Welcome to tonight's scheduled discussion on #GeekSpeak. Before we begin, I'd like to bring to your notice that: Discussions on this channel are copyrighted by myself and Pankaj Saxena (Subetai). You may log the discussion for your own personal use, but you may not redistribute it in any form whatsoever without written permission from the channel owners. Tonight's conversation will focus on the Republicans in the 1996 elections. Did events at their convention signal at least some positive changes, or are things continuing to get worse? I want to start with a few things that I liked from the convention, in particular, from Bob Dole's speech. I will quote a few excerpts here, but if you want to read the entire text, you can find it at http://www.convention96.rnc.org/doleacc.htm. " And after the virtual devastation of the American family, the rock upon which this country was founded, we are told that it takes a village -- that is, the collective, and thus, the state -- to raise a child. The state is now more involved than it has ever been in the raising of children, and children are now more neglected, abused, and mistreated than they have been in our time. This is not a coincidence, and, with all due respect, I am here to tell you: it does not take a village to raise a child. It takes a family." Let's start off with comments on this excerpt, and then I have another prepared. The floor is open Tom: fine rhetoric, but you have to judge a man on his *actions* primarily, and Dole's a pragmatist. Certainly, and I'll be covering that shortly, but at the moment, I want to cover what he said It sounds like he has at least one good speechwriter. all right if there are no comments, I'll move on the only thig that statement says is that families are better suited to doing god's work than godlestbeauracracies. The "family" is a nebulous concept. that's reading a hell of a lot into it, joe next: I do not appreciate the value of economic liberty nearly as much for what it has done in keeping us fed, as I do for what it has done in keeping us free. The freedom of the market is not merely the best guarantor of our prosperity, it is the chief guarantor of our rights. A government that seizes control of the economy for the good of the people, ends up seizing control of the people for the good of the economy. wright: I'm judging on the republican record iin all areas. they have no idea of indivualism. and finally... Working with Jack Kemp and a Republican Congress, I will not be satisfied until we have reformed our entire tax code, and made it fairer, flatter, and simpler. The principle involved here is time-honored and true: and that is -- it's your money. You SHOULDN'T have to aplogize for wanting to keep what you earn. wright: there is no indication he even knows what that means. the man has been around some, I'd say he knows what he is saying.. it's his sincerity that's in question This hearkens to Thomas Jefferson's remarks about "talking from the hand of labor" He does a lot of talking about "the family" and "the people," but what about the _individual_. All right, the above quotes at least seem to be admirable. The question is, can we believe it? Does he really mean what he says? Betsy: the last quote seemd rather individual oriented I really liked the emphasis he made on money being people's own -- it was diluted with the family spiel, but it was not basically utilitarian in its defense, which is a good start. :) If he does not mean it, who was the speech meant to impress? I think during those parts he was speaking from his heart, the way he was raised, I'm not sure he believes it can be done though Good question, Glenn Glenn: You have an answer for it? Betsy: Exactly. The individual is completely missing. There was a policy statement from the R.s that I read, which talked about freedom, and didn't even implicitly refer to individuals. Glenn, Wright: he is just trying to get the vot of individualists. The man's record speaks for itself. He changes with the winds as much as Bill Clinton. I don't understand all this focus on rhetoric. joe: right! and I see that as a good sign it means that they think there are a lot of individualists out there to appeal to Possibly the people who have been openly calling him an unprincipled pragmatist. Also, a lot is made of people being able to keep (more of) their earnings -- but what of *personal* freedom -- notice they are as committed as ever to this irrational prohibition on even marijuana. Wright: you have two pragmatist running against each other, and the electorate is more apathetic than it ever was, with good reason... wright: yes it is a good sign in that at least he has to suck up to the individualists. tis a bad sign in that he is hiding behind indivdualism to smuggle in statism and collectivism Tom: Why is it a good thing that he is appealing to individualists? May be proof that he is just a pragmatist. ...recycled sitcoms got higher ratings than the convention. So this is the whole mind/body thing which Ayn Rand pointed out: the conservatives want to leave your body free (i.e., material production), but control your spirit (don't do drugs, have an abortion, etc.). BradA: not any more. I think now they are all out, consistent statists. Dole seems to have good character, and seems a man of integrity, it just seems he has no comprehension whatsoever of philosophic ideas, not even really political philosophy. Here is why it is a good sign: Dole is a pragmatist, obviously he has proven that over the years, but I think the reason why he is attempting to appeal to individualists, is that they are becoming a force in the country.. Clinton is mov Maybe they remember the mid-term election. I have a hypothesis about this: conservatives, tending to be religious, substitute religion for philosophy. Thus, in any explicit philosophic issue, they block out rational philosophy and replace it with religious conclusions. This makes t Glenn: right GlennM: good point. Wright: the shift to the Right is NOT synonomous with a shift to individualism... tym. very good point! Tym: I don't know that it is entirely a shift to "the right" ...if anything the social conservatives are a force that was negligible until Reagan. I saw his speach and thought it was a mixed blessing. ...in the Republican Party I mean. I liked the speech and was surprised by it. in fact the shift to the right of the republicans (thin influence of the CC) shows how much they are moving to full collectivist statism Wright: There is definitely a shift towards laissez-faire at least. Here in Canada the youth-wing of the Conservative Party is totally dominated by very pro-capitalist people. There are very strident. Binswanger wrote about the "shift to the right" in the 1980's saying that it was due, in part, to Objectivism's influence (and liberalism's bankruptcy). It's even more true now. Brad: Same here. The freshmen in the GOP are some of the best in the party Betsy: yes, a lot of doles rhetoric probably comes ultimately from objectivsm - but it is *plagiarism*. That's why I see some hope for the GOP, altough it is not clear what will happen in the future... the Ralph Reed types may assume total control i.e. the in no way is it part of the republican philosophy. joe: it's not plagerism. It was an attempt to make a principled speach without explicit principles. Joe: Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I think Betsy is right. You can especially measure this by the vociferous hostility expressed by radical socialists of Ayn Rand. :) As I recall Dole attacked the collective in favor of the family, which I found positively laughable. Wright: I don't see any significant dismantling of the welfare state with the so-called Republican Revolution... I have even considered joining the Conservative Party. Especially here in Canada, it is far less dominated by religious types. Tym: No, but they were trying to take steps ...and polls indicate that people thgought they went too far even there :/ Tym: i agree...it simple shifts the collective to fifty barbarians insteed of one. it was like "Heads you lose, tails they win" TomM: it is an attempt to lure individualists by telling them what they want to hear using ideas plagiarized from Ayn Rand. Wright: I think a more identifiable trend is toward fascism. and even those small steps were stopped. That doesn't mean that the freshmen didn't want to do that, or that they didn't try Conservatives peddle a lot of goofy programs, all which accept the socialist programs, and try to ameliorate them with pseudo-free controls. joe: Do you think they consciously plagerized Rand's ideas? Tym: I don't see that as much as I used to... explain So politician have to court the individualist voter! "You'll know Objectivism is winning when..." Brad: no one is arguing that the conservatives are perfect the topic is, "are they getting better, or worse" GlennM: is there even the slihtest indication that individualism or capitalism underlies *any* republican policy? Examples: anti-trust; "free trade" treaties; "enterprise zones"; "charter schools"; "workfare"; "devolution of social programs" -- it just never ends Wright: the "New Democrats" a la Clinton are overtly fascistic. And the Reps just want 50 little dictatorships a la the communitarian ideal. Only a minor part of that speach was individualistic in the true sense of the term. Mostly, it was the same ole stuff. Betsy: or ... "the good news is... the bad news is..." I don't think it is deliberate plagiarism. The good news is that Objectivist ideas are beginning to infiltrate the culture. In many cases, I think conservatives see (what they conceive as) a free market as just another kind of government control! Oh I don't know about that Tym.. how about some evidence? Brad: I don't follow you Sort of like Mr. Thompsons' offer to let Galt be the supreme dictator, and even order people to be free! joe: If they actually are taking Rand's ideas, her philosophy has spread a lot further than I had realized. Wright: eh? The whole thrusts by the Reps to devolve power to the states; the New Dems and their "mandates" etc. Wright: LP for one is pretty bearish on capitalism right now. Devolving power to the states=state didtatorship? It was only a speach guys...I see no evidence Dole actually beleives much of what he said (though I have to admit the speach sounded good, for the most part). Wright: right. Communitarianism has been coopted by both left and right, re: Leo Strauss. Glenn: In fact, Rand's ideas have spread so much that they have spread thin. Her word are being expressed by people who barely understand them and don't know wghere they come from. Tym: That may be, I don't know what LP has said... tell me why he is bearish Clay: This "family worship" becomes even more suspicious, when there is no group of which I am aware who is lobbying for the elimination or restriction of the family! So what are they trying to pull over? the thrusts to the states are bogus, as ought be made clear by the various states declarations of war against big tobacky Brad, good point, what exactly does that sort of talk accomplish.. Wright: have't read the speech, think it was to businessmen. Tym: I don't see the case for the present return of power to the states as favoring state dictatorships Wright: Reps don't want more freedom; they just want discretion turned over to the states. Name one thing they've done for freedom. Instead of sending money back to the states, they should be refunding it to the tax payers. State welfare is just as bad as federal. Clay: "Family" is just as much a conservative code-phrase for "village" as Hillary's "village" is a code-phrase for "village". :) BradA: There is a lot of talk among the liberals to restrict parents rights toraise their children. Hillary's "It Takes A Village". oh, how about attempting to role back envrio regs? sounds pretty pro freedom to me.. what about the capital gains tax cut? also pro freedom Does anyone find it significant that in all that rhetoric by Dole, he never once mentioned his time while in congress? Betsy: then there's the $500 tax credit for children championed by the Reps, which is shamelessly irresponsible demogoguery. Or more clearly: a "family" is *only* a family in the conservative definition, if it also emdodies exactly the values they espouse, and no others. In other words, it represents the individual's subservience to collective will, as enforced TomM: Yes it is. He doesn't want to bring up all those compromises and pragmatic deals he made Brad: Agreed...that's the Republican/conservative swan song: what was good enough for my ancestors is good enough for me. Still, responsible parents raising their children is better than Hillary's idea. TomM: interesting observation. Notice how a perfectly respectable, professional, law-abiding and even possibly church-going *homosexual* couple is an example of what conservatives consider a THREAT to "the family" -- i.e., "non-us". Wright: true...and that's the point...any evidence Dole has the vaguest notion of what he preached that night? Wright: that's just from the Federal standpoint. They're not opposed to individual states making restrictive laws and taxes, e.g. CA Tom: Dole isn't stupid.. he knows what he said. Like I said, it's his sincerity Besides, a move towards greater power for the states may lead to a balkinization of the USA. Wright: How can one call a pragmatist sincere? Tym: I don't know that you can say that. They have nothing to do with the states laws, either BradA: thats debatable. I suspect Dole may not understand what he said due to lack or intellect, not lack of sincerity. Tom: You can't. That's the point Wright: please read the Contract with America again. I will grant though, that many morally reprehensible cultural phenomena in the last 30 years are associated with the left. Oh I will. But, returning power to the states in these areas will help.. here is why Also, I still think a flat tax of 17% is far too high...with no loop-holes, higher-bracket incomes will be paying mroe than they do now. states have the power to restrict many freedoms, especially economic ones right now. Wright: please don't give the "competition among states for residents and business will drive them towards capitalism" arguement - its bogus. but, they have not had the power to relax the federal rules.. if they do, some almost certainly will, and that will create an example Wright: and they'll have even MORE discretion in the future, along with no-strings-attached block grants from the Feds. Can you imagine what a disaster that'll be? no no joe, not saying that at all Tym: it may make for fifty micro-dictatorships. Tom: yup. And a reprise of the S&L debacle. Tym, Tom: I don't see where any of the plans give the states more power to *restrict* freedom than they have right now joe is absolutely correct about this loopy "competition for freedom" idea -- another conservative wing-nut idea. Of course, it *may* turn out to be beneficial **if** some governor of some state become very much pro-capitalism, and can get away with keeping it that way. Wright: like I said, reread the CwA :/ What are you referring to Tym? specifics Wright: nothing has changed, don't you see? Same money being sucked away, just given to the states now. Wright: the staes' rights bs. arrgh! Specifics Politicians become *more* pernicious, the closer to home you get. City Hall imposes a far more crushing burden on the vast majority of citizens and small businesses than the feds. Wright: what specifics do you want? Reps are just opposed to controls *at the Federal level* But it is much easier for people to move to a different state/city in response to opressiveness than it is to move to a different country. Tym: either it's "you're going to have 50 dictatorships" or it's nothing has changed.. you can't have both at once And as rent controls demonstrate -- you can't pick up and move land and buildings, nor is it easy or desirable for most people to leave their friends, family and business relations. Dole:Our opponents portray the right to enjoy the fruits of one's own time and labor as a kind of selfishness against which they must fight for the good of the nation. Tym: State rights pre-civil war was a good thing...I'm not sure we can move back to that, though. But they are deeply mistaken, for when they gather to themselves the authority to take the earnings and direct the activities of the people, they are fighting not for our sake, but for the power to tell us what to do. Tym: Dammit, it's a start. It's a removal of some controls And certainly without any change in moral and political philosophy popularly, off-loading the federal government will simply invite reregulation by locals TomM: I disagree on that too. See what LP has written with regard to states' rights. Also check the Ninth Amendment. They have enough trouble trying that.. i That Dole speech sounds like an "inside job." Does anyone know an Objectivist writing speeches for Republicans? And don't forget, the REpublicans/conservatives are still unable to fully assert that the right to keep what one earns is **selfishness**. that's still a bad word to them. What is LP? I think I remember Kemp being (at one time) an admirer of Rand. Maybe he wrote the speech. Wright: they're not *removing* controls; they're *shifting* them. Tym: Before the civil war, there were good/better/and bad states. That's the good aspect of "state's rights" if it is presented correctly. Tym: they are removing federal controls.. whether the states keep them is up to the states Glenn: ya oughta see what Peter Schwartz? has to say about Kemp :/ Maybe the virtue of local control is the old saying, "Who watches the watchmen?" The people closer to home have many more watching them. Unlike our current situation, where a congressman has as many as 250,000 constituents. Tym. I said "at one time". There are also some Objectivist sympathizers like Bruce Herschensohn working in the party. Also Chistopher Cox in all-important California. if the states wanted to, they could all *add* controls tomorrow.. this at least allows some to be eliminated Betsy: but that speach was so morbid, mideavil, almost teutonic! did you notice how many times he mentined death dying sacrifice suffereing blood etc.? instead of the big band music at the end, they should have played some droning Wagner op Menken: It's shifting that way, but it still will not significantly shift the politics based on bad philosophy. Betsy: definitely a good sign there. joe: I like Wagner! but you are right...too much emphasis was on sacrificing for the country. TomM: The philosophy is the main issue, but one shouldn't discount what Burke said: "Most men are afraid of being proved wrong, but all men are afraid of being proved ridiculous." and this is supposed to be the party of hope and the future! Local devolution would give many more chances to show them as ridiculous. TomM: The "sacrifice" stuff probably came from the OTHER speechwriter. joe: Dole is a bit confused. He has worked very hard his whole life, and overcome many obstacles which would have grounded other men. So he objects, I think, to those who expect results without cause, riches without work. All right, I'm going to get in the last topic... There are a lot of two-income families pulling down good saleries, maybe more now than ever. Possibly the speech was aimed at that group. joe: Well, that speech did have much more emphasis on future earnings than andy I've seen recently. I think mostly do to Rush Limbaugh. Anyone who expects philosophical coherence from speeches-by-committee has another think coming. Finally, the most important question here. What is the fundamental direction of the GOP? Are they even moving in the direction of individual righs, or are they still headed towared the middle ages, (to paraphrase Ayn Rand? Again give solid evidence to support your views. salaries. wordcount: blood = 5, sacrifiece = 5, die = 4 Mencken: Practical inefficacy is irrelevant. Politics is driven by a moral philosophy and metaphysical view of man. Period. We've had a growing body of excellent economic theory for nearly 300 years. It is ignored. The abortion issue shows that the GOP is terrified of the theocrats. Not even most Republicans want absolute prohibitions. This doesn't augur well. Wright: As i said, it's a mixed bag. He wanted to appeal to several large segments of voter blocks. It's compromise any way you look at it. Where is the GOP going? Where can _WE_ take it? It is leaderless and idea-less. We have what they need. Wright: look what's happening in the Republican Party. The old economic conservatives are being replaced by the social wing... Betsy: I question whether they want it. Betsy: right. Perhaps the better question is, how do we get them headed in the right direction? ...and the pro-abortion rights Reps are being locked out of the convention. Wright: After reading extracts of that speech, I would say it is *possible* for them to move in the right direction. But the increasing obsession with religious fundamentalism, abortion etc. is ominous. ... BradA: Practical evidence is subordinate to the moral case, but I'd hardly call it "irrelevant." Many want to see the evidence, and simply don't have it available. locked out of the convention? did not several speak? Wright: they are solidy heading towards statism. any policies they advocate which are vaguely capitalistic, and any priciples the enunciate that are vaguely individualistic, are accidental - or worse: deceptive (or cynical) We can have Objectivist-only Young Republican groups, take over intellectual leadership positions in the existing party structure, write speeches for candidates, etc.... I would say there are two completely incommensurable elements battling for supremacy in the GOP right now, (AND in the D party), and that this situation can't remain long-term. One side will come to dominate, and the losers will abandon th Wright: what we need is a third party maverick who is honest enuf to point out the folly of the two party do-nothingism in regard to health care, social security, etc... If they see an FDA as being necessary to prevent impure medicine, from a matter of science being brought to bear (not seeing the wrong means), how will they get beyond the moral case? joe: that's what I'm afraid of...if Americans are going to vote for Dole based on that speech, and then get more of the same, there will be *no* place for them to turn. ...look what it did for Perot. Perot's not the answer tho. Betsy: why are you tring to revive a rotting corpse? Tym: I knew it! you're Perot in disguise! :) Betsy is possibly right. If a lot of good Objectivists and admirers of Ayn Rand were to become *intellectually active* in politics, it could really have a dramatic effect. Joe: More like trying to take over a dead man's assets. They are considerable and we can use them. I see the GOP as a fight between the "libertarian" (small l) wing and the X-ian Coalition/Pat Robertson wing Remember, it only takes *one* mind to blast a bad idea held by 200 others. This is not an effort which requires large numbers, it requires good ideas to be advanced, and bad ideas to be displaced. Brad: unfortunately, even the Republicans dodn't want a totally free country. Wright: I say leave the Reps to the Religious Right. They already have it. Rally the 20% of the electorate that Perot drew but give em a non-populist i.e. principled leader. betsy: I like the analogy A friend became the "education chairman" of the local GOP group. He schedules the speakers, debates, etc. He has been VERY influential. Betsy: but the public seems to be deserting both parties (and rightfully so) why not start fromscratch? Would Objectivists taking over the "dead man's assets" still keep the prohibitions and restrictions that keep third parties off the ballot, or make it difficult to get on? Those are scandalous in any sense. Tym: a third party won't work in this country.. the electroral college prevents that Mencken: It is absolutely irrelevant if Reps aren't for total abolition of abortion, if they stridently oppose it for *voluntary* purposes. This is what they oppose. Joe: That's an option, but speaking from the GOP organization gets you an immediate hearing. besides, why start a third party when you have a chace to take over an exisitng apparatus? Wright: Perot really tapped into those honest enuf to be worried about the deficit and health care, and that know business-as-usual isn't working. Need to galvanise that. Mencken: Your idea about "evidence" is refuted by all evidence available on this. The twentieth century refutes you. Wright: Because it can't be taken over. If some Objectivist managed to get in their and re-write most speeches, most of the Republicans would bail out. Tym: Perot got the "aginner" vote. their=there Betsy: unless you have lots of money like shammyshammyshammy. It can't be done overnight, Tom TomM: I think the GOP (and the Dems) are ripe for a takeover. BradA: That's a highly nonspecific argument :) ... Many have not been heard because they don't coddle the people in power, private or public. That's not the same as their being deemed irrelevant. Wright: I'd say it's moving in the right direction *very slowly* and only by default. Wright: the important thing is that the right agenda becomes mainstream in a hurry. I think the GOP (and the Dems) are ripe for getting throen out ;-) Tym: In a hurry? The trouble is, these things just don't happen in a hurry Betsy: But you have personally seen the tremendous hostility towards political activism engendered in some admirers of Rand. Don't you think some more leadership by respected Objectivist intellectuals is needed in this regard? joe: The Democrats are declining in absolute numbers and relative influence, not the Republicans. I think a thrid party may become viable, though it will be a dlong time (like a few more major elections). Betsy: Perot got some populist types. But notice how AFCM has used his grassroots organisation. Tym: There's a lot you can do to MAKE it happen. You would be shocked just how easily people will give you _intellectual_ leadership. That's something they don't want and can't handle. BradA: We shouldn't ignore the hostility from Rand herself, out of being embarrassed in the Goldwater debacle of '64. Betsy: I definitely agree. I just think that should be channelled toward the disenfranchised, rudderless 20% that went to Perot in 92. Betsy: That's a good observation. However, neither party right now is very principled...at least not in a non-contradictory manner. BradA: Peikoff does nothing BUT publicly talk politics these days. All right, the scheduled discussion is now over, feel free to continue on this, or any other topic TomM: things can happen faster than you think. look at perot last election. if he had had a better message, he could have won. Tym: I really doubt those 20% are actually interested in capitalism. There are many people who agree with the philosophic premises of our modern age, and simply think the system is being grossly mismanaged. Besides, Perot is an intellectua TomM: That's why the parties are so easy to take over. They don't have principles and we do. joe: It would've helped if he were a bit more sane as well joe: i'm not convinced of that. A "better" message depends on what is being said. these days, a principled pro-capitalism stance will be taken as hostile by *many* of the voters who don't know what it means. Well, if being an intellectual idiot barred someone from the Presidency, I can think of 20 people off the top of my head who shouldn't have run :) I nominate LP for president! Peikoff isn't eligible, he was born in Canada Brad: the 20% are unphilosophical of course. But look how Perot galvanised them on th deficit issue. They just need the proper leadership. joe: He wouldn't do it, anyhow. Tym: This is an _intellectual_ battle and we are the only ones who are armed -- to the teeth. TomM: no? I'm going swimming with my husband and son. See y'all later. You know, people can and do adapt to new ideas. Who advances them? Objectivists could. Our ideas make total sense. Our ideas, when applied, are efficacious and practical. So we would have reality completely on our side. joe: Of course not, even if he could. As soon as he opened his mouth, his leadership "council" would abandone him, for one thing. for another, he's not interested. Betsy: yup. That's why I think that the 20% could fall into our hands more easily than trying wrest the Rep Part away from the Christian Coalition. You don't have to turn everyone into a philosophical convert, you only need to gain control of the intellectual apparatus, and most people will accept the leadership provided. Don't forget, the Republicans still want to dictate morality, and they don't agree with ours. Betsy: re Peikoff. That is great. What would be helpful I think, is articles and maybe seminars and such, on effective intellectual-political activism. I think a lot of people just need a bit of direction, and some concretization of how to I find it interesting that Limbaugh is willing to keep controls of drugs intact (or make them stronger), but he refuses to accept Clinton's revisal of tobacco. joe: Oh, no, not LP! Peter Schwartz!!! Schwartz, who wanted us to go to war over KAL Flight 7? A temperate disposition should be a requirement for the job. Mencken: I just happen to think he was right. The Soviets would've backed down. ...it was a pivotal issue. Mencken: Don't you think we should declare war on all known terrorists? <> TomM lights up another nicotine delivery system ;) Anyone with nukes has to be more temperate than that. It wasn't an American flight, in any case, unless we annexed South Korea and I didn't hear about it. GlennM: Wars use quite blunt instruments. Inflitration and assassination are much less problematic. Menken: The point was that if they could shoot down one airliner, they could shoot down any. Like what China is doing in its part of the world right now (and it aggrivates me that I can't find shoes not made in China!). Oh, a great deal could be done about such incidents. Schwartz called in a NY Times ad for considering nuclear war. That's not in proportion. Menken: did you read that article? I don't remember him saying that. Yes, I did ... he said it wouldn't be practical, but was perfectly moral. Menken: Then he wasn't advocating nuclear war. Damn near. In any case, not the deliberate spirit a President should have. Menken: American presidents used to talk that way all the time before pramatism took over. Mencken: if the US had threatened to go to war over Korea, we would not have had to fight the gulf war. Mencken: eh? Deliberate? A president should have the balls to go to war if necessary, and a country to back him up...on principle. Tym: Are such matters to be taken so lightly in a nuclear age? Machismo isn't a means of cognition, anyway. :) joe: I don't see your connection. "We" didn't have to fight in the Gulf, either. Was KAL an accident or a deliberate act? or do we know. I was really thinking of known terrorists camps and contries that sponsor terrorism in my previous statement. We should have done *something* about KAL though Mencken: No country would dare stand up to us at this point. <> ReniD has a question ReniD: Go ahead. Mencken: The gulf war was absolutely necessary. Had the West not fought, Hussein would have taken over the entire Middle East. He had been preaching Arab "unification" for years. Mencken: Hussein would not have dared to invade kuwait if the US had demonstrated a history of consistently strong, uncompromising foreign policy. I heard that there's a possibility that Clinton may suddenly announce that the TWA bombing was caused by the Iranians and then declare war in October, just before the election. Has anyone else heard that? Well, what were "we" doing there, instead of Saudi-paid mercenaries? Which is what we became, in effect. He would have consolidated Kuwait, then taken Saudi Arabia. That would have resulted in him controlling the vast majority of the world's oil stock. BradA: or at least the saudi gulf coast, which has much of the world's oil. joe is absolutely right. ok. ReniD: It would be the stupidest thing he's ever done. Mencken: Are you saying there is no connection between petroleum and your life? Well, nobody ever answers this, and I've brought it up over the years: What would Hussein DO with all that oil, if he seized it? Would he have just sat upon it? Or would he have continued to be part of the world marketplace? But has anyone else heard that rumor? I think I remember reading it in the New York Times. actually, if hussein had been smart, he would have continued into saudi while the US was still begging to be allowed to send troops. he could have had 10,000 american hostages. Mencken: Are you basing that statement on the premise that all men are rational? Automatically? Mencken: Well, he may have...but the point is that he is a definite dictator who should not have been permitted to take it over in the first place. Anything that Clinton did would not surprise me. In other words, you are claiming that Hussein is a rational man, therefore, he either would not want to take it over, or would manage it responsibly once he did? BradA: You said that, I didn't. That Hussein would be rational enough to not wreck his own profits in the world oil market doesn't make him "rational" in every sense. ReniD: I have not heard ot that before now. What's the name of that conservative columnist for the New York Times? Well, tell me then: What would he have done? Eaten it all? Or continued to sell it? Safire, I think... that's where I heard it. If Husseing had of invaded Saudi Arabia, I would have been in favor of simple nuclear threat, followed by delivery until compliance achieved. Joe: Hussein thought he could win a war with the US, because he believed that the US didn't have the "guts" to fight a long drawn out war. That goes back to Vietnam not KAL. ReniD: Safire has been both very accurate and amazingly wrong. Not at all consistent. One other thing for those of you who have sent photos.. if you want a little bio of yourself next to your photo, sent it to me So, no one else has heard it? Tym: As contrasted with an Attila of *our* size? also, if you want a link to a web page, be sure to tell me Mencken: You are the one who can't figure out why it was important to go to war, not me. And I most certainly have not premised a single statement on the notion Hussein is rational -- he is both evil and irrational. Xenopus: yes, correct obsevation, but I think the whole history of US failure is what impressed him, not just vietnam. Mencken: you are *truly* trying to obscure distictions here. Please enlighten me, then. What fundamental distinction am I obscuring? Mencken: if not obliterate the obvious difference btw US and Iraq :/ <> BradA think Mencken is being obfuscatory Mencken: US is *predominantly* free; Iraq is the opposite. Brad: no swearing on this channel please ;-) Mencken: So there is nothing to be concerned about an evil, irrational, butchering, genocidal, hysterically anti-Western dictator controlling over 2/3 of the world's oil supply? Tym: That's quite true, but it isn't germane. Does that mean we are compelled to free everyone who is less free, at the point of our armies? Mencken: I would respectfully suggest you work on connecting your cognition somewhat more closely to the facts of reality. Try the Homer Simpson method: start in small bites: "Dictator bad" "Oil good" Besides, we didn't follow that logic, anyway. Why didn't we march on Baghdad, if our intervention was such a positive thing? Mencken: One word: Bush. BradA: It's a matter of concern. Whether it's a matter to risk war about is a distinct matter. Well here is a point to consider: while the US was busy protecting the saudis, the saudis were in the final stages of nationalizing, i.e. STEALING, the US oil companies and their assts in saudi arabia! You don't need to condescend. Rational people can disagree about these issues. joe: It figures...let's not have consistency...one thing to keep in mind regarding the prior discussion. TomM: actually, its consistent caving in! joe: Of course. On the whole, that's why I think the Democrats have the moral upper hand. Anyway, I thought it was weird that US forcces went to defend saudi, while exxon, texaco, mobil, and chevron were getting thrown out :-( The REpublicans merely want to attinuate their morality with practicality...the Democrats don't have that problem, since they are not concerned with practicality.