I can't see any reason why women should drive

Bernard farquart wrote:
> "Arif Khokar" > wrote:

>>Our government keeps sticking its "nose" into their business. It's been
>>going on for at least 50 years. For instance, take Iran. The CIA planned
>>a coup to overthrow the the elected government and installed the Shah back
>>in the '50s. A little over 20 years later, mainly due to oppression under
>>the Shah, a revolution took place and everyone's directing their hatred
>>towards our country.

> No, something is not the same, because how many Iranians have actually
> commited terrorist acts upon US soil of its interests *outside* of Iran?

Something must have happened, since they're part of the "axis of evil."

>>For some reason, your point of view appears to ignore the cause and wonder
>>why those people hate us for reasons you can't understand.

> and some group decides to take down two
> major buildings and kill over 3000 non combatants that is NOT A REASONABLE
> RESPONSE

I never said the response was "reasonable." That doesn't mean that such
a response didn't happen. Keep in mind that there were several other
responses that predated the WTC attacks (the Kobar (sp?) towers bombing,
the USS Cole attack, the attack on 2 of our embassies in Africa).

Our government should have been paying attention and removing the troops
from Saudi Arabia (they weren't defending against anything anyway).

> WHAT SIMILAR CONSEQUENCES???

Lots of people dying.

"Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
...
> Bernard farquart wrote:
>> "Arif Khokar" > wrote:
>
>>>Our government keeps sticking its "nose" into their business. It's been
>>>going on for at least 50 years. For instance, take Iran. The CIA
>>>planned a coup to overthrow the the elected government and installed the
>>>Shah back in the '50s. A little over 20 years later, mainly due to
>>>oppression under the Shah, a revolution took place and everyone's
>>>directing their hatred towards our country.
>
>> No, something is not the same, because how many Iranians have actually
>> commited terrorist acts upon US soil of its interests *outside* of Iran?
>
> Something must have happened, since they're part of the "axis of evil."

No, that's just rhetoric, I thought you were equating what happened in Iran
(totally out of line activities by the cia) with us stationing troops in
Saudi Arabia

>
>>>For some reason, your point of view appears to ignore the cause and
>>>wonder why those people hate us for reasons you can't understand.
>
>> and some group decides to take down two
>> major buildings and kill over 3000 non combatants that is NOT A
>> REASONABLE
>> RESPONSE
>
> I never said the response was "reasonable." That doesn't mean that such a
> response didn't happen.

No, but it means that we can not plan our nations posture in the world
on the possible reaction of irrational people.

Keep in mind that there were several other
> responses that predated the WTC attacks (the Kobar (sp?) towers bombing,
> the USS Cole attack, the attack on 2 of our embassies in Africa).

All due to the anger at us over simply being in the wrong place?

>
> Our government should have been paying attention and removing the troops
> from Saudi Arabia (they weren't defending against anything anyway).

Really? I heard there was a border dispute over near there.
>
>> WHAT SIMILAR CONSEQUENCES???
>
> Lots of people dying.

That was in response to your assertation that we had enimies
due to our actions in Latin America, so I repeat the question,
what similar consequences have we endured due to our actions
in Latin america? Or Iran? Or pretty much anywhere else in the
world? Just the Saudi's.

Seems pretty obvious where the problem is..

Bernard farquart wrote:

> No, but it means that we can not plan our nations posture in the world
> on the possible reaction of irrational people.

The "possible" reaction has become reality and has lead to many
unnecessary deaths. The point of the matter is that these actions took
place in response to actions on our part to defend against a nonexistant
threat.

Perhaps our government should consider the attitudes of people living in
the countries that they plan to establish a military base in rather than
listening to a non-representative government whose only motivation is to
get more money and weapons.

Most people in the area have a similar view in which there was no need
for our government to establish a military base there. Bin Laden had a
similar point of view. Most people would not consider planning and
actually carrying out actions that result in the murder of thousands of
people. Bin Laden did.

Since our government went against the will of the people there, the
extremists from that population decided to "punish" us with the means
they had available to them.

>>responses that predated the WTC attacks (the Kobar (sp?) towers bombing,
>>the USS Cole attack, the attack on 2 of our embassies in Africa).

> All due to the anger at us over simply being in the wrong place?

Read what I wrote above. It was well known that we were not wanted
there by the local population.

>>Our government should have been paying attention and removing the troops
>>from Saudi Arabia (they weren't defending against anything anyway).

> Really? I heard there was a border dispute over near there.

Which had what to do with us? You might also want to consider the fact
that those borders were arbitrary decisions made by the British and
French nearly a century ago.

> That was in response to your assertation that we had enimies
> due to our actions in Latin America,

I don't really keep up with international politics with regards to
Central and South America. I do know that we have some institution
called the "School of the Americas" (or something like that) which is
alleged to train people to act as "death squads," for controlling rebel
orgainizations, or so it is alleged.

I would imagine that such actions would lead to general hatred towards
us. This can be considered a consequence. Whether an extremist from
that population will attempt to do something in this country remains to
be seen.

"Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
...
> Bernard farquart wrote:
>
>> No, but it means that we can not plan our nations posture in the world
>> on the possible reaction of irrational people.
>
> The "possible" reaction has become reality and has lead to many
> unnecessary deaths. The point of the matter is that these actions took
> place in response to actions on our part to defend against a nonexistant
> threat.
>
> Perhaps our government should consider the attitudes of people living in
> the countries that they plan to establish a military base in rather than
> listening to a non-representative government whose only motivation is to
> get more money and weapons.

So now you believe we should *ignore* local governments and
just base our military desicions on some "people living there"?
that sounds alot like what happened in Iran.We ignored the
government in place, and chose to listen to people who were
from the area, but not currently in power. come to think of it,
that sounds alot like the Iraqi national congress pre invasion.
So you are pro gulf war II?


>
> Most people in the area have a similar view in which there was no need for
> our government to establish a military base there.
Please cite a reputable source for this claim.


Bin Laden had a
> similar point of view. Most people would not consider planning and
> actually carrying out actions that result in the murder of thousands of
> people. Bin Laden did.

That does not make him more important, just more violent.

>
> Since our government went against the will of the people there, the
> extremists from that population decided to "punish" us with the means they
> had available to them.

There are extremists who "punish" doctors at womens clinics too,
are they to make our national heath care policy?
There were some extremists who "punished" jews, fags and gypsies
in europe a few years ago, you may have heard of them, was it wrong to
use military force there as well?

>
>>>responses that predated the WTC attacks (the Kobar (sp?) towers bombing,
>>>the USS Cole attack, the attack on 2 of our embassies in Africa).
>
>> All due to the anger at us over simply being in the wrong place?
>
> Read what I wrote above. It was well known that we were not wanted there
> by the local population.

But they did not bother to change the government that made the
decisions they disagreed with, they just flew some planes into
buildings thousands of miles away.

>
>>>Our government should have been paying attention and removing the troops
>>>from Saudi Arabia (they weren't defending against anything anyway).

Why? we were invited by the government, if this was so abhorant,
why did Bin Laudin not work to change the Saudi government and
then kick us out, all nice and fair? Is it because he has no real base of
support? Or is it perhaps that it is easy to make a big splash by blowing
something up, but hard to make real change, and he is lazy?

>
>> Really? I heard there was a border dispute over near there.
>
> Which had what to do with us? You might also want to consider the fact
> that those borders were arbitrary decisions made by the British and French
> nearly a century ago.

And this was left in place for "nearly a century" europe has newer
borders, yet manages not to blow **** up so much. (except for the
spanish trains, but that goes back to our buddy, doesn't it?)
>
>> That was in response to your assertation that we had enimies
>> due to our actions in Latin America,
>
> I don't really keep up with international politics with regards to Central
> and South America. I do know that we have some institution called the
> "School of the Americas" (or something like that) which is alleged to
> train people to act as "death squads," for controlling rebel
> orgainizations, or so it is alleged.

You asserted that we would have grave consequences, now you
"don't really keep up?"
Nice...are you just throwing pointless stuff into the equation?

Survey says.... yes.



>
> I would imagine that such actions would lead to general hatred towards us.

I would imagine lots of things, none of which have anything to do with
this conversation.

Bernard

Bernard farquart wrote:

> So now you believe we should *ignore* local governments and
> just base our military desicions on some "people living there"?

If the governments are not representative of the people, then the people
should be consulted.

> come to think of it,
> that sounds alot like the Iraqi national congress pre invasion.

Most of whom had not been in Iraq for the last 3 decades. If the
attitude that "we need a foreign power to liberate us" was near
universal, there would be no "insurgency" now.

Recall that the original topic (of this subthread) was the military base
our government maintained in Saudi Arabia and the opposition to it, not
the invasion of Iraq.

> So you are pro gulf war II?

No.

>>Most people in the area have a similar view in which there was no need for
>>our government to establish a military base there.

> Please cite a reputable source for this claim.

General attitude of Sunni Muslims with regards to land that contains the
two holiest cities of Islam. I'll cite myself as a reputable source
since I am a Sunni Muslim.

>>Most people would not consider planning and
>>actually carrying out actions that result in the murder of thousands of
>>people. Bin Laden did.

> That does not make him more important, just more violent.

But it does say that his view was not unique (not what he did about it).

> There are extremists who "punish" doctors at womens clinics too,
> are they to make our national heath care policy?

No, but if the majority is against abortion, then that should be our
national policy (and vice versa).

> There were some extremists who "punished" jews, fags and gypsies
> in europe a few years ago, you may have heard of them, was it wrong to
> use military force there as well?

I was talking about establishing a base in the Muslim "holy land." I
wasn't referring to decisions to use military force.

> But they did not bother to change the government that made the
> decisions they disagreed with,

Most people don't make an effort to get speed limits changed though they
exceed them every day. Our government is a representative government
and it's hard enough to get things changed. Do you seriously expect a
non representative government to seriously consider the population's
concerns?

> And this was left in place for "nearly a century" europe has newer
> borders, yet manages not to blow **** up so much. (except for the
> spanish trains, but that goes back to our buddy, doesn't it?)

That doesn't mean we have to get involved.

> You asserted that we would have grave consequences, now you
> "don't really keep up?"

They are two mutually exclusive concepts. That means that both can be
true at the same time.

Scott en Aztlán wrote:

>>If the governments are not representative of the people, then the people
>>should be consulted.

> Uh, no.
>
> If the government doesn't represent the people, the people need to get
> another government. Until such time as they do so, what the government
> says is the way it goes.

If we're willing to ignore the sentiment of the people, then we get hit
by extremists.

Personally, I would play it safe and try to consider regional attitudes
before engaging in what was considered a widely unpopular action.

Here's a hypothetical situation: Suppose the US government was an
absolute monarchy that didn't represent the people. Let's suppose that
the Mexican government wanted to establish a military base in southern
California. Let's assume that a substantial portion of the population
living in southern CA really didn't like the fact that Mexicans were
living in US land.

Now, if some extremists from the southern CA population decided to bomb
the Mexican military barracks. Then, after a while, some Mexican
embassies in the US and Canada were bombed. Then after a little longer,
a major business complex along with a major military complex in Mexico
were attacked (bombed, planes flown into them, whatever), then do you
still think the Mexican government was right in not considering the
local populations attitudes before establishing their base?

"Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
...
> Here's a hypothetical situation: Suppose the US government was an
> absolute monarchy that didn't represent the people. Let's suppose that
> the Mexican government wanted to establish a military base in southern
> California. Let's assume that a substantial portion of the population
> living in southern CA really didn't like the fact that Mexicans were
> living in US land.
>
> Now, if some extremists from the southern CA population decided to bomb
> the Mexican military barracks. Then, after a while, some Mexican
> embassies in the US and Canada were bombed. Then after a little longer, a
> major business complex along with a major military complex in Mexico were
> attacked (bombed, planes flown into them, whatever), then do you still
> think the Mexican government was right in not considering the local
> populations attitudes before establishing their base?

No godd**n it, they should be bombing the non representative
government's buildings, not the mexicans, the problem is the
govenrment that allows the situation, not the situation.

Bernard

"Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
...
> Bernard farquart wrote:
>
>> So now you believe we should *ignore* local governments and
>> just base our military desicions on some "people living there"?
>
> If the governments are not representative of the people, then the people
> should be consulted.
>
>> come to think of it,
>> that sounds alot like the Iraqi national congress pre invasion.
>
> Most of whom had not been in Iraq for the last 3 decades. If the attitude
> that "we need a foreign power to liberate us" was near universal, there
> would be no "insurgency" now.

There isn't in the north, it seems that some are happy to see the way the
cards
have fallen.
>
> Recall that the original topic (of this subthread) was the military base
> our government maintained in Saudi Arabia and the opposition to it, not
> the invasion of Iraq.

These bases were post gulf war I.
That was the rational for our buildup there.

>
>> So you are pro gulf war II?
>
> No.
>
>>>Most people in the area have a similar view in which there was no need
>>>for our government to establish a military base there.
>
>> Please cite a reputable source for this claim.
>
> General attitude of Sunni Muslims with regards to land that contains the
> two holiest cities of Islam. I'll cite myself as a reputable source since
> I am a Sunni Muslim.

OK, so do you think that we are *more* culpable, or the House of Saud that
invited us?


>
>>>Most people would not consider planning and actually carrying out actions
>>>that result in the murder of thousands of people. Bin Laden did.
>
>> That does not make him more important, just more violent.
>
> But it does say that his view was not unique (not what he did about it).
>
Again, I must say, wrong target for actual change to be effected.

>> There are extremists who "punish" doctors at womens clinics too,
>> are they to make our national heath care policy?
>
> No, but if the majority is against abortion, then that should be our
> national policy (and vice versa).

Please look up the phrase "the tyranny of the majority"
>
>> There were some extremists who "punished" jews, fags and gypsies
>> in europe a few years ago, you may have heard of them, was it wrong to
>> use military force there as well?
>
> I was talking about establishing a base in the Muslim "holy land." I
> wasn't referring to decisions to use military force.

OK, but there was a "military response" to us, yes?

>
>> But they did not bother to change the government that made the
>> decisions they disagreed with,
>
> Most people don't make an effort to get speed limits changed though they
> exceed them every day. Our government is a representative government and
> it's hard enough to get things changed. Do you seriously expect a non
> representative government to seriously consider the population's concerns?
>
If the government in place does not take the "majority of the population"s"
views into consideration, why is it our place to second guess the invitation
to set up a base that is in our geopolitical interests?

That is the real question here, if it is in our interest, and we find a
govenment
that is willing to set us up in a stratigic location, why is the local
superstition
against "whitey" really supposed to trump this?

>> And this was left in place for "nearly a century" europe has newer
>> borders, yet manages not to blow **** up so much. (except for the
>> spanish trains, but that goes back to our buddy, doesn't it?)
>
> That doesn't mean we have to get involved.

Europe is not in our interest????

>
>> You asserted that we would have grave consequences, now you
>> "don't really keep up?"
>
> They are two mutually exclusive concepts. That means that both can be
> true at the same time.
You have snipped all meaning from this so I can not reply, remember it
was reguarding your Latin America comments.



Bernard

I am actually a freeking anti-GW anti-gulf war II kinda guy, but
this "Bin Laudin is a folk hero" line is not rational, there is real-politik
and it is what runs the world.

Bernard farquart wrote:

>>Most of whom had not been in Iraq for the last 3 decades. If the attitude
>>that "we need a foreign power to liberate us" was near universal, there
>>would be no "insurgency" now.

> There isn't in the north, it seems that some are happy to see the way the
> cards have fallen.

Maintaining the no-fly zone (which was never sanctioned by the UN or in
the cease fire agreement) would have sufficed. Besides, why is the will
of the Kurdish people in Iraq more important than their will in Syria or
Turkey?

>>General attitude of Sunni Muslims with regards to land that contains the
>>two holiest cities of Islam. I'll cite myself as a reputable source since
>>I am a Sunni Muslim.

> OK, so do you think that we are *more* culpable, or the House of Saud that
> invited us?

Both are equally culpable, though I'd be inclined to think that our
government's culpability increased after the local attitude became more
apparent.

>>But it does say that his view was not unique (not what he did about it).

> Again, I must say, wrong target for actual change to be effected.

Unfortunately, the target has been destroyed. I'd rather not be a
target in the first place.

To put it in terms of driving, would one rather be a lane blocker and
endure the tailgating and flashing lights of people behind them, or
should they move right and not be a target in the first place?

What if a driving extremist actually ran a LLB off the road? Perhaps
had that driver not been blocking the left lane, he wouldn't have been
the victim of an irrational driver.

>>>There were some extremists who "punished" jews, fags and gypsies
>>>in europe a few years ago, you may have heard of them, was it wrong to
>>>use military force there as well?

>>I was talking about establishing a base in the Muslim "holy land." I
>>wasn't referring to decisions to use military force.

> OK, but there was a "military response" to us, yes?

Our military wasn't there to defend against Bin Laden and his group.
Whatever we were defending against had not actually taken any offensive
action against us. It has been shown that we were really defending
against what turned out to be a figment of our government's imagination.

>>Most people don't make an effort to get speed limits changed though they
>>exceed them every day. Our government is a representative government and
>>it's hard enough to get things changed. Do you seriously expect a non
>>representative government to seriously consider the population's concerns?

> If the government in place does not take the "majority of the population"s"
> views into consideration, why is it our place to second guess the invitation
> to set up a base that is in our geopolitical interests?

Why was it our place to second guess the 99.x% popularity rating the
Saddam had prior to the war? People who decide what's in our
geopolitical interests really need to learn that our interests aren't
the only one's to be considered.

> That is the real question here, if it is in our interest, and we find a
> govenment
> that is willing to set us up in a stratigic location, why is the local
> superstition
> against "whitey" really supposed to trump this?

I don't believe for a second that it was in our "interest" to set up a
military base in a land where the local population had hostile attitudes
to foreigners.

>>>And this was left in place for "nearly a century" europe has newer
>>>borders, yet manages not to blow **** up so much. (except for the
>>>spanish trains, but that goes back to our buddy, doesn't it?)

>>That doesn't mean we have to get involved.

> Europe is not in our interest????

I thought we were talking about Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

> I am actually a freeking anti-GW anti-gulf war II kinda guy, but
> this "Bin Laudin is a folk hero" line is not rational,

I never stated that he was a folk hero. I am saying that his view on
the situation wasn't out of line with the rest of the population. His
actions, of course, were out of line.

> there is real-politik and it is what runs the world.

Real-politik breeds terrorism. Then again, the line between terrorism
and wars launched in the name of "real-politik" really doesn't exist.

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 18:32:25 -0700, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote:

>On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 15:34:52 GMT, Arif Khokar >
>wrote:
>
>>Bernard farquart wrote:
>>
>>> So now you believe we should *ignore* local governments and
>>> just base our military desicions on some "people living there"?
>>
>>If the governments are not representative of the people, then the people
>>should be consulted.
>
>Uh, no.
>
>If the government doesn't represent the people, the people need to get
>another government. Until such time as they do so, what the government
>says is the way it goes.

Sort of like Iraq, right?