, you don't really prove he's a threat to the US. You're conjecturing that he is, but you don't have any concrete proof," Here we are again. I prove he has been responsible for killing Americans, and you say I don't have any. What exactly serves as proof for you? "Looking at the situation, it seems naive to assume that Bush's Iraqi blood lust is anything but politically motivated." I'm sure that's true. Many folks of a particular political persuasion are convinced others are naive because those making the contention always feel they are better educated, smarter, more compassionate, and "caring" and all that, so it entitles them to decide everyone else is naive and needs their guidance. I have no such problem, I assume I'm just as right and just as wrong as anyone else, I have no need to consider those I don't agree with as "naive", an innate attack on their judgement. " but meanwhile questions get raised (again) about the administration's ties to big business, which looks bad politically. " Questions being raised does not indicate their validity. Some folks think raising questions means they are valid simply because they thought of them. I think looking at the context of same, and answers to these questions that get ignored because they are not what the questioners want to hear, makes more sense. A zillion unanswered pointless questions just means unanswered pointless questions. "Bush is a politician with a reputation to uphold, so why not go after Iraq in the name of justice, and keep Americans feeling safe." Because this view is dependent on your "knowledge" Bush is lying about his intent.

"The problem with this statement is that it disregards a commonly held belief in the scientific community, namely that in the last hundred years, the rate of species extinction has NEVER been seen before in the entire history of the earth." Is this belief *true*, or just commonly held? I don't care how many people believe something in a factual case. "This is coupled with the FACT that humans have never affected their environment to even nearly the degree to which they have affected it in the last hundred years" You still are not answering the question, how is it we survived all those earlier events, along with all the flora and fauna we see now, in spite of the fact that the climate has varied more than some project it varying in their worst cases? All the species with us survived those events, and if the change predicted is less catastophic than past natural changes, which it is, then everything should survive this one too.

"How about US citizens who get plunger-fucked by the NYPD, or pumped full of enough bullets to put down a full-grown bus, or dragged out of their cars and beaten (assuming you'll claim Rodney King had it coming, this happened to a 70ish-year-old woman as well, although she only got roughed up by one cop)." Are these acts legal? In Iraq, they are. You seem to be making a common mistake, equating the acts of individuals who commit crimes and are then fully and rightly sanctioned for them, with places where these acts are not crimes and are carried out with impunity. Are you really going to claim that a nation in which these things are illegal is the same as one in which they are not? "Then there's the School of the Americas, which puts tactics like torture in the hands of questionably moral military forces." Which was a bad move we can all agree on. The point here is we are free to do so and not be shot. "Speaking of whom, keep your eyes on Afghanistan in the future and watch for a large oil pipeline spanning the country, then ask yourself whether we decimated the country and installed a government we approved of for the good of their country, or the good of our oil companies." You have never addressed the alternative plan you had, this is the second time I'm asking you to do so. "While DFA understands that day-to-day life under GWB is not as shitty as life in Iraq, the US is hardly a gleaming example of innocence, either." Who here claims it is? I am saying there is a difference, it is real, and it is worth discussing. "And regarding the "fucking hypocrites" remark, that was aimed at the current administration, who are a bunch of fucking hypocrites." Are you judging them by *their* statements, *their* thoughts, and their actions, or some combination of these and *your* thoughts on the matter. If they are consistent with what they claim and what they think, they are not hypocrites. Hypocrasy is not acting in concert with ones *own* stated values, ideas and beliefs, not in not following someone *elses* claims for what your beliefs are.

I was running the Tieton R last Sat, and the Bend is indeed scorched all to hell. Looks like crap, not sure about access but there is a lot of bare dirt, it's pretty ugly. Unless you've got a real jones for one of those routes I'd personally hit one of the other areas, this one is skanked right now. Local guy at sporting goods store up the road (who happens to carry some of those cool pic-tour maps) said the FS suspects arson... GRRRR. [ 09-17-2002, 04:44 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]