"willfully ignorant"

[Pure]

Amicus opined: "The sad thing in any debate or discussion about this issue, is that many who advocate abortion have undergone or approved of the the procedure and thus have a vested interest. "

Since any who've had abortions are women, most of the 'vested interests' are with women (since there are few drs.).

Further, except for underage women, we can't be sure who's done what. Iow, every women is suspect. Even nuns. Especially nuns.

The remedy then, to undo the grievous wrong of Roe v. Wade, is to hold a referendum about whether to re-criminalize abortion, where only males ('rational men') can vote.

Amicus, I could swear you cited women's voting rights as a an achievement of American freedom. No doubt I misread you. I think your present stand, that probably the 19th [women's rights] amendment--like the 14th-18th before it-- was unfortunate is more consistent with your position against whatever the American people have wanted their governments to do, since 1850.

I'm unsure of the following, but would you say also, that the 13th amendment, banning slavery, was a good idea or a bad one leading to abuse of power, in that it gave Congress the power to enforce the ban? Is it not arguable that Black persons, like women have fouled their nests since the 'statists' handed them a bunch of 'rights'?

Just curious.

 

[champagne1982]

amicus,

You have set forth a post stating some opinions about women's issues that I feel the need to comment on. As a preamble to the actual comments I feel compelled to remark upon, you said:

Rgraham...thank you for the correction...I had hopes that you would recall the later reference to that scene in which the 'many for the few' was indeed in the script..but no matter

Ho, hum...I guess this thread has been a sufficient diversion; one which I was about to withdraw from, as those on the left, if I may use that distinction, only attack the right and do not defend government control over human liberty...ah well, I shudda known better...

Now, on to the remarkable remarks you make...

As Pure returns to the abortion issue...implying without doubt that she is surely in the 'right' on this argument. That a woman should, without a doubt, have full control over her reproduction seems to be the foundation.

All who advocate for women's rights must be women?

I wonder now, as many do, about the history of women's rights, from the Colonial days on forward.

Women have traditionally held quiet power in all society. Don't limit yourself to questioning only the period of time you're mentioning here. All through human history the weaker sex has done a terrible job of managing home life (read home town and home country and home front, as well as home hearth) when their nations' men have taken themselves to war. Women, chattel that we are, can't possibly satisfy society's needs, in both the home and the broader scope of the community, without the more capable control of a man on the reins (reigns? I dunno).

Is the independent woman really such a benefit to society?

No. Independent women just breed more independent women and (the real danger lies here) wrong-minded men.

Has the sexual revolution of the 50's really clarified the gender roles and their function in terms of family and progeny?

The 50's? I think you've identified the wrong decade here. The women of the 50's were too busy getting relegated back to their kitchens and motherhood; on the return of their emotionally and physically scarred warriors, home from the battlefields.

Somewhere I read that only about in half of all children are the biological fathers known. But then, the female has always been fickle, even the Greeks were concerned about patrilineage.

Those nasty, fickle women! Imagine, victims of rape and incest, thinking that they have the right to decide who they would have sex with, nevermind that they actually may, even remotely, may have a say in who would father any children they risk their lives to bear and birth! Silly gits!

Is it important to know who the father was? Or does it matter? Are we truly headed down the road to sperm banks and genetic manipulation and cloning?

Beware the women in the biological sciences. They only want to genetically manipulate male embroyos to have the wombs of females, thus freeing them (the malicious women) to fill all of the traditionally macho places and lock the little man up in the home, barefoot and pregnant, in the kitchen where he belongs.

I maintain that women, in the approximately 75 years they have had equal rights to vote, have fouled their own nest.

It really bothers you that there's no one in cleaning up your shit, doesn't it?

They have demonstrated, beyond doubt, their inability to deal with issues on a rational basis. Instead, they have demanded and received the sacrifice of society to further their gender needs while relegating the male to the sidelines in almost all instances.

Perhaps instead of seeking an abortion, women should just commit patricide. Seems to me, we'd be killing two birds with one stone.

It is obscene to consider a human embryo/foetus as anything other than human life. An insult to knowledge and logic. It is life. Not a puppy, not a guppy, but a human.

If the other animals you speak of are not 'life', I need you to clarify your definition.

Not even as a result of rape, or incest or a pinhole in a condom does anyone have the 'right' to take that life. It is 'life' and as such, is due all the protection that the laws of man can offer.

See above, there are pinholes all through your argument.

If you do not respect that life, then on what grounds do you respect any human life? None. By advocating abortion you lose the argument that human life has any value at all.

By advocating that a man has the right to determine what a woman does with her life, you lose the argument that women are fit to be human mothers. All you need is a womb, you don't need a human for that!

And yes, I know all your arguments, from the 70's hence, and none, not one, measure up against the innate human desire to 'protect' life.

I'm left to wonder what value is placed on human life during war and famine. Men are notoriously selfish, malnourished children don't live and malnourished women don't have babies, well fed men will at least die on a full stomach.

It is only in the emotional, irrational workings of the female mind that the reality of that human life within the womb, can be discarded without conscience.

Women are hysterical bitches in their foolish assumptions that there's more to LIVING life than giving LIFE.

The sad thing in any debate or discussion about this issue, is that many who advocate abortion have undergone or approved of the the procedure and thus have a vested interest.

It's a sad thing that many who argue against women's rights are not women.

To justify and rationalize the act, they defend it with no quarter given. As rabid as the suicide bombers who sacrifice life for faith, this, 'belief' that one has a 'right' to take the life of an unborn child, is the quiet terrorism faced by the past two generations.

Termination of unwanted and unhealthy pregnancies has been going on a lot longer than for two generations. Don't forget, prior to modern medical procedures there was a higher incidence of infanticide and death during childbirth. Which would you prefer?

I am an atheist, I do not call upon God as the creator of life. Life is created by the union of a male and a female. That union is usually by mutual consent.

One must be responsible for one's actions, must one not?

Grow up! If you play, you pay. Simple as that.

regards...amicus...

In the final decade of the last century, one rape was committed approximately every six minutes. Now I won't argue that all of those rapes were by men against women. (I link to just one year's stats as an example.) I don't even have a statistic for that sort of sexual assault. I am sure there are available figures somewhere, I'll let you do your own search for those, however.

With all that said, I anticipate the return of mankind to the previous blissful state of living within a patriarchal, hunter/gatherer society. Don't forget to call your mother when you need your meat cut for you.

 

[amicus]

Misologist?

Hello Champagne82...you spent some time and thought on my post and I thank you for that...

I went to the dictionary, looking up the opposite of misogynist, one who hates women, I do not...

I thought it was misogamist, but those are the one who hate marriage...

Are you a hater of men? Is your platform that women have been oppressed throughout history?

A closer reading of my post, if not literally, then between the lines, would expose that I have more questions than answers.

I do not think the current atmosphere is healthy in terms of children, marriage, relationsships...et al...I see among my own children, now grown, an lack of the ability to morally judge between right and wrong.

I do not advocate returning to a 'patriarchal, hunter/gatherer society', I only reference that as from whence we came...

I can not conceive of a knowledgeable person not being concerned with the state of affairs that is common place in our time. I do explore possible solutions in my fictional works, but in non fiction essays, or posts such as this, I mainly try to expose the errors in contemporary events, in current assumptions, and with a curmudgeonly attitude, tease and taunt those who are certain beyond a doubt that they can take life, in utero, without consequence, to prove and defend it.

Usually they do as you did, claim 'your' rights are being challenged, when the issue is the right of the unborn child to live.

"It's a sad thing that many who argue against women's rights are not women."

Your statement above...I cherish reason and rationality wherever I find it...true, I am not subject to becoming pregnant and if in your eyes that means I am not qualified to comment, then so be it.

My real imperative is: I do not think the moral and ethical state we find ourselves in, here in the 21st century, is a good one. I think we are a troubled people and I think we need to question where we are and where we are going...

with that, I repeat my appreciation for your response and bid you a pleasant adieu....

regards....amicus...

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colleen
I think someone like you wouldn't have to worry about laws any way. According to this post above you are above the law.

1. No state or local law allows private citizens to have control over papers pertaining to an open investigation. Whether they be photocopies or originals. but for some reason you're allowed to keep them in your own home.

2. And you were also allowed to willfully violate court orders? That's absolutely incredible.

In short there's no way in hell either of these two things happened if you were obeying the law. The only way a court ordered wire tap can be removed is if a court orders it removed, or if the the order expires.

So according to this post you are either a liar or a criminal. Which one

Have you ever installed a phone tap? Could you tell me what the tip and ring are? I bet you couldn't even find the pair carrying the dial tone to be tapped. You probably couldn't find it if I gave the cross box & post, not that a tap is installed at the box, it's usually intsalled in a 3m splice case. Could youeven open one? I doubt it.

When the court order for a wire tap is issued, there is a page in the court order directing the carrier to install a tap. This page is counter signed by the clerk and has on it several pertinent details, including the number to be tapped, the requesting agency, the duration of the tap, etc. My supervisor gets a copy, a copy which he must file with 2nd line management after the order is complete. He makes a photcopy, counter signs the photo copy, has the requesting agency have a prepresenative counter sign it, and then calls LDMC. They give pair, post, crossbox & CO equiptment of the particular line & his supervisor counter signs before he can generate the work order.

All of that information is generated for the linesman in a print out & the linesman also recieves a photocopy of the form of which the specific page from the court order is part. Once finished, the linesman returns to garage, signs off that order is completed, & his or her superviosr signs off. The form (with it's photo copy of the pertinent order from the court) is then turned in. We have a real strong union however and since we do, the linesman also recieves a copy which they keep. It's our proof that we acted according to the law, should the legitimacy of the tap ever come into question. This particular page has no information about the person the number belongs too, the reason for the investigation, probable cause provided etc. It is simply the direct order of the court to install said tap.

I find it strange you go all the way back to such an early post to find reason to call me a liar. However, when your point has been proven to be false. When you have made yourself out to be either a liar or an idiot, by claiming you read USA Patriot, and then claiming there is nothing in there that removes judicial oversight, when clearly there is, I suppose obfuscation is the best you can do.

Since that didn't work would you care to start on the your mama jokes? It seems the only option left for a man of your...intellectual capabilities? I use the word intellect loosely of course.

-Colly

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I have read it in it's entirity, not just excerpts.
The FBI has always had the ability to check consumer information without the persons knowledge. What do you think they pay all those hackers for, and have since the seventies.

Also the person must be involved somehow in an investigation for them to do this. They CAN NOT just pick a random person and seize their records.

I've been trained in law enforcement, and we learned about stuff like this long before the patriot act was written.

Sometimes agencies can ask the court fot a "blanket warrant" This allows that agency to seize any information that deem essential to their investigation. Then when they prexent the case to the court during trial information can be dismissed.

Blanket warrants can also be used for taps. It allows any phone or communication device that the person is likely to be used to be tapped. Including cell, home, work, computer, even a friends house.

These warrants have been used for long time. It's not an invention of this peice of legislation.

Trained in law enforcement? Oh, please. Yet another security guard who couldn't pass the highway patrol test? Now it all makes sense.

They can pick whoever the fuck they want you dim wit. Can you not read? It takes only a signed note from the head of the requesting agency. It's there in black & freaking white. It isn't even couched in leagalese. They don't have to provide probable cause, they don't have to provide jack. All it takes is a note. The potential for abuse is impossible to ignore for anyone who cares about their civil liberties.

In your case, after reading this and your other comments, the only thing that comes to my mind is that you are depriving a village somewhere of an idiot. And you had the gall to question my intellect? You might have been right, I was stupid enough to waste my time treating you like you were my intellectual equal.

I should have known I was dealing with a troll when you jumped in here demanding others provide proofs for thier points and providing none of your own. To this point, other than slinging challenges, insults & your own unsubsatniated opinions you have yet to prove you even can support one of your opinions with evidence.

What truly aggravates me is that right wing loudmouths, who aren't willing to do more than run thier mouths, like you, force me to challenge you. As one of the few conservative voices here I work very hard to present, & defend conservative views. Then one of you blow hards shows up, pops off, acts like god's elect in demanding proof of the lefties here while refuseing to substantiate your own claims. You weaken my arguments by showing just what kind of cretins now call themselves conservatives. Please crawl back under your rock, you give real conservatives everywhere a bad name.

-Colly

 

[Pure]

Hi Colly, I wonder if you have comment on my 4-10 posting here about Portugal. I believe it's relevant since if one truly proposes to lay criminal charges regarding abortion, all associated with the act, beginning with the pregnant woman, would be held responsible.

Welcome back.

J.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Hi Colly: No one has mentioned this nice little article. (I'm tired of discussing whether 'government' is evil and illegitimate.)

The Portuguese experience

The Abortion Question
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Published: April 7, 2004, New York Times.

LISBON — To understand what might happen in America if President Bush gets his way with the Supreme Court, consider recent events in Portugal.

Seven women were tried this year in the northern Portuguese fishing community of Aveiro for getting abortions. They were prosecuted — facing three-year prison sentences — along with 10 "accomplices," including husbands, boyfriends, parents and a taxi driver who had taken a pregnant woman to a clinic.

The police staked out gynecological clinics and investigated those who emerged looking as if they might have had abortions because they looked particularly pale, weak or upset. At the trial, the most intimate aspects of their gynecological history were revealed.

This was the second such mass abortion trial lately in Portugal. The previous one involved 42 defendants, including a girl who had been 16 at the time of the alleged abortion. {my bold}

Both trials ended in acquittals, except for a nurse who was sentenced to eight and a half years in prison for performing abortions.

Portugal, like the U.S., is an industrialized democracy with a conservative religious streak, but the trials have repulsed the Portuguese. A recent opinion poll shows that people here now favor abortion rights, 79 percent to 14 percent. In a sign of the changing mood, Portugal's president recently commuted the remainder of the nurse's sentence. There's a growing sense that while abortion may be wrong, criminalization is worse.

"It's very embarrassing," said Sandy Gageiro, a Lisbon journalist who covered the trials. "Lots of reporters came and covered Portugal and said it had this medieval process."

Portugal offers a couple of sobering lessons for Americans who, like Mr. Bush, aim to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The first is that abortion laws are very difficult to enforce in a world as mobile as ours. Some 20,000 Portuguese women still get abortions each year, mostly by crossing the border into Spain. In the U.S., where an overturn of Roe v. Wade would probably mean bans on abortion only in a patchwork of Bible Belt states, pregnant women would travel to places like New York, California and Illinois for their abortions.

The second is that if states did criminalize abortion, they would face a backlash as the public focus shifted from the fetus to the woman. "The fundamentalists have lost the debate" in Portugal, said Helena Pinto, president of UMAR, a Portuguese abortion rights group. "Now the debate has shifted to the rights of women. Do we want to live in a country where women can be in jail for abortion?"

Mr. Bush and other conservatives have chipped away successfully at abortion rights, as Gloria Feldt notes in her new book, "The War on Choice." That's because their strategy has been to focus on procedures like so-called partial-birth abortion and on protecting fetal rights. The strategy succeeds because most Americans share Mr. Bush's aversion to abortion.

As do I.

Like most Americans, I find abortion a difficult issue, because a fetus seems much more than a lump of tissue but considerably less than a human being. Most of us are deeply uncomfortable with abortion, especially in the third trimester, but we still don't equate it with murder.

That's why it makes sense to try to reduce abortions by encouraging sex education and contraception. The conservative impulse to teach abstinence only, without promoting contraception, is probably one reason the U.S. has so many more abortions per capita than Canada or Britain.

Portugal's experience suggests that while many people are offended by abortion on demand, they might be even more troubled by criminalization of abortion.

"Forbidding abortion doesn't save anyone or anything," said Sonia Fertuzinhos, a member of the Portuguese Parliament. "It just gets women arrested and humiliated in the public arena."

Thank you Pure,

The issue is like the mythic Hydra. For each head you cut off more pop up. For a rational person, one who would like to apply reason to any issue, it's a nightmare. Multiple reasons to support or deny choice, coupled with a layering of moral, ethical, religious and personal rights & freedoms issues. All coming together on one issue.

This labrinthine twist of causes, effects, questions & feelings is probably one reason you get such polarization among proponents & opponents.

It is significantly easier to declare yourself pro choice, decide abortion is murder, life begins at conception and must be protected than it is to study the whole of the beast. By choosing simple, easy to understand absolutes you don't have to deal with the rest. You can just blow it off as irrelevent since the issue is destroying a human life. The simplification of such a complex issue is pretty powerful incentive for many I think.

Likewise it is easier for pro choice people to boil it down to a simplicity. In thier case the complex can be boiled down to a woman's rights & privacy. Obviously this simplicity dosen't confer upon them the same moral/ethical superiority that hard line pro life people take as part & parcel of thier argument. It does however make the complex less so & allow a hardening of opinion.

I think what this article shows is that boiling it down to a simplicity, while easy on the individual, produces results where the absolutes you depend on in theory, aren't there in practice. When you present legislation to the populace as protecting the unborn, ignoring the rest, you are apt to get groundswell support. Once enacted however, and you begin to have to show the populcae that protecting fetal rights is one and the same with abbrogating the rights of a pregnant woman, you are likely to get backlash that is as strong as your support was earlier.

It is a complex issue and as long as people continue to take the intellectually lazy road & try to adress it as a simple issue any action taken, wheter to loosen restriction or tighten restriction is likely to face the same kind of backlash.

As I posted in another thread, the lack of a definite answer to the very core question means the argument is likely to rage on for a long time to come. People are not happy with answers that are not clear cut. As long as the issue is boiled down to simplistic terms by both sides, it is very likely that no legislation, predicated on such simplistic responses to a complex issue, will be satisfactory to the majority for very long.

-Colly

 

[minsue]

Hi Colly, I wonder if you have comment on my 4-10 posting here about Portugal. I believe it's relevant since if one truly proposes to lay criminal charges regarding abortion, all associated with the act, beginning with the pregnant woman, would be held responsible.

Welcome back.

J.

Not to be rude, Pure, but really what is the point in commenting? Those of us that are pro-choice, and hopefully at least a few that consider themselves pro-life, are going to be disgusted and horrified by the article. That much is obvious, no? Myself, I appreciate that you posted it. I was unaware of that and, therefore, less prepared to fight it, but I really have no comment here as my feelings on the subject are likely obvious to all.

 

[Pure]

Well, Min, many people's reactions are predictable. One may ask about the point of any of these threads. That said, the criminality of the woman is an often hedged and evaded topic among 'prolife' persons. And that's logically entailed by the equation of abortion with murder.



PS. Thanks for responding, Colly.

 

[minsue]

Well, Min, many people's reactions are predictable. One may ask about the point of any of these threads. That said, the criminality of the woman is an often hedged and evaded topic among 'prolife' persons. And that's logically entailed by the equation of abortion with murder.

Point taken and appreciated. Forgive me. It all just exhausts me sometimes.

 

[Pure]

Factoid of the Day **


Polls of the military are few and tend to be unreliable since pollsters have only limited access to military bases, and many military personnel are scattered overseas. A recent Washington Post/CBS Poll found that military personnel were still 2-to-1 Republican, but a CBS News survey found that 40 to 48 percent of people from "military families" would vote for Senator John Kerry, said Peter Feaver, a professor of political science at Duke University who studies military-civilian relations.

Various studies in the past have found that overall, military personnel and their families vote at least 2-to-1 Republican; in some subsets, like elite officers, the ratio is as high as 9 to 1.

I hadn't realized Wesley Clark was such an anomaly! Besides him, any other democrat military personnel or spouses or offspring out there??

Is this because, as Colly has explained, Republicans have cornered the market on (perceived) 'toughness' (and chose GWB as epitome).

---



**From:
[Among Military Families, Questions About Bush

By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL

Published: April 11, 2004, N Y Times]

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Factoid of the Day **


Polls of the military are few and tend to be unreliable since pollsters have only limited access to military bases, and many military personnel are scattered overseas. A recent Washington Post/CBS Poll found that military personnel were still 2-to-1 Republican, but a CBS News survey found that 40 to 48 percent of people from "military families" would vote for Senator John Kerry, said Peter Feaver, a professor of political science at Duke University who studies military-civilian relations.

Various studies in the past have found that overall, military personnel and their families vote at least 2-to-1 Republican; in some subsets, like elite officers, the ratio is as high as 9 to 1.

I hadn't realized Wesley Clark was such an anomaly! Besides him, any other democrat military personnel or spouses or offspring out there??

Is this because, as Colly has explained, Republicans have cornered the market on (perceived) 'toughness' (and chose GWB as epitome).

---



**From:
[Among Military Families, Questions About Bush

By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL

Published: April 11, 2004, N Y Times]

I think your answer is more about percieved good for them. WH is ex military and thinks the Reps more often do things to help him than the Dems. Overall I have seen the Dems push for cuts in military spending significantly more often than Republicans. When you push for cuts in military spending you threaten the livlihoods of military folks. They don't tend to forget that, despite other political realitites.

-Colly

 

[Pure]

Colly said,

I think your answer is more about perceived good for them. WH is ex military and thinks the Reps more often do things to help him than the Dems. Overall I have seen the Dems push for cuts in military spending significantly more often than Republicans. When you push for cuts in military spending you threaten the livelihoods of military folks. They don't tend to forget that, despite other political realities.

Good point. But don't the military get PO'd when wars for 'hearts and minds' turn sour, and politics determines battlefield strategies, and wars drag on?

There was an interesting article on casualities that the "American Public" will concur with. The conclusion was that they will put up with lots, *provided the objective seems clear and desirable (and attainable, I suppose).

 

[Joseki Ko]

To see naked Pics of Sarahhh vote a 5 here.


I have a bet with Sarahhh. The Lowest rated story in the Earthday thread wins posted naked PICS of the loser. So if you want to see her naked vote a 5 on her story, or at least a 4

Thanks for your help.

 

[Somme]

UQ Wire: The Perfect Alibi (Part II)
Wednesday, 14 April 2004, 4:39 pm
Opinion: www.UnansweredQuestions.org
Distribution via the Unanswered Questions Wire
Sign up for the wire at:
http://www.unansweredquestions.org/headlines.php
Unanswered Questions : Thinking for ourselves.

The View from Benedict

The Perfect Alibi (PART II)
... and why the administration isn't using it.

FROM: http://benedictus.blogspot.com/

See Also: UQ Wire: The Perfect Alibi

*****************

Planning Afghanistan, I:

The administration's planning for the war against Afghanistan actually started (at the latest) in March, 2001 (per Janes Defense Weekly (subscription required)), a full six months before 9-11 and less than two months after taking power. At least one more report to this effect occurred prior to September 11th, that being a report in a Pakistani newspaper which specified a surprisingly accurate start date for the war in Afghanistan. A third report of pre-9-11 efforts against Afghanistan appeared in the BBC News just one day after Bush actually signed NSPD-9, this being of a clandestine meeting in Germany between U.S. and Taliban representatives during which the U.S. representatives delivered a "go along and get along" message to the Taliban representatives present. It was not exactly stated like this however. The Taliban was told that they could either accept "a carpet of gold of a carpet of bombs". But what exactly was the Taliban to go along with in order to receive this "carpet of gold"?

Clearly then, the Bush administration was preparing quite early for a war in Afghanistan, so why did they pick a document (NSPD-9) dated only on September 4th to advance their case? Certainly there are some documents from well before this date that could be declassified, documents that would show far better the administration's earlier intent to address the problem in Afghanistan. Why not offer those instead and completely silence Clarke's criticism?

In fact, the war plan as executed against Afghanistan confirms quite well that it was a long time in planning. Special forces would be air-lifted into Afghanistan where they would provide logistical and intelligence support for the "Northern Alliance" while directing close air support for a new offensive against the Taliban. A reasonable plan, and it clearly worked. The Taliban was defeated.

The problem comes with the details. Special forces cannot be just dropped in somewhere and say, "No problem. Let us run the show." This takes a long period of building a bond and gaining a trust between the local leadership and the Special Forces who are coming in to help. Yet, between 9-11 and the start of U.S. bombing in Afghanistan, we are only looking at 20 days. Even with the September 4th date, we are only up to 27, and the conversations necessary to build that trust could hardly be accomplished during that timeframe. This simply could not happen. It had to take far longer.

So again, why choose NSPD-9 to partially declassify when clearly other documents would confirm much earlier efforts? There-in lies the problem.

*****************


The Caspian Sea Basin:

As early as 1993 (perhaps earlier), the Caspian Sea basin was identified as having an estimated 200 billion barrels of untapped oil. This was the largest undeveloped oil reserve in the world, and is expected to be the last major oil find of anything close to this magnitude. With the fall of the Soviet Union and the creation of the independent Turkmenistan, this oil was now up for grabs. Companies that could tap this oil would reap huge profits, and competition for a chance at these profits was immense. In a world that was reaching "Peak Oil", access to these reserves was critical for any corporation that wished to remain a major player in the oil industry. The big problem however was location; getting this oil out of the ground was simply a matter of applying existing technology, but delivering the oil to ports with access to the world's consumers was a different story. Long pipelines would be required to move this oil from the basin to these eventual consumers, and the various routes that these pipelines might take all involved significant questions. The most reasonable and financially feasible route was through Iran, but of course, this created a problem for U.S. oil companies, the situation between the U.S. and Iran being what it was then and continues to be.

More difficult was a pipeline through the war-torn Afghanistan, but at least this offered a more reasonable route politically for U.S. oil companies. It was with this in mind that UNOCAL entered the competition in 1995, wishing to participate in building a pipeline through Afghanistan. There would be a second beneficiary if UNOCAL succeeded in securing a part contract; Haliburton would actually construct the pipeline, if only the Taliban could be convinced to select UNOCAL. Then Haliburton CEO Dick Cheney himself expressed optimism about the prospects of Caspian Sea oil in 1998.

At this point, stories vary. Some of them report that UNOCAL dropped out after the Clinton administration bombed al Qeada training camps in Afghanistan; others suggest that UNOCAL was never really comfortable with the security situation in Afghanistan, and that other competitors were simply more willing to deal with it as it was. Whichever the case (or perhaps both are true), UNOCAL lost out on the Afghanistan pipeline contract, and with that loss, U.S. oil companies had effectively lost any significant market share in the movement of this oil from the Caspian Sea basin to its eventual consumers.

*****************


Planning Afghanistan, II:

A very striking conclusion can be drawn from NSDP-9, dated as it is on September 4th, 2001. However much 9-11 can be viewed as justification for the war against Afghanistan, 9-11 was not the the reason for that war since 9-11 had not yet occurred when NSPD-9 was drafted. Whatever that reason was, it had occurred before 9-11, and probably well before 9-11. This is problematical because this war was sold to the American public as a response to 9-11, they of course being an eager buyer at that time. It was not sold however as a response to the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, nor was it sold as a response to the embassy bombings, nor was it sold as a response the first World Trade Center bombing. These could have been included, but they simply were not. The war against Afghanistan was simply sold as a response to 9-11, and yet it wasn't.

This being the case, assume for a moment that 9-11 had never occurred. We know from NSPD-9 that the war against Afghanistan still happens, almost certainly using the same plan of attack and during the same timeframe. It is informative then to speculate about what this war would have looked like to the American public. A number of things most certainly would have changed.

First, the war would have begun without being "pre-sold" in any fashion. Second, there would have been very little press attention, Afghanistan being far from the American consciousness during this planning stage. What we are left with then is a Special Forces operation in an obscure war in a far away land. One can only imagine reports of this, buried perhaps on page 14 of your newspaper:

U.S. Special Forces in Afghanistan began last week to provide logistical and intelligence support to the "Northern Alliance", a group attempting to overthrow the Taliban government of that country. In conjunction with this operation, the U.S. government is also providing limited air support for a new offensive by the Northern Alliance.

The Taliban government provides refuge for the training camps of the Osama bin Laden-sponsored al Qeada terrorist organization. bin Laden has been linked to the World Trade Center bombing, the bombing of U.S. embassies, and the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole. It is hoped that this offensive will also end these al Qeada operations.

Short and sweet. Fiction, of course, but if the Northern Alliance was going to help us with the al Qaeda problem, why wouldn't we provide such support? What is important to note however is that this was how this war was planned to appear.

One often hears the phrase, "9-11 changed everything!" Perhaps for many it did, but it did change one thing for everyone: The war against Afghanistan was now on the front page.

*****************


The Perfect Alibi:

All of this of course brings us back to the basic question: If the administration de-classified portions of NSPD-9 to show that they were doing something about terrorism before 9-11, that document is weak proof that they were doing much any earlier than that. Indeed, this is Richard Clarke's conclusion. Yet Clarke's assertions would fall completely if instead the administration had instead selected a single document to partially declassify from perhaps late Spring or early Summer of 2001. This would provide the administration with "the perfect alibi". So why not just do this?

The problem lies with Richard Clarke himself. If Clarke was the administration's terrorism czar, and if the administration was planning a war against Afghanistan, why wasn't Clarke (who had been instrumental in developing the original plan) "in the loop"? The conclusion is unmistakable: Clarke wasn't in the loop because for all of those months, the war planning for Afghanistan had nothing to do with terrorism. And in fact, there is only one other interest that the U.S. had in Afghanistan back then. The UNOCAL pipeline.

If the administration did in fact declassify an earlier document, Clarke himself would "connect the dots": Afghanistan was our first oil war. And they don't want you to know that.

*****************


Aftermath:

On December 22, 2001, Hamid Karzai was installed by the U.S. as the interim President of Afghanistan, a position he retains to this date. On Dec. 31, 2001, President Bush appointed Zalmay Khalilzad as his Special Envoy to Afghanistan. Both Khalilzad, a former member of PNAC, and Karzai were former top advisors to UNOCAL.

On March 18, 2002, the Chicago Tribune reported that U.S. military bases in Afghanistan had been largely positioned along the proposed route for the pipeline through that country. Widely reported in the foreign press, it was a mere footnote in the American press.

In December of 2002 with the nation largely consumed by the news regarding the run-up to the upcoming Iraq war, a little noticed article appeared in the Business sections of several newspapers. UNOCAL had gotten its Afghanistan pipeline contract, holding a 36.4% share of that.

It is a pipeline that will never be built.

Osama bin Laden remains at large.

*** ENDS ***

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:
A Timeline of Oil and Violence: AFGHANISTAN
Timeline of Competition between Unocal and Bridas for the Afghanistan Pipeline
CakeGate and the Neocons: A Timeline
A Timeline of Oil and Violence: IR

**************

STANDARD DISCLAIMER FROM UQ.ORG: UnansweredQuestions.org does not necessarily endorse the views expressed in the above article. We present this in the interests of research -for the relevant information we believe it contains. We hope that the reader finds in it inspiration to work with us further, in helping to build bridges between our various investigative communities, towards a greater, common understanding of the unanswered questions which now lie before us.

Home Page | Headlines | Previous Story | Next Story

Copyright (c) Scoop Media

 

[Somme]

Republicans Walk Out Of Federal Hearing On Voting Machines - While Some Civil Rights

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0404/S00117.htm

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly said,

I think your answer is more about perceived good for them. WH is ex military and thinks the Reps more often do things to help him than the Dems. Overall I have seen the Dems push for cuts in military spending significantly more often than Republicans. When you push for cuts in military spending you threaten the livelihoods of military folks. They don't tend to forget that, despite other political realities.

Good point. But don't the military get PO'd when wars for 'hearts and minds' turn sour, and politics determines battlefield strategies, and wars drag on?

There was an interesting article on casualities that the "American Public" will concur with. The conclusion was that they will put up with lots, *provided the objective seems clear and desirable (and attainable, I suppose).

I would think that even a military fiasco, while distressing, would loose it's force when the option is being homeless, jobless, and unable to put a roof over your families head.

Absentee votes from U.S. military personelle were one of the major factors in Al Gore's loss in Florida. The Democrats have called for cuts in military spending so many times they pretty much know they have little support within the military or within the military industrial complex really.

For military families it comes down to a choice of evils, like it does for most of us. There choice is more poignant, with more life or death consequence, but wehn youboil it down to a bufoon or someone who will merrily slash your job or pension or benefits... I guess a buffon dosen't look so bad.

-Colly

Edited to add forgive the typos, I'll edit them out when I am not so druged.

 

[shereads]

Cuts in Defense spending recommended by the Democrats would have saved us billions on the recently canceled helicopter project. Every cut to the defense budget is not a cut of military personnel or their benefits. In fact, GWB has quietly cut benefits to military families that have been fought for by Democrats in the Congreess including Kerry.

Giving billions to defense contractors doesn't benefit military personnel any more than it benefits me. The fact that they fall under the same category of spending means that the Republicans can keep saying "they want to weaken our military" when in fact, maybe "they" want to spend the billions of wasted dollars on veterans hospitals and better housing.

It's the same cynical sleight of hand that lets Republicans take credit for cutting taxes, when in fact the bill just gets handed to us back at the local and state level. All they're really doing is shifting the tax burden away from corporatations and the rich, to inviduals and the middle class. We still have to pay for police and fire protection and the impact of immigration on Florida and border states; we just pay it into a different slot, and GWB pretends he's made us each richer. If you say a thing often enough, it becomes true.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Cuts in Defense spending recommended by the Democrats would have saved us billions on the recently canceled helicopter project. Every cut to the defense budget is not a cut of military personnel or their benefits. In fact, GWB has quietly cut benefits to military families that have been fought for by Democrats in the Congreess including Kerry.

Giving billions to defense contractors doesn't benefit military personnel any more than it benefits me. The fact that they fall under the same category of spending means that the Republicans can keep saying "they want to weaken our military" when in fact, maybe "they" want to spend the billions of wasted dollars on veterans benefits.

I'll probably be hung in effigy, but I'll say it anyway. The PERCEPTION is that the democrats want to cut defense spending so they can increase spending on give away programs like welfare. It is spun, very successfully I might add, by the republicans as being anti military, anti military families, anti patriotic, anti-american & in favor of more liberal bleeding heart social programs that favor those who don't work and would rather be on the dole.

If this is not the case, then the Democrats need a new PR firm, because then have done practically nothing that I have seen to counter this perception. It is a perception that is an easy sell in the heartland and it is there, in the heart land, where the democrats have lost all credibility IMHO.

The Democrat's call for cuts in defense spending and increased spending on domestic programs is completely in line with the overall pitch of being more concerned with domestic issues than foerign affairs. They seem to have accepted that they will be labled anti military and since they more or less are, they don't do anyting to try and change that perception. And in years past it never really cost them, but changing demographics have and the vote of military personel is a not insignificant chunk of the electorate to give away by default. I do not see that they have recognized this fact yet, or if they have I do not see that they have done anything to banish misconceptions. Certainly nominating an anti military sentaor from the North east didn't do much, if anything to increase their appeal to military men or their dependants.

-Colly

 

[KarenAM]

My perception is that American liberalism, as forged in the 1960's, has never come to grips with two key mistakes.

One is the anti-military perception that is based ultimately on the way the anti-war movement of the 1960's blamed draftees who were coming home for the war, and mistreated them badly. I know a number of Vietnam era vets who will never vote Democratic no matter what the Republicans do to them, all thanks to "Hanoi Jane" and others. This resentment runs deep.

Two was the surrender of religion to the conservatives, caused ultimately by the left's foolish embracing of Marxism and its anti-religious baggage. This means that a lot of religious people will vote for Republicans despite being poor and directly hurt by Republican policies.

Neither of these stands is inherently liberal, but both clearly hurt liberals, and both are exploited cynically by conservative politicians. If the Democratic party wants to succeed, they need to consider this and do something about it.

 

[Pure]

Those are good points, Karen.
Attitudes to military force and to religion need to be respected by "liberal"-- and even NONliberal lefties like myself.

It's also been said, that Democrats should not allow "patriotism" to be a cornered market of Republicans. In Europe, the socialist parties always got screwed around wartimes, by refusing to joing the clamor. (Was that a mistake?)

There's no simple way to counteract a party that wraps itself in the flag and calls the other defeat-seeking or treasonous

Given the perceptions about Democrats, Republican 'spin' will put the worst face on things. For instance, it seems the Clintons were Christians, practicing methodists. That was not sufficient.

In last night's press conference, Bush set himself up as the man to 'stay the course' to 'get the [military and reconstruction] job done' and 'bring freedom to the Iraqi people.'

By implication, Kerry, the geniune veteran, indeed volunteer would waver and be timid, would fuck up the military enterprise (e.g., abruptly pull out) and happily see the Iraqi people again enslaved by the likes of Saddam.

As Sher says, the reality of 'benefits' to military familiies is somehow being lost to the blare of trumpets for battle.

J.

Note to Colly: Are you seeing all the propaganda for the Patriot Act these days, in the Rice testimony, the Bush press conference etc; the remedy for inter agency fuck ups and outmoded laws supposedly preventing one group from telling the other about terrorists. Oddly enough, speaking 'structurally' as Rice does, the Patriot Act, if I'm not mistaken, left the FBI and CIA organizational structures intact.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Those are good points, Karen.
Attitudes to military force and to religion need to be respected by "liberal"-- and even NONliberal lefties like myself.

It's also been said, that Democrats should not allow "patriotism" to be a cornered market of Republicans. In Europe, the socialist parties always got screwed around wartimes, by refusing to joing the clamor. (Was that a mistake?)

There's no simple way to counteract a party that wraps itself in the flag and calls the other defeat-seeking or treasonous

Given the perceptions about Democrats, Republican 'spin' will put the worst face on things. For instance, it seems the Clintons were Christians, practicing methodists. That was not sufficient.

In last night's press conference, Bush set himself up as the man to 'stay the course' to 'get the [military and reconstruction] job done' and 'bring freedom to the Iraqi people.'

By implication, Kerry, the geniune veteran, indeed volunteer would waver and be timid, would fuck up the military enterprise (e.g., abruptly pull out) and happily see the Iraqi people again enslaved by the likes of Saddam.

As Sher says, the reality of 'benefits' to military familiies is somehow being lost to the blare of trumpets for battle.

J.

Note to Colly: Are you seeing all the propaganda for the Patriot Act these days, in the Rice testimony, the Bush press conference etc; the remedy for inter agency fuck ups and outmoded laws supposedly preventing one group from telling the other about terrorists. Oddly enough, speaking 'structurally' as Rice does, the Patriot Act, if I'm not mistaken, left the FBI and CIA organizational structures intact.

It's an election year Pure. You won't see anything coming out of either camp that isn't propaganda & spin. Granted that factual statements are rare in any year, but in an election year nothing that's fit to say isn't imbued with spin or embellished for effect.

-Colly

 

[Colleen Thomas]

My perception is that American liberalism, as forged in the 1960's, has never come to grips with two key mistakes.

One is the anti-military perception that is based ultimately on the way the anti-war movement of the 1960's blamed draftees who were coming home for the war, and mistreated them badly. I know a number of Vietnam era vets who will never vote Democratic no matter what the Republicans do to them, all thanks to "Hanoi Jane" and others. This resentment runs deep.

Two was the surrender of religion to the conservatives, caused ultimately by the left's foolish embracing of Marxism and its anti-religious baggage. This means that a lot of religious people will vote for Republicans despite being poor and directly hurt by Republican policies.

Neither of these stands is inherently liberal, but both clearly hurt liberals, and both are exploited cynically by conservative politicians. If the Democratic party wants to succeed, they need to consider this and do something about it.

Very well spoken. I'll add a third mistake that is not so much liberalism as a direct mistake the Democratic party has made. In an attempt to be all inclusive the party failed to realize and continues to fail to realize, that in being inclusive of as many views as you can, you run the risk of appearing to favor ONLY the fringe, minority and outsider's views.

It's a serious failing because while your domestic policy may actually be more beneficial to the working and middle class than the Republicans, if people who consider themselves to be "average" or "normal" see you are representing only special interests, they may vote against you simply because they don't see themselves as a special interest and feel you don't care about thier needs.

While there may be a serious gap between perception & reality, the party has made no conspicuous moves to dispell this gap. In fact they seem, at the highest levels, to want to ignore it and hope it goes away. I think they have lost the confidence of middle aremica and simply refuse to believe that they have. It's a very bad place to have on blinders and I think it hurts thier chances of regaining the white house.

-Colly

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Just Kidding Guys!!!

Twelve Months, Fifteen Months...Who's counting? What's 3 months, really?




20,000 troops see Iraq duty extended 90 days
Move breaks earlier pledge to soldiers of one-year tour

April 15: As the number of soldiers killed in Iraq in April rose above 90, U.S. officials scrambled to add more troops and protect critical supply lines. NBC's Jim Miklaszewski reports.
Nightly News

The Associated Press
Updated: 8:06 p.m. ET April 15, 2004WASHINGTON - The Pentagon formally announced Thursday that it had stopped the planned return from Iraq of some 20,000 American troops, giving commanders the extra firepower they believe necessary to confront an insurgency that is taking a mounting toll on the U.S.-led coalition.

The decision, announced by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld after first being reported Wednesday, breaks a promise to soldiers who were assured when they arrived in Iraq that they would stay no more than one year. By extending their tours of duty by three months, the Pentagon is acknowledging that the insurgency has ruined its plans to reduce the size of the U.S. military presence this spring.

The troops had expected to return home this month after completing 12 months in Iraq.

“We regret having to extend those individuals,” Rumsfeld said, adding that the American public is grateful for their sacrifices. “What they’re doing is important. It’s noble work, and in the end it will be successful,” he said.

Earlier Thursday, Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters in Baghdad, where he was visiting top generals, that U.S. authorities had been facing "significant security challenges" over the last two weeks — a reference to the battle for the Sunni stronghold Fallujah, the clashes with supporters of a radical Shiite cleric in southern Iraq and a wave of kidnappings of foreign civilians.

Rumsfeld said that about one-quarter of the 20,000 troops being extended are members of the National Guard or Reserve. He did not mention an exact number or identify the Guard or Reserve units.

The United States has a total of about 137,000 troops in Iraq now, Rumsfeld said. That number was supposed to have dipped to 115,000 by May, but Rumsfeld said Gen. John Abizaid, the overall commander of the Iraq war, decided he needs to keep the force level at about 135,000 troops.

Some critics have asserted throughout the U.S. occupation of Iraq that the military had too few troops on the ground to stabilize the country and assure its economic and political rebuilding.

Fresh troops possible later, Rumsfeld said that if Abizaid decides he needs to maintain the same troop strength in Iraq after the 90-day extension runs out, the Pentagon will send fresh forces from the United States or elsewhere.

The troop extensions come at a particularly delicate moment. April has become the deadliest month for U.S. forces in Iraq since they set foot in the country in March 2003. The number of wounded also has skyrocketed.

At the Baghdad news conference Thursday, Myers was asked whether the troop extensions indicate plans for large-scale offensive operations. He did not answer directly, saying the move was deemed necessary given “extremist and terrorist acts that must be dealt with.”

Myers said it has yet to be determined how long the added combat power will be kept in Iraq.

A resolve to stay put
“It will depend on events here on the ground,” he said. “But I think what it shows is our resolve to see this situation through.” Myers was in Baghdad for talks with U.S. and coalition commanders and to meet with L. Paul Bremer, Iraq’s U.S. administrator.

The advantage of keeping soldiers of the 1st Armored and the 2nd Armored Cavalry in Iraq for an extra three months — rather than bringing in an equivalent number from elsewhere — is that these soldiers have unmatched combat experience in Iraq and familiarity with insurgents’ tactics.

The Army is so stretched by its commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans and elsewhere that it has few, if any, forces immediately available to substitute in Iraq for the 1st Armored or 2nd Armored Cavalry.

Also, these units have been heavily involved in one of the most important U.S. military missions there: training thousands of Iraqi security forces central to the Pentagon’s plan for eventually turning over military control to the Iraqis and pulling out U.S. troops.

Rumsfeld ‘fungible’ comment draws Kerry ire
In his news conference Thursday, Rumsfeld, responding to a reporter's question about why more troops were needed when the situation in the south of Iraq had largely stabilized, said “the reason it is contained is because we have the extra troops there. That is self-evident. Come on, people are fungible. You can have them here or there.” unbelievable

Rumsfeld's comment drew immediate fire from Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry, in a statement released hours later.

“Secretary Rumsfeld's comment that 'people are fungible' is further indication of this Administration's continuing disregard for the men and women who put their lives on the line every day in Iraq,” Kerry's statement read.

“Secretary Rumsfeld has it wrong,” the statement read. “Troops are not chess pieces to be moved on a board, they are real people with families and loved ones who depend on them. From failing to provide our troops with adequate body and vehicle armor to breaking their commitment not to extend assignments beyond one year, this Administration has continually let them down.”

The statement continues: “They deserve more than cold impersonal calculations when their tours are extended, they deserve compassion and understanding of the sacrifice they and their families are making for their country.”



~lucky Probably wishing that filing their taxes on time was their biggest problem.

 

[Somme]

http://www.axisoflogic.com/

...just in case anyone needs a good.........ish read. The usual disclaimers if it's all tripe....