> Alarm bells ring when a man that should have nothing to hide starts to hide that nothing, by not
> allowing weapons inspectors in, hindering them.
He is allowing inspectors in! And not hindering them. Bush is merely complaining that he's not cooperating "pro-actively", which wouldn't even be possible if he really doesn't have any such weapons.
> *Who decides they can change another countries government. What right does America have
> to changing the Iraqi government?
None.
> *There is so much anti western feeling in that region at the moment, what reaction will this bring
> towards the west and Israel?
A really great reaction - more excuses for invasions!
> as they are taught to hate Israel too.
They have very good reasons for that.
> Wouldn't an escort only alarm the terrorists?
It's standard procedure, whether it's likely to alarm them or not.
> I thought that this was about Iraq having weapons that only big powerfull scary countries are
> allowed?
Except there's no evidence that they do have such weapons, no reason to believe they can't be dealt with by inspections if they do, and no explanation of why Iraq isn't allowed to be a big scary country like North Korea or the US are.
> this saddam link to terrorism is just propaganda to rise support.
Yep.
> Although America used the bomb in world war 2, they've been wise enough not to use it again
But they're explicitly not ruling out using it on Iraq.
> Although with out the use of the bomb Japan would have never surrendered
Debatable.
> not really a whole lot of time to figure out what's going on and to scramble some fighter
> planes to shoot them down
Scrambling fighters to intercept is standard procedure in such situations - that's not the same thing as shooting down the airliner!
> It may have been stupid... but Bin Laden has stated it many times to western sources
Incidentally, has he ever actually claimed responsibility for the hijackings?
> I don't know how long a flight for a F-16 or 15 would be from there closest airbase to the air
> space they needed to patrol, or how long it takes for them to get airborne...
An hour to launch and travel 10 miles seems excessive.
> and not to forget, it takes time to give orders, and ordering a pilot to kill 100 or more
> innocent people would need a lot of clearance
But not to get the pilot in the air to escort the airliner, while waiting for clearance.
But all this is a distraction. Whoever was responsible for the september 11 attacks, there's no justification for invading Iraq. Take part in the protests tomorrow!
> Felice, say Gore had won the 2000 election (not improbable since more people voted for him
> than Bush). Do you think the attacks on Sept 11 would have succeeded in that case?
I don't know... quite possibly not, though I wouldn't bet on it.
> I htink they had no show with the first two
Why? The second plane crashed a full quarter of an hour after the first, and three quarters of an hour after the first plane went off course. And the crash at the pentagon was an entire hour after the first, and it had been off course and out of contact for that entire hour!
> back to my point... they want the U.S gone from the middle east, especially there forces and
> bases, which i see as somewhat understandable...
That was stupid of them, then. The attack had the opposite result, which could have been predicted by anyone with half a brain. It's odd that a group without half a brain between them were able to carry out such a plot.
> There's quite a good summary of various conspiracy theories (and why they're bunk), here...
Interesting, but it's basically just saying that the US government isn't competent enough to have done it. I find it hard to believe that a small terrorist organisation would be capable of carrying out something beyond the abilities of the US government. Given that it _was_ done by someone, why should the ones who benefit most be exempt from suspicion?
"The sacrificial lambs could have included White House staff or members of Congress, had the fourth plane not crashed in Pennsylvania" - interesting that that was the one that _didn't_ reach its target.
> What exactly are those tangible benefits?
A massive surge in Bush's popularity, for a start, and the ability to dismiss any criticism of him as unpatriotic. An excuse to invade Afghanistan, planning for which had begun before sept 11? An excuse to invade Iraq?
> A worse performing economy when compared to before sept 11? The end of United
> Airlines? A fall in tourism?
> I think Sept 11 cost the US and the rest of the world a lot more than you realise.
Oh, it cost the US and the world, though more due to subsequent paranoia than anything "real". It's been good for Bush and his friends, though.
> I don't trust the information relayed by conventional media organisations endorsed by
> government. However, I also don't trust the information that extremist conspiracy theorists
> regurgitate over the internet.
*sigh* Yes, you're right... it's virtually impossible to figure out what's really going on.
> I still seriously doubt that anyone high up in the US, when alerted that hijacked aircraft were
> in the skies, would say "no, just leave it a bit and let them blow something up".
Not as a spur of the moment thing, no, but if there was any conspiracy at all they certainly knew in advance what was going to happen. But I fail to see why we can readily accept that terrorists are willing to sacrifice their own lives along with thousands of innocent civilians just to make some kind of point (and I haven't even seen any coverage of what the point was!), yet find it implausible that a few of the most powerful people in the world would be willing to make a much smaller sacrifice for much more tangible benefits.
[ external link ]
> I think the conspiracy theories about the government knowing about an attack are highly
> improbable.
Then how do you explain the deliberate blocking of FBI Agent Colleen Rowley's investigation in to Zacarias Moussaoui, a man with known connections to Al Qaeda, and failure to follow up on other warnings of muslims behaving suspiciously at flight schools? That the US was planning to invade Afghanistan _before_ the 11th of September? That the National Command Authority waited for 75 minutes before scrambling aircraft, even though it was known that four simultaneous hijackings had occurred? That no action was taken on the unusual sharemarket activity before the attack? That the US ignored warnings from foreign intelligence agencies?
See http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/02_11_02_lucy.html for more details.
[ external link ]
Of course, whether they'll still be your wife or friend after you condemn them to 6 months in a dark scary cave is another matter 8)
[ external link ]
> The US is so scared that they could be struck down in their beds at any moment that the
> government feel they need to beat up someone to prove that they are still in control.
Except the US is scared largely _because_ of the government's rhetoric. To put the WTC tragedy in perspective, _many_times_ that many americans are murdered _every_year_ by each other. The government and media could have said "this is a great tragedy, but it's a one off event that won't be allowed to happen again - let's mourn and then move on" instead of fostering as much fear and patriotic aggression as possible. Even if you ignore the high level obstruction of FBI investigations that could have uncovered the plot, the remarkable failure to lanuch fighters to intercept the hijacked planes, the decidedly unislamic prior behaviour of hijackers who are apparently so devout that they'd give up their own lives for their religious beliefs, etc.
> It doesn't even matter who the target is, as long as it's someone they can justify attacking,
> and who they have a good chance of bringing down.
And as long as there's oil involved. The main outcome of the invasion of Afghanistan has been that pipeline projects blocked by the Taliban before the invasion are now back in motion. Osama was not captured or killed, and the lives of the Afghani people haven't significantly improved.
> It's the new Cold War.
Well, possible a Luke Warm War.
> The problem this time is that the US don't really know who their enemy is.
Oh, they know, they just can't admit it to the public or attack them directly. The EU is possibly the number one enemy here - the US doesn't want a serious rival, and maximising control over oil is the best way to maintain their dominant position.
> This could be a very nasty situation as it may not just begin and end with Iraq.
Absolutely.
> there's a small chance the US may start to unleash its wrath and fear on western countries
Hence the reluctance of the NZ government to stand up to Bush.
[ external link ]
PEACHES_HEAD:
> Osama Bin Laden has only helped Bush get the chance to start a war and raise america's economy.
Yes, that's right. Odd, isn't it? One could be forgiven for wondering if he was still working with the CIA in support of US government interests as he did in the 80s.
> Osama is nuts, but so is Sadaam. I mean was killing all those kurds really sane?
They were killed by accident in a battle with Iran. It's not clear whether the Kurds were killed by Iraqi or Iranian chemical weapons. Ruthless, but certainly not insane.
> So Bin Laden hates Hussein?
Yes, that's right. The recent message in "support" of Iraq by Osama (or possibly a sound-alike working for the US) is a deliberate attempt to _encourage_ war on Iraq. It's evidence _against_ a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
> But i thought part of the trouble was that hussien could be selling weapons to Bin Laden? Or this is what they try to make out over here. Can anyone clear this up for me?
Bush is trying to persuade people there's a link to gain support for his invasion. There's no evidence for it, and they are far from being natural allies.
There is no moral justification for invading Iraq. Even if Sadam does have weapons of mass destruction (and there's no real evidence that he does), so do plenty of other countires including the highly aggressive USA, North Korea, etc who are under no such threat of invasion, and there's no reason to assume they'd be used except in self defence anyway. He's an evil tyrant, but so are lots of other rulers, many of whom the US get on just fine with.
There are plenty of amoral justifications, of course. Direct control of oil by the US is the obvious one. Less obvious is the role of the US dollar in the oil trade; Iraq switched to selling oil for Euros instead of dollars a couple of years ago, and the growth of the Euro as an alternative international currency is a grave threat to the US economy. There's also the influence a US occupied Iraq would have over the Middle East as a whole. And the powerful US weapons industry needs wars to maintain profits. And of course, having a Terrible Enemy is great for boosting Bush's popularity, distracting attention from domestic problems, pushing through conservative and dictatorial legislation, and silencing criticism of the president.
There's an International Day of Action against the invasion of Iraq this saturday. See http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/wkac0203.htm for details of events throughout NZ. Definitely worth taking part - this could be the last chance to speak out against it before it happens.
[ external link ]
Ok, only on Radiopie.com, so it's not exactly the big time, but I'm still a happybouncyfelice 8)
Makes up somewhat for not being able to stay in Auckland for the gig on Thursday...
Possibly your definition of "best of the bunch" is a bit too harsh? There's only _one_ gig currently listed there, and that's not till Saturday...
We're not in Auckland yet, so we can't check for ourselves; has anyone seen the big red Daphne Lawless posters that should have been put up over the weekend? Thanks 8)
Yes, the regional variations and paucity of extras on some releases are very annoying. But a bigger concern is the quality of the main feature itself. In particular, TV shows like Angel and Xena were produced in widescreen, but only the pan&scan version is being released. And some movies are still being released in non-anamorphic letterbox!
>> Ouch. Scary. A centralised system of approved culture and products. Imagine the
>> bureaucracy to keep that running. Imagine how stifling that would be.
Not quite what I mean... anything that individuals can afford to do themselves could still be done and freely distributed/sold; goverment approval should only be required for things that require extensive capital. And those things require approval from the megarich already. Making it centralised is perhaps increasing vulnerable to abuse, but the removal of the profit motive is a major benefit. And funding should be controlled primarily by popular vote, not some government committee. If a high enough proportion of active voters want something to be funded, then it will be. The bureaucracy would be significantly less than the combined bureaucracies of all the private corporations we have now.
> Not to sound to wild-eyed and paranoid, but couldn't it be said that that for the large part,
> that is what a lot of labels, studios and corporations are accomplishing anyway?
Exactly.
> name one
Plippy Ploppy Cheese Nose? No, I haven't read enough in this area to recommend a specific alternative. Something that has a lot more respect for personal freedom than most of the implementations of communism that I'm aware of. Government supply of commodities/essential services, people free to develop luxuries privately with capital available from the government on proof of demand. Data (eg music) freely available, with creators paid by the government based on popularity.
> Capitalism is not a means of organising labour and resources. Captialism is a concept
> based on private ownership of stuff.
I have no problem with private ownership of stuff; but capitalism is more than that - it's a system by which stuff can be transferred between owners.
> What about the likes of the Body Shop, who as part of their charter are aiming to stop animal
> testing forever.
Oh, that part is good, certainly, and it's even possible that they really are doing it because they care as well as just to attract customers who oppose animal testing. But they still want to sell as much as possible, and convince people to buy stuff that they don't really need and might not otherwise have wanted. And what about the chemicals they use in their products? Other aspects of the manufacture?
> Felice's argument was that businesses want to make money at any cost.
Not quite; making money is generally the primary motivation, but it can be tempered to some degree (not enough in general, but some) by more enlightened motives. The motivation _should_ be to satisfy people's needs and desires instead.
No way. Capitalism is a means of organisation of labour and resources (and a horribly inefficient one, at that), not the _product_ of those labour and resources. It's perfectly possible to have all the comfort we do now, or more, under a different system. Capitalism _doesn't_ exist to fulfill our desires; it does as little to fulfill them as it can get away with while providing just enough to convince us to give them money anyway, and wastes insane amount of effort on trying to influence our desires to benefit them. Coke vs Pepsi is a good example; how many trillions of dollars have they each spent trying to convince us that they're better than the other? Under any kind of sane system, they'd just let us drink whatever we prefer the taste of, and put all those resources in to doing something that's actually of some net benefit.
I'm not sure what the best alternative is, though... short term, I'd suggest retaining capitalism but with _much_ stronger regulation, a massive tax on spam (via internet, tv, radio, billboards, etc), massive import taxes on products that don't comply with environmental and employment regulations (to go in to a foreign aid fund), etc.
That's the problem with capitalism; the primary goal of businesses is to make money, irrespective of whether the means of achieving that are good for the customers, people in general, the environment, etc.
> ohhh front row seats should be half friggin price!
Not at a decent theatre like the Embassy...
I generally assume that any bottle of drink bigger than 500ml is intended to be shared by more than one person, though I do know people who prove that that's not always the case.
One thing that particularly annoys me is when something is available in three sizes: medium, large, and extra large. How can the _smallest_ size be medium???
How do you decide which gigs to include in the mini-guide on the home page?
> I’ve never before seen such a forum brim with such a plethora of uneducated and ridiculous outbursts.
I take it you don't read forums very much 8)
> Actually, the coming war has everything to do with weapons of mass destruction. Namely,
> those weapons which Iraq is stockpiling, hiding, and trading with terrorists.
And the evidence for any of that is?
> Iraq’s catalogue of weaponry that was passed to the United Nations was incomplete
Maybe they lost track of a few things during all that bombing of their country by the US?
> Iraq has the infrastructure to both build and hide these weapons
Evidence?
> and the American intelligence proves, unequivocally, that this is what they are doing.
What, you mean the astonishing photos of trucks at factories and the "terrorist chemical weapons camp" which has no sign of facilities to produce such weapons and is in an area controlled by enemies of Saddam anyway?
> America has numerous options of untapped oil that it could consume. Iraq is the least
> “economically” beneficial of these.
Care to list these other sources and the evidence that Iraq is less economically beneficial, long term?
> George Bush is a democratically elected leader.
If you call being voted for by fewer people than Gore nationwide and less than a quarter of eligible voters "democratic", certainly.
> He is, quite simply, a brilliant man.
*ROTFL*
> The link is between Iraq and terrorism, and it is a brightly obvious one.
Evidence?
> Europe (having been more exposed to war throughout history) views war as bad, period.
I don't recall much European opposition to the invasion of Afghanistan.