I can't see any reason why women should drive

"Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
...
> 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.
>

Look, in my opinion, the reason that no one in the US is seriously
calling for a withdrawl from Saudi soil, is not onlywere we invited
by the government of the country, the objection to our presence is
one most americans can not comprehend. You see, many people
who live in the US are not of the same homogenious background, in
fact we are taught (some better than others) that it is wrong of us
to deny anyone who may seek it the chance for a new life here. So you
see, to those of us who welcome others into our cities and towns, we
find the notion of a whole country as "too good" for an "infidel" to
sully with his footprint as a noxious idea. Much like the ethnic hatreds
that tore apart Bosnia, no one over here was saying "yeah, that is a
fine ideal, to live in a 'pure' nation" we were of course horrified, and
look at such an idea as not civilized.

I am sorry if it offends you, but the argument that we can not
walk the dirt in a certain country because it has two holy places
is not going to gain any traction, because it is the sort of idea we
have been taught is not a reasonable position to take.

My view is the product of an entirely west coast liberal
family upbringing, so I imagine that many in this country
(most according to the last election) would have even less
understanding for the whole concept of our unsuitability
to set foot in that part of the world.

Bernard

In article >, L Sternn wrote:

> Some people DO hate people who drive nicer cars than they will ever be
> able to afford.

I just think people who driver nicer cars than I can afford and can't drive them
should give them to someone who can, such as me

Like the guy who had to race my torqueless wonder car with his aston martin.

DTJ wrote:

> On Sun, 01 May 2005 23:10:11 GMT, Arif Khokar >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>>
>>
>>>As long as we remain wide open and unprepared, we will get hit by
>>>mentally unstable extremists whether we ignore the sentiments or not.
>>
>>For some reason, most other countries don't have to worry about
>>hijackers flying planes into their buildings. Why are we at risk when
>>most of the rest of the world is not (Europe, Asia, Russia, Africa,
>>South America, Japan, etc.)? Why do we have terror alert levels when
>>other countries don't have to bother?
>>
>>Is it because we're "special," as some people have implied, or is it
>>because of something we did (or are still doing)?
>
>
> Easy - it is because we are superior, and they are jealous. We have
> harder working people, better run companies, and we make more profit.
> This enables our people to live better lives. The scum in the middle
> east blame us because they are lazy worthless *******s.

Ha! to all.

Maybe the middle east doesn't have anything over on us, but there's lots
of countries full of people willing to work twice as hard for less money
than the average American. Until we realize that and do something about
it, our economy is going to continue to suffer.

Better run companies? More profit? *cough*GM*cough*

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

In article >, Nate Nagel wrote:

<rantings I wasn't paying attention to deleted>

> Maybe the middle east doesn't have anything over on us, but there's lots
> of countries full of people willing to work twice as hard for less money
> than the average American. Until we realize that and do something about
> it, our economy is going to continue to suffer.

There is no way we can compete with they are willing to work for. I'm sorry, but
there is no way I can live on $300 a month. I had more money as a graduate student.

The problem is, the products are made in some place like China and are priced in
the stores as if they were made in the USA.

> Better run companies? More profit? *cough*GM*cough*

While such is true, the problem does in many cases lay with the people who see a
the made in china product for ten cents less and buy it over the made in the USA
product.

Brent P wrote:

> In article >, Nate Nagel wrote:
>
> <rantings I wasn't paying attention to deleted>
>
>
>>Maybe the middle east doesn't have anything over on us, but there's lots
>>of countries full of people willing to work twice as hard for less money
>>than the average American. Until we realize that and do something about
>>it, our economy is going to continue to suffer.
>
>
> There is no way we can compete with they are willing to work for. I'm sorry, but
> there is no way I can live on $300 a month. I had more money as a graduate student.

Oh, absolutely. I wasn't implying that we should all offer to go work
for beans. There's going to have to be some serious economic adjustment
for all parties before we will ever have a truly equitable "global
economy" to steal a phrase. It's gonna hurt, and unfortunately a lot of
the hurt is gonna happen in the richer countries like the US.

>
> The problem is, the products are made in some place like China and are priced in
> the stores as if they were made in the USA.
>

Ayup, that's one problem...

>
>>Better run companies? More profit? *cough*GM*cough*
>
>
> While such is true, the problem does in many cases lay with the people who see a
> the made in china product for ten cents less and buy it over the made in the USA
> product.
>

That's another problem. YEt another problem is high cost of living;
some people might need that 10 cents bad enough that they may choose to
buy Chinese goods even when they are cognizant of the implications. Yet
another problem is that some cheap imports are actually pretty darn
tempting when compared to US made goods, e.g. Hyundai...

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

L Sternn wrote:
> On Mon, 02 May 2005 16:33:25 GMT, Arif Khokar >
> wrote:

>>Possibly, but I do read the BBC news website on a daily basis and I
>>don't really recall seeing anything mentioning terrorist attacks on a
>>minor scale in the last 6 months.

> 6 months is nothing. There haven't been any terrrorist attacks here
> in longer than that, and Britain most certainly IS worried about
> terrorists striking there (or at least their politicians have been
> giving it lip service).
>
> I don't recall anything specific happening in Britain in the last 6
> months, but there have CERTAINLY been terrorist activity there since
> 9/11

The reason I mentioned the BBC news website is that their articles are
centered on Europe as a whole rather than the UK itself. Many times,
they have front page headlines that are just side stories, if that, on
the CNN news website.

Nate Nagel wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article >, Nate Nagel wrote:

>>> Maybe the middle east doesn't have anything over on us, but there's
>>> lots of countries full of people willing to work twice as hard for
>>> less money than the average American. Until we realize that and do
>>> something about it, our economy is going to continue to suffer.

>> There is no way we can compete with they are willing to work for. I'm
>> sorry, but there is no way I can live on $300 a month. I had more
>> money as a graduate student.

> Oh, absolutely. I wasn't implying that we should all offer to go work
> for beans. There's going to have to be some serious economic adjustment
> for all parties before we will ever have a truly equitable "global
> economy" to steal a phrase. It's gonna hurt, and unfortunately a lot of
> the hurt is gonna happen in the richer countries like the US.

One other factor that should be considered is the cost of living in
those countries. It's not nearly as expensive and $300 a month will get
you quite far. Therefore, unless the cost of living here drops to what
it is in China or India, then one cannot realistically work at those
salary levels.

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Arif Khokar wrote:

> Nobody 'hates for the sake of it'. But often they are tought to hate,
> without any action by the other nation.

That usually is preceded by some action from the offending nation. The
hate itself may outlast the duration of the action, but that doesn't
mean that a cause did not exist.

>>But international terrorist organizations aren't targetting Africa.

> Blackhawk down. They have/had found a home there, it's a place for them
> to be because of the chaos.

By targetting, I mean attacking institutions having affiliation with
their host countries. The attacks on the US embassies don't fit under
that classification.

Al-Qaida had bases in Afghanistan and Sudan (?), but that doesn't mean
that the local population was at risk of harm from them. If Al-Qaida
had a base here, you and I would be at great risk of harm.

>>Most of the terrorism originates with the locals and tribal
>>fighting/wars. There are also corrupt governments that fuel the
>>situation. Though the result is the same, the cause isn't the same.

> But they hate each other to the point of extermination. The causes are
> very much the same, control, and screwing over someone else for one's own
> best interest. The scale is more local, but it's the same old thing.

Which is pretty much what I said.

> The source of our problems is a government that has greatly exceeded the
> bounds set for it. The problem from foreign terrorists themselves is
> tiny, the bigger problem is the US government reaction to it.

And the government reaction breeds more terrorism. Iraq wasn't
afflicted with frequent suicide bombings prior to the fall of Saddam.

>>>Still, the point is that the US government isn't doing anything
>>>particularly special or shocking.

>>I'm not saying that it's doing anything substantially different from
>>other governments around the world, but it is doing more of it in more
>>places.

> I don't see that. After all, France has had it's hands in a great number
> of places (recently).

They still have occasional problems with the Algerians, but that could
be traced back to their colonization.

> One could say that some problems extend back to the
> british empire too....

Kashmir is a prime example of that ... plus the fact that all those
former colonies drive on the wrong side of the road

Bernard farquart wrote:

> Look, in my opinion, the reason that no one in the US is seriously
> calling for a withdrawl from Saudi soil, is not onlywere we invited
> by the government of the country, the objection to our presence is
> one most americans can not comprehend. You see, many people
> who live in the US are not of the same homogenious background, in
> fact we are taught (some better than others) that it is wrong of us
> to deny anyone who may seek it the chance for a new life here.

I've lived in the US my entire life. Regardless of our opinions, it's
not our job to force them on others. When we try to do that, we get burned.

> So you
> see, to those of us who welcome others into our cities and towns, we
> find the notion of a whole country as "too good" for an "infidel" to
> sully with his footprint as a noxious idea.

And I'm sure that many people there think that binge drinking, frat
parties, illicit sex, and strip clubs are equally noxious ideas.

Do not fall into the trap of thinking that the culture here is superior
to the rest of the world (and that applies to people from all cultures).

> Much like the ethnic hatreds
> that tore apart Bosnia, no one over here was saying "yeah, that is a
> fine ideal, to live in a 'pure' nation" we were of course horrified, and
> look at such an idea as not civilized.

We had a civil war which, in part, was due to racial and econimic
inequities. The racial divisions persist to this day and discrimination
still happens. I guess that means we're uncivilized.

> I am sorry if it offends you, but the argument that we can not
> walk the dirt in a certain country because it has two holy places
> is not going to gain any traction

You go on believing that. If you believe that people shouldn't consider
your beliefs before completely offending you, then that's your
prerogative. Do not think that other people are going to be as forgiving.

> would have even less
> understanding for the whole concept of our unsuitability
> to set foot in that part of the world.

Less than 40 years ago, certain people couldn't eat at certain
restaurants or drink at certain fountains.

Arif Khokar wrote:

> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> Brent P wrote:
>>
>>> In article >, Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
>>>> Maybe the middle east doesn't have anything over on us, but there's
>>>> lots of countries full of people willing to work twice as hard for
>>>> less money than the average American. Until we realize that and do
>>>> something about it, our economy is going to continue to suffer.
>
>
>>> There is no way we can compete with they are willing to work for. I'm
>>> sorry, but there is no way I can live on $300 a month. I had more
>>> money as a graduate student.
>
>
>> Oh, absolutely. I wasn't implying that we should all offer to go work
>> for beans. There's going to have to be some serious economic
>> adjustment for all parties before we will ever have a truly equitable
>> "global economy" to steal a phrase. It's gonna hurt, and
>> unfortunately a lot of the hurt is gonna happen in the richer
>> countries like the US.
>
>
> One other factor that should be considered is the cost of living in
> those countries. It's not nearly as expensive and $300 a month will get
> you quite far. Therefore, unless the cost of living here drops to what
> it is in China or India, then one cannot realistically work at those
> salary levels.

That was kind of the point I was making. Things may or may not even
themselves out over time, but if all concerned decided that moving to a
global economy would be a Good Thing(tm) our standard of living will go
down, while the standard of living in poorer countries will get better.
(ASSuming that everything is fair and equitable and all the money
going to the poorer countries goes to the workers and not a few
already-wealthy people.)

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel