A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

I can't see any reason why women should drive



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old May 5th 05, 04:51 AM
Arif Khokar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


>> If they were *that* dissatisfied with the status quo, they
>>would have eventually overthrown him (which would not have resulted in
>>the destruction of vital infrastructure as the bombing did).


> They tried.


With ill-advised outside encouragement. The sentiment should build up
from the inside. When the time is right, the revolt will succeed.

> Mass murder was the result. Bush the elder did not support
> the revolt by keeping SH's military out of the air. The revolt was
> crushed.


Which is a consequence of our government attempting to affect change
without knowing the real situation on the ground. Allowing reforms to
take place at their own pace is much safer and less destructive than
revolts and war.

>>Some would say that that would have not been possible for a long time,
>>but one need not look very far to see how easily governments without
>>support are overthrown. The Shah of Iran, the King of Iraq, the King of
>>Afghanistan, the King of Libya, etc.


> Which is why a dictator or monarch has to make sure to line the right
> pockets and enough of them. Keep people affraid. Kill anyone who could
> take power.


Even the most tyrranical leaders don't last forever. Change does not
take place instantaneously, but it doesn't take an infiniite amount of
time either.

> Also control information and image.


That occurs to a great extent in this country as well.

[Haiti Politics, Aristide, and US intervention]
> http://www.lrb.co.uk/v26/n08/farm01_.html
>
> The author doesn't really support any of it well, but I am not familiar
> with it enough to dispute it. I wonder why anyone in the US government
> would give a you know what either way.


It would seem that the government only wants leaders who won't stand up
to them. Whether that leader is democratically elected, or a dictator
is not relevant it appears.

>>>>Regardless, that doesn't mean we had any
>>>>obligation or interest to overthrow a government and destroy
>>>>infrastructure (which is taking this side of forever to rebuild) just
>>>>because of a figment of our government's imagination.


>>>I cannot determine where this inserted arguement is coming in from.
>>>The effective-one-party system in the USA has been for getting rid of SH
>>>since about 1997.


>>Note that I did not refer to either party in my statement.


> I know. I also stated I don't know where this is coming from.


It's just an example of government intervention breeding more terrorism.

>>The WMD was a figment of the government's imagination since they used
>>the "common knowledge" argument without any hard evidence.


> My personal favorite is the alien technology reason . But seriously,
> it's probably something more involved than we will know for at least
> decades.


It may be a simple as establishing a large sphere of influence in the
middle east and beyond. If they went through with overthrowing the
Syrian and Iranian governments, and establishing friendly governments,
our country will have a lot of influence from Israel all the way to
Afghanistan.
Ads
  #102  
Old May 5th 05, 06:10 AM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

>
>>> If they were *that* dissatisfied with the status quo, they
>>>would have eventually overthrown him (which would not have resulted in
>>>the destruction of vital infrastructure as the bombing did).

>
>> They tried.

>
> With ill-advised outside encouragement. The sentiment should build up
> from the inside. When the time is right, the revolt will succeed.


It just might take decades.

>> Mass murder was the result. Bush the elder did not support
>> the revolt by keeping SH's military out of the air. The revolt was
>> crushed.


> Which is a consequence of our government attempting to affect change
> without knowing the real situation on the ground. Allowing reforms to
> take place at their own pace is much safer and less destructive than
> revolts and war.


Once the decision was made to get SH out of kuwait, there was no turning
back. This was going to go on until SH was taken out. It should have been
done sooner than later. Supporting internal forces would have
accomplished that. I was of the opinion that not finishing it was a bad
thing in gulf war 1, I believe it now.

>> Which is why a dictator or monarch has to make sure to line the right
>> pockets and enough of them. Keep people affraid. Kill anyone who could
>> take power.


> Even the most tyrranical leaders don't last forever. Change does not
> take place instantaneously, but it doesn't take an infiniite amount of
> time either.


Sometimes they are just replaced by other tyrranical leaders. It may take
centuries.

>> Also control information and image.


> That occurs to a great extent in this country as well.


Of course. The US is heading towards tyranny.

> It would seem that the government only wants leaders who won't stand up
> to them. Whether that leader is democratically elected, or a dictator
> is not relevant it appears.


Same mentalty here at home. It doesn't matter so long as the person in
the suit does what he is supposed to. Look at the political process, ever
notice how selective the enforcement is? Right now I am wonder who King
Daley ****ed off.

>>>The WMD was a figment of the government's imagination since they used
>>>the "common knowledge" argument without any hard evidence.


>> My personal favorite is the alien technology reason . But seriously,
>> it's probably something more involved than we will know for at least
>> decades.


> It may be a simple as establishing a large sphere of influence in the
> middle east and beyond. If they went through with overthrowing the
> Syrian and Iranian governments, and establishing friendly governments,
> our country will have a lot of influence from Israel all the way to
> Afghanistan.


Could be. Lot's of could bes.


  #103  
Old May 5th 05, 03:50 PM
Matthew Russotto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
Arif Khokar > wrote:
>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>> You assume the people had that choice. They didn't. Governments can be
>> and are maintained by force.

>
>And they can be overthrown by force from within.


Provided those opposed to the government can accumulate and
effectively use sufficient force. Saddam Hussein's government was
quite good at preventing this.

--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
  #104  
Old May 5th 05, 03:55 PM
Matthew Russotto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
Arif Khokar > wrote:
>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>> There will always be injustice and there will always be terrorism.
>> And terrorists will continue to claim they are simply reacting to injustice
>> -- but they may well be lying.

>
>The same applies to the government that pleads ignorance.


To believe (as you've claimed) that the destruction of the WTC was due
to the unjust actions of the United States in placing bases in Saudi
Arabia depends on a number of dubious assumptions

1) That the terrorists acted because of the bases in Saudi Arabia
2) That the placement of bases in Saudi Arabia was unjust
3) That the terrorists were the wronged parties or acting on their behalf
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
  #105  
Old May 5th 05, 03:56 PM
Matthew Russotto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

>
>>> If they were *that* dissatisfied with the status quo, they
>>>would have eventually overthrown him (which would not have resulted in
>>>the destruction of vital infrastructure as the bombing did).

>
>> They tried.

>
>With ill-advised outside encouragement. The sentiment should build up
>from the inside. When the time is right, the revolt will succeed.


Or be crushed and all those involved imprisoned or killed. Right
doesn't make might.

--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
  #106  
Old May 6th 05, 05:29 AM
Arif Khokar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Matthew Russotto wrote:

> To believe (as you've claimed) that the destruction of the WTC was due
> to the unjust actions of the United States in placing bases in Saudi
> Arabia depends on a number of dubious assumptions


http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/m...udiarabia.html

> 1) That the terrorists acted because of the bases in Saudi Arabia


"...and Saudi-born Osama bin Laden cites the U.S. military presence in
his homeland as a reason for his hatred of America."

> 2) That the placement of bases in Saudi Arabia was unjust


"...the presence of American forces here has long been an irritant for
Saudi rulers facing strong anti-American sentiment among a growing and
increasingly restive population."

> 3) That the terrorists were the wronged parties or acting on their behalf


See above.

A quick Google search came up with many articles supporting my
assertion. Another example:
http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/ne...rticleID=78760

"The presence of Western troops in the kingdom since the 1991 war has
irked many Saudis, already angry over perceived U.S. support for Israel.
Their presence has been seized upon by Saudi-born Osama bin Laden as a
rallying cry for attacks.

Asked if the kingdom would ask these troops to leave to appease domestic
public opinion, Prince Saud said Riyadh would consider it once
"circumstances change". He did not elaborate."
  #107  
Old May 6th 05, 09:04 AM
Arif Khokar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Matthew Russotto wrote:
> Arif Khokar > wrote:


>>>You assume the people had that choice. They didn't. Governments can be
>>>and are maintained by force.

>>
>>And they can be overthrown by force from within.


> Provided those opposed to the government can accumulate and
> effectively use sufficient force. Saddam Hussein's government was
> quite good at preventing this.


So is our government. Your point?
  #108  
Old May 6th 05, 04:17 PM
Matthew Russotto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
Arif Khokar > wrote:
>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>> To believe (as you've claimed) that the destruction of the WTC was due
>> to the unjust actions of the United States in placing bases in Saudi
>> Arabia depends on a number of dubious assumptions

>
>http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/m...udiarabia.html
>
>> 1) That the terrorists acted because of the bases in Saudi Arabia

>
>"...and Saudi-born Osama bin Laden cites the U.S. military presence in
>his homeland as a reason for his hatred of America."


Assuming you believe bin Laden. I see no reason to. (He's cited OTHER
reasons, too, such as US support of Israel.)

>> 2) That the placement of bases in Saudi Arabia was unjust

>
>"...the presence of American forces here has long been an irritant for
>Saudi rulers facing strong anti-American sentiment among a growing and
>increasingly restive population."


Still looking for the _injustice_. Irritation of the Saudi rulers
doesn't equate to injustice.

>> 3) That the terrorists were the wronged parties or acting on their behalf

>
>See above.


No evidence of wrong to the terrorists. No evidence of wrong to
anyone. No evidence that the terrorists were acting on any but their
own behalf.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
  #109  
Old May 6th 05, 04:20 PM
Matthew Russotto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
Arif Khokar > wrote:
>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>> Arif Khokar > wrote:

>
>>>>You assume the people had that choice. They didn't. Governments can be
>>>>and are maintained by force.
>>>
>>>And they can be overthrown by force from within.

>
>> Provided those opposed to the government can accumulate and
>> effectively use sufficient force. Saddam Hussein's government was
>> quite good at preventing this.

>
>So is our government. Your point?


That the continual rule of the government of Saddam Hussein was NOT
the free choice of the people of Iraq; rather, it was imposed upon
them by Saddam's effective use of force against those who opposed him.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
  #110  
Old May 6th 05, 06:07 PM
Arif Khokar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Matthew Russotto wrote:

> Assuming you believe bin Laden. I see no reason to. (He's cited OTHER
> reasons, too, such as US support of Israel.)


The only 3 countries that I know of that support Israel are the US,
American Samoa, and Micronesia. We supply Israel the majority of its
armaments which they regularly use in densly populated areas.

In any case, I'd be more inclined to believe Bin Laden over the US
government. Bin Laden has no motive or reason to lie at this point in
time. The US government on the other hand ...

>>>2) That the placement of bases in Saudi Arabia was unjust


>>"...the presence of American forces here has long been an irritant for
>>Saudi rulers facing strong anti-American sentiment among a growing and
>>increasingly restive population."


> Still looking for the _injustice_. Irritation of the Saudi rulers
> doesn't equate to injustice.


So, only the rulers' opinions count, and not the people? Why are you in
favor of liberating one country, but perfectly willing to ignore the
sentiments of the population in a bordering country?

> No evidence of wrong to the terrorists. No evidence of wrong to
> anyone. No evidence that the terrorists were acting on any but their
> own behalf.


Lots of evidence that you're being obtuse.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Drive Train Damaged $$$$$ ?? popeyeball Jeep 4 March 29th 05 05:00 PM
problem with 94 Grand Caravan ES all wheel drive Mike Hannon Chrysler 0 January 16th 05 11:30 PM
Honda Passport - "Power" and "Winter" drive switches ajpdla Honda 5 November 5th 04 04:32 AM
93 Civic stalling at stop in drive Apurba Mukherjee Honda 3 October 21st 04 02:44 PM
92 Accord stalling at stop (in drive) after warm eric Honda 2 October 17th 04 11:17 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.