OT: reaction to Iraqi elections

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 15:26:18 +0000, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

Of course. Once you set up a militaristic society, it needs worlds to
conquer, otherwise it takes over its own government. See most of Africa,
for example.

Interesting concept. A thoughtless militaristic empire may not know
when to stop, continually expanding like a soap bubble that must
eventually pop. Hitler's attack on Russia was a reaction to his
failure to subdue the RAF and invade England; he apparently felt
obliged to keep attacking *somebody*.

John

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On 19 Feb 2005 18:53:28 -0800, the renowned "STOP_George"
<skiingkow@hotmail.com> wrote:

" It wasn't that long ago the KMT were still talking about
retaking the mainland. "

Are you seriously suggesting that Taiwan is thinking of invading
China?!!

I said it was not that long ago that this was talked of. Well within
living memory. Ask someone over the age of 50 or 55. The gov't of
Taiwan R.O.C. still claims to be the legitimate one of all of China,
including Tibet, no?

"Taiwan has not yet agreed to spend the US $18 billion (far more than
China spent on imported weapons in the past decade), so I guess they
don't see it as being so urgent. "

Actually, the Taiwanese legislature thought that this price-tag was an
outrageous amount. It had nothing to do with it being unnecessary.

See below.

"Taiwan's US made weapons remain vastly superior to China's, of
course."

Actually, China has increased it's surface to surface missiles pointed
at Taiwan substantially in the last couple of years, significantly
compromising Taiwan's ability to defend herself. That is what this 18
billion dollar defense deal is all about.

The deal was announced 4 years ago, so maybe they are in response to
that and various pro-TI political moves?

"The US has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. The
situation may begin to approach that of the Koreas where the US is
widely seen locally as a self-interested impediment to progress."

The U.S. has a vested interest in making money. Taiwan, however, knows
that without the U.S., though, it stands no chance against China.

Sure, even a naval blockade of Kaohsiung and Keelung...

"China is essentially a capitalist country these days. "

Maybe so, but in a socio-political context (equally, if not more
important), China is far from being democratic or free. Taiwan and
China are worlds apart on this issue and this is why Taiwan would never
accept assimilation by China.

I guess it depends both on who you ask, and on what the alternatives
are. Some variation of the "confederation" option does not sound so
bad. AFAUI, there is little support in Taiwan for any rapid move in
either direction. Long term, the rip tide is toward the mainland.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[Jim Yanik]

Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote in
news:ns0g11lmvqs182buqn8tedjtrv8rf3ovhe@4ax.com:


Long term, the rip tide is toward the mainland.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

Only because of defeatists such as yourself.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

[Rich Grise]

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 00:26:13 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:

Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote in
news:ns0g11lmvqs182buqn8tedjtrv8rf3ovhe@4ax.com:


Long term, the rip tide is toward the mainland.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

Only because of defeatists such as yourself.

What????


Thanks,
Rich

 

[STOP_George]

The Taiwanese also voted with their ballots to elect a pro-democratic,
pro-independence president.

The Taiwanese are NOT prostitutes.

 

[Jim Yanik]

Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote in
news:i4hi11dani14sjcq4fph9tdrmcr07ug5uo@4ax.com:

On 21 Feb 2005 00:26:13 GMT, the renowned Jim Yanik
jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote:

Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote in
news:ns0g11lmvqs182buqn8tedjtrv8rf3ovhe@4ax.com:


Long term, the rip tide is toward the mainland.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

Only because of defeatists such as yourself.

Tell it to all the Taiwanese who are voting with their dollars and
their feet for economic integration. I'm just observing it.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

How many Taiwanese are moving back to the mainland?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 16:13:08 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

Things really are not that bad- and getting better- and I think that
is why successive US and European governments of every stripe have
encouraged trade and other contacts between China and other countries.

One of the features of free economies (often mispronounced as
"capitalism") is that it's understood that war is bad for business.

John

 

[Dirk Bruere at Neopax]

John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 16:13:08 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:



Things really are not that bad- and getting better- and I think that
is why successive US and European governments of every stripe have
encouraged trade and other contacts between China and other countries.




One of the features of free economies (often mispronounced as
"capitalism") is that it's understood that war is bad for business.

China is not a free economy, it is a National Socialist one.

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

 

[Dirk Bruere at Neopax]

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 01:33:49 +0000, the renowned Dirk Bruere at Neopax
dirk@neopax.com> wrote:


That's because they are not Communists but National Socialists.


How would you distinguish that from the Japanese or French economies?
Or do you put them all under the same label?

The Japanese economy, and those of the 'Asian Tigers' were (or are) NS
economies. France is more traditional European Socialist mixed economy. Even so,
it is heavily constrained by EU membership requirements.


--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 21:10:23 -0500, Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 01:33:49 +0000, the renowned Dirk Bruere at Neopax
dirk@neopax.com> wrote:

That's because they are not Communists but National Socialists.

How would you distinguish that from the Japanese or French economies?
Or do you put them all under the same label?

I wonder if there's any significance to Dirk Bruere's use of the term
"National Socialist" - Isn't that the one that, in German, translates
to "Nazi?"

Thanks,
Rich

 

[keith]

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 03:40:33 +0000, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 21:10:23 -0500, Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 01:33:49 +0000, the renowned Dirk Bruere at Neopax
dirk@neopax.com> wrote:

That's because they are not Communists but National Socialists.

How would you distinguish that from the Japanese or French economies?
Or do you put them all under the same label?


I wonder if there's any significance to Dirk Bruere's use of the term
"National Socialist" - Isn't that the one that, in German, translates
to "Nazi?"

Nah, must be a coincidence!

--
Keith

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Reg Edwards wrote:

And no interference, yet, from oil-thirsty Americans.

Tell us all, Reg, how many gallons of gas you use a month. I usually
use less than 10 gallons, and sometimes less than 5 gallons.

--
Beware of those who suffer from delusions of adequacy!

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[keith]

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 03:43:54 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:

keith wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 03:04:44 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:


keith wrote:


On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 20:35:56 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:



Keith Williams wrote:



In article <pan.2005.02.22.19.13.44.56729@doubleclick.net>,
eatmyshorts@doubleclick.net says...



On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 17:21:20 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:




Jim Yanik wrote:




Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote in
news:te1l11lmc04mden4u7nspae51esc0hp89h@4ax.com:





On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 00:48:45 +0000, the renowned Dirk Bruere at Neopax
dirk@neopax.com> wrote:





John Larkin wrote:





On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 16:13:08 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:







Things really are not that bad- and getting better- and I think that
is why successive US and European governments of every stripe have
encouraged trade and other contacts between China and other countries.




One of the features of free economies (often mispronounced as
"capitalism") is that it's understood that war is bad for business.

China is not a free economy, it is a National Socialist one.

National Socialism requires state control of the economy. That's more
a feature of present-day France than post-Mao Zedong China. Look at
total government percent of GDP figures (eg. from the OECD). It was
true from the mid-fifties to late seventies, but that's in the past.
They are close to achieving "market economy" status internationally.
There are none of the horrible distortions in prices that occured in
the East block countries, prices "feel" about right.

They are considered terrible sell-outs by the real commies such as the
Peruvian Sendera Luminosa and the Nepalese guerrillas.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany


Many of the Red Chinese "capitalistic" manufacturers are actually owned and
operated by the Red Chinese military.Profits go to them for use in their
militarization.


Compare spending as a % of GDP between China and the US.
Who is the most militaristic?

Just off the top of my head, (I haven't looked it up yet, but will if
pressed), I'd say that the US probably has the highest military
expenditures per capita since, maybe, Hitler's German regime. And even
that's probably close.


Per capita (in constant dollars) or % of GDP? Per Capita numbers don't
really mean much, or are you intentionally changing the subject?

% of GGP: The US spends about one tenth (3.7%) of what it did in WWII
(37%) and doesn't even rank in the top 25 countries.

Historical spending as % of GDP:
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php

Top 25 rankings:
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-percent-of-gdp-do-countries-spend-on-
military.htm


Per Capita: The US ranks third at a bit shy of $1000/person.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_exp_dol_fig_cap
Not that per capita measurements of this sort mean much.





Anybody want to do my homework for me on that one?


Web searches are pretty easy, you know (the above took all of five
minutes). I'll leave the WWII German searches for an exercise for you.


I note that 'militaristic' China appears on none of them.


Did I say they were? I simply posted the numbers I found. You tell
Stop_George to stop worring about "militaristic China", I'm not going to.
He (and you Europeons) can swim, for all I care.

Seems its your King George who is shitting himself at the prospect of us
Europeons shipping arms to China.
Tell us about 'free trade'...


Shitting himself? No, we're simply going to be forced to clean up your
mess. ...once again.

'Forced' eh?
So, Bush gonna bend over and take it like a man?

No, like men, we'll try to protect *you* from getting it in the behind.
....again.

--
Keith

 

[Dirk Bruere at Neopax]

John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin@highTHIS
landPLEASEtechnology.XXX> wrote (in <v1ok111gj0pc9mufofjafkj7ssssfjecll@
4ax.com&gt about 'OT: reaction to Iraqi elections', on Mon, 21 Feb 2005:


One of the features of free economies (often mispronounced as
"capitalism") is that it's understood that war is bad for business.


Except for munitions makers, of course.

And any multinational that has been squeeezed out of a lucrative market.
See oil for references.

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

 

[Gregory L. Hansen]

In article <fjaq11t7joclc6lu3191j88569ajisorv0@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandPLEASEtechnology.XXX> wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:32:08 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
dirk@neopax.com> wrote:


Hitler attacked Russia when he couldn't defeat the RAF and invade
England. England survived by a tiny margin, certainly a small enough

Eh? Hitler didn't attack Russia because he couldn't defeat Britain. He'd
planned that from the very beginning.
--
"For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong."
-- Henry Louis Mencken

 

[Jim Yanik]

Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote in
news:6mpn11d4aqe7qsbkn3cqauhc13ike4f8f9@4ax.com:

On 23 Feb 2005 01:23:28 GMT, the renowned Jim Yanik
jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote:

IMHO, they would have been better to
allow free immigration to the UK and let the Chinese do what they
wanted to keep people from emigrating,

I *love* it when some socialist suggests that a countries citizens
stay
trapped,not be allowed to emigrate to other countries that would take
them. HOW moral.

You totally (intentionally, no doubt, being the aggressive troll that
you are) misunderstood what I said. If they were foreign citizens they
would be able to leave ANY TIME they wanted to, they would have to
COMPETE to RETAIN their residents- their most valuable asset. Capiche?

You were talking about HONG KONG citizens emigrating from Communist China
to UK or elsewhere,and the ChiComs would not and do not allow that. You
seem to forget that Communist countries have a great track record at NOT
competing,but instead building great barriers to keep their people
(trapped) from emigrating. You would support that.

Maybe they are getting patriotic and trying to work for democracy from
the inside,without running afoul of the oppressive regime.
OTOH,maybe anti-immigrant feelings in the new country drove them back.

I told you exactly why they went back. I can type it a bit more slowly
if it will help.

Also,many countries allow DUAL citizenship.(what a wierd concept;that
one can be loyal to TWO countries.)

Somewhere,if the 2 countries have differences,one has to choose one or the
other to support.

Yes, yes, I'm sure it would seem like a strange concept. The US
defacto allows it, BTW.

The US is slowing becoming more socialistic,unfortunately.
The US needs to get it's act together,socialism is destroying it from
within.
But dual citizenship IS a strange concept,like being married to TWO women.

There is really no comparison to the situations. Generalissimo CKS
was no saint,

Having to deal with a very REAL threat of Red Chinese invasion.

He was no saint before joining up with the communists to fight the
Japanese. That's why his government was EXPELLED by the Chinese people
who overwhelmingly supported the communists.

Who fell for the Commies hook,line and sinker.Suckers.

He was no saint afterward
they fled to Taiwan either, as STOP_George has verified.

But Taiwan today is a free country.
Folks like you would sell them to Communism.
Just like they did to the Jews of 1938 Germany.
Like Europe would today,sell Israel to the Arabs for destruction.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

[keith]

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 00:20:43 -0800, STOP_George wrote:

keith wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 03:43:54 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:

keith wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 03:04:44 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:


keith wrote:


On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 20:35:56 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:



Keith Williams wrote:



In article <pan.2005.02.22.19.13.44.56729@doubleclick.net>,
eatmyshorts@doubleclick.net says...



On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 17:21:20 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
wrote:




Jim Yanik wrote:




Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote in
news:te1l11lmc04mden4u7nspae51esc0hp89h@4ax.com:





On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 00:48:45 +0000, the renowned Dirk
Bruere at Neopax
dirk@neopax.com> wrote:





John Larkin wrote:





On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 16:13:08 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:







Things really are not that bad- and getting better- and
I think that
is why successive US and European governments of every
stripe have
encouraged trade and other contacts between China and
other countries.




One of the features of free economies (often
mispronounced as
"capitalism") is that it's understood that war is bad for
business.

China is not a free economy, it is a National Socialist
one.

National Socialism requires state control of the economy.
That's more
a feature of present-day France than post-Mao Zedong China.
Look at
total government percent of GDP figures (eg. from the
OECD). It was
true from the mid-fifties to late seventies, but that's in
the past.
They are close to achieving "market economy" status
internationally.
There are none of the horrible distortions in prices that
occured in
the East block countries, prices "feel" about right.

They are considered terrible sell-outs by the real commies
such as the
Peruvian Sendera Luminosa and the Nepalese guerrillas.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany


Many of the Red Chinese "capitalistic" manufacturers are
actually owned and
operated by the Red Chinese military.Profits go to them for
use in their
militarization.


Compare spending as a % of GDP between China and the US.
Who is the most militaristic?

Just off the top of my head, (I haven't looked it up yet, but
will if
pressed), I'd say that the US probably has the highest
military
expenditures per capita since, maybe, Hitler's German regime.
And even
that's probably close.


Per capita (in constant dollars) or % of GDP? Per Capita
numbers don't
really mean much, or are you intentionally changing the
subject?

% of GGP: The US spends about one tenth (3.7%) of what it did
in WWII
(37%) and doesn't even rank in the top 25 countries.

Historical spending as % of GDP:
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php

Top 25 rankings:

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-percent-of-gdp-do-countries-spend-on-
military.htm


Per Capita: The US ranks third at a bit shy of $1000/person.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_exp_dol_fig_cap
Not that per capita measurements of this sort mean much.





Anybody want to do my homework for me on that one?


Web searches are pretty easy, you know (the above took all of
five
minutes). I'll leave the WWII German searches for an exercise
for you.


I note that 'militaristic' China appears on none of them.


Did I say they were? I simply posted the numbers I found. You
tell
Stop_George to stop worring about "militaristic China", I'm not
going to.
He (and you Europeons) can swim, for all I care.

Seems its your King George who is shitting himself at the prospect
of us
Europeons shipping arms to China.
Tell us about 'free trade'...


Shitting himself? No, we're simply going to be forced to clean up
your
mess. ...once again.

'Forced' eh?
So, Bush gonna bend over and take it like a man?

No, like men, we'll try to protect *you* from getting it in the
behind.
...again.

--
Keith

"No, like men, we'll try to protect *you* from getting it in the
behind....again."

...like in Abu Ghuraib or Guantanamo.

Hmm, perhaps that explains your attitude. You got the Gitmo T-shirt.
Nice!

--
Keith

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On 24 Feb 2005 02:11:06 GMT, the renowned Jim Yanik
<jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote:

Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote in


You were talking about HONG KONG citizens emigrating from Communist China
to UK or elsewhere,and the ChiComs would not and do not allow that.

What? Utter nonsense. They come and go as they please every day! HKG
is one of the busiest airports in the world and HK residents are avid
and cosmopolitan travellers. It's quite common to take a long weekend
in Thailand, Vietnam or on a Philippine beach. There are no "exit
visas", they just leave if they want to.

Don't you have the slightest scintilla of knowledge of the places you
are going on about?

Having to deal with a very REAL threat of Red Chinese invasion.

He was no saint before joining up with the communists to fight the
Japanese. That's why his government was EXPELLED by the Chinese people
who overwhelmingly supported the communists.

Who fell for the Commies hook,line and sinker.Suckers.

Because CKS's corrupt Nationalist government was so bad- killing and
oppressing their own people with weapons supplied by foreign powers
for their own purposes. Mao and Deng made the country self sufficient
and brought it to the point where it could again deal with the outside
world and liberalize/privatize the economy without being overrun and
sliced up like a pie- foreign 'legations', sweatshops with no labor
standards, signs that said "No Chinese allowed" in their own parks..
while peasants starved in the countryside. It was truly shameful.

Much like the Shah of Iran- when the people finally took matters into
their own hands, the result was an extreme government, and initially
not one friendly to those foreigners who propped up the ex-tyrant so
long for their own profit.

He was no saint afterward
they fled to Taiwan either, as STOP_George has verified.

But Taiwan today is a free country.

Actually, I'm rather sure you'd consider it an extreme socialist
gun-grabbing hell-hole if you really understood anything much about
it. But you'll never even set foot in the place.

Folks like you would sell them to Communism.

They will probably have to eventually yield on foreign affairs and
defense issues, and maybe some social issues, just the neighbors of
the US must. Most of the Taiwan businessmen have already "voted" for
this by moving almost all their production to the mainland, even
though the Twn gov't tried to outlaw it. The economic pull of an open
China is just too strong. And it pulls US companies and influences the
US government through the lobbying of all those who are making so much
money from it.

The economic pull is really subversive of planning (economic,
military, social) of the governments in every country, including
China, through the very powerful influence of business.

 

Thanks for the insight.

Elections are about hope for the future, not about regret for the past.
At best we have given Iraq hope and a fair shot at the future. It is
now up to them to transform this opportunity into a plan that improves
their circumstances. We function as teachers, Iraqis as students. If we
are successful, then we will have broken the cycle of tribalism.

Best regards,

Tom

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov.?>
wrote (in <Xns9606D80D585F0jyanikkuanet@129.250.170.83&gt about 'OT:
reaction to Iraqi elections', on Thu, 24 Feb 2005:

I note the UN is still dithering over Darfur while people are massacred.
Europe is doing nothing.(and did nothing for the Balkans until the US
got involved)

'Europe' is not one country, unlike the USA. It isn't possible for
'Europe' to act as a single entity in any controversial situation. Of
course, there are quite a few politicians in Europe who want it to be a
single country, but that, if it ever happens, will take about 100 years.


You might well hold that intervention in Darfur ought not to be
controversial, but there is an initial controversy - should action be
taken only through UN (i.e. next to no effective action) or is
unilateral action justified?
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk