Re: France keeps up pressure on Hewlett-Packard jobs

Jon O'Brien wrote:
In article <A_2dncF-4IHI79zeRVn-og@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, cds@xxxxxxxxx (Michael Johnson, PE) wrote:

This is an example of the press being biased. Here's a few "facts" that you may not know or have heard reported. [snip]

Yes, you're right, I wasn't aware of a lot of what you say about FEMA. I do think that putting political appointees in charge, rather than people with experience in the field, was a major blunder, though. I see he's done it again by appointing someone to the supreme court who has no judicial experience.

Actually, Michael Brown was in charge of many previous disaster responses and there was no complaints beyond the norm. In his testimony to Congress he said his biggest mistake was not recognizing the massive incompetence at the state and local levels in the State of Louisiana until two days had passed. There had to be a scapegoat and he was the most logical choice.

As for Bush's Supreme Court nominee, there had been around thirty Supreme Court Justices that never had prior experience as a judge. The latest was Chief Justice Rehnquist that just died. I don't think it makes much difference as to the quality of the nominee.

I was aware of what was happening locally (Red Cross being excluded, Hyatt Hotel guests being led to the front of the queue for buses, local police deserting, NG troops preventing people from attempting to walk out, etc.), which is why I agreed that: "The failures may go all the way down the list..."

The term "liberal" becoming bad here in the states is a result of the left adopting it decades ago and twisting its meaning for their political purposes. They are the ones that melded it with socialism. Ronald Reagan was the first one to expose them for being socialist and the term "liberal" was set in stone as a negative by him during the 1980 presidential campaign.

More semantics, I feel. For a start, the terms 'left' and 'right' as used to describe politics are questionable. They represent just one taxonomy which seems to be generally accepted as the only one. The far 'right' and far 'left' are both totalitarian systems while the opposite extreme would be anarchists. J S Mill-type liberals are, as you would define them, 'libertarian' and still occupy the middle ground. That taxonomy makes the political arena look very different from the traditional one.

Most of the people that are labelled 'leftists' in the US aren't particularly 'left-wing' when compared to those that are considered 'left-wing' in Europe and other parts of the world. That's a label usually reserved for communists. The majority of your 'socialists' would be referred to as 'left-of-centre' and considered quite moderate.

The USA is generally more conservative than the rest of the world and I guess it makes sense that our political labels are too.

The people of this country are overwhelmingly religious. It is part of our society.

Yes. That's what I was saying. 

IMO, this is not a bad or negative condition.

For you to say we are in danger of becoming an extreme fundamentalist
Christian country shows you really don't understand us at all.

I didn't use the word 'extreme', just 'fundamentalist'. Having lived in Europe, including a notionally Catholic country such as France, the high profile of religion in the US and the extent to which the judeo-christian deity is invoked by your politicians already seems quite extreme to me. Surveys suggest that the US is more religious than counties such as Italy, Poland and Ireland, amongst the most extreme examples of religious countries in Europe. The only country over here that comes close is Northern Ireland. World-wide, only the Philippines appears to be more religious. The backlash you mention is what's so worrying. Things like attempting to ban the teaching of the theory of evolution and the strange attempt to create the pseudo-scientific 'Rational Design' alternative. Personally, I would find it very discomforting to live in such a society.

To my knowledge the overwhelming majority of people here in the USA do not want to remove the teaching of evolution in the classroom. There is a strong move toward teaching "intelligent design" though. It does not promote any particular religion but does discuss the possibility that the there might be an intelligence behind the creation of the universe. I don't see where teaching this would promote any one religion or emotionally scar a student for life for having considered it. Who knows, it might just be correct.

The left wing is busy trying to remove religion (especially Christian
symbols) from the public domain and it is causing a huge backlash. They don't want the Pledge of Allegiance said in schools...

I, and just about every other non-American I've heard comment on it, find the Pledge of Allegiance bizarre in the extreme. But it's particularly odd that the 'socialists' should be objecting too it, considering it was written by a socialist!

They object because of the reference to God. They are also not the most patriotic bunch.

...because it contains the line "One nation under God".This has been a
part of American life since WWII.

A bit later than that. 1954, it seems. 

Before my time anyway.

They don't want nativity scenes displayed on public ground or Christmas
celebrated in schools.

Yes, we have extremists like that over here. We call them PC (as in Patronising Crap) idiots. They made a lot of fuss about Muslims, Jews and Sikhs being made to feel uncomfortable by them. Much hilarity ensued when journalists actually asked non-christian religious leaders their opinion and were told that there was no truth in the claims and that they didn't mind at all! 

Looks like you have journalists that try and make the news too.

Besides, if our Founding Fathers had meant for religion to be completely
removed from government then why did they refer to it as often as they
did?

The world was a more superstitious place in those days. Most other countries have moved on since then. Even in the most religious of countries, far less people now believe in the devil, hell and the bible being the absolute word of god than in the US. As for the theory of evolution, the US is at the top of the list of non-believers.

We are a very religious society. I will make no qualms about it. We are also a very tolerant society too when it comes to religious freedom.
It is a small group that is trying to force their ideas of the rest of us. They are having some success in the courts but the legislative and executive branches of government will correct this over time.

Why is "In God We Trust" on our currency?

I've always wondered that. 



 The left is trying to force the views of 5% of our population on the
other 95%.

About 76% of US citizens claim to be christians. A large majority but much less than 95%.

I was referring to people of all religions. There are also many atheists that are not bothered by nativity scenes etc. The percent that is actively pursuing this in the courts is quite small but many of them are lawyers.

That's the problem with an independent judiciary, it will insist on doing what it thinks is right, rather than being swayed by public opinion. Damn inconvenient!
Maybe they should be elected too.

Ye gods no! That would be a major mistake! 

It would make them accountable.

Only those that want to own guns, I think.
Only those that uphold the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution.

Another moot point. One of the few badly worded parts of the constitution which is divisively unclear in its meaning. The point is, are the people that uphold it the same ones that want to own guns. I suspect so.

The number of people that want to ban guns in this country is very small. Most people that don't own guns aren't out to take them from those that do. If fact the states with the least stringent concealed carry laws have some of the lowest crime rates. Washington, DC bans guns and has one of the highest murder rates of any city in the US.

When pro and anti both criticise you, that's when you know you've got the balance about right.
I just notice a big difference between the coverage of Clinton and Bush.

There's a big difference between Clinton and Bush so you'd expect the coverage to be different. 

That depends of the person and their opinions.

My point is that when the Soviet Union was looming over Western Europe the "war mongering" USA was a good friend to have. Now that they are not, we are seen as rogue cowboys running around the globe itching for a fight. My point is we are not a different country just because the Soviet Union collapsed. Now that Western Europe doesn't need us to help defend them they complain about us being too aggressive.

I see little difference between many people's attitude to US actions during the Vietnam/Cambodia era and those in Iraq. I also think that the Iraq war would not have happened had the USSR still been a world power. It had far too much influence in the region for the US to have risked a confrontation.

I agree and I think the terrorism problem would not exist like it does today.

To many people in the world, what the US is doing in Iraq looks very much like the modern equivalent of empire building. The rationale that the purpose is to bring freedom to the Iraqis isn't particularly convincing in light of the fact that the US hasn't bothered to 'bring freedom' to a lot of other oppressed peoples. People are wondering why it's only interested in 'freeing' the people of one of the world's major oil producers.
Mainly because Iraq is located in the middle of a region that can effect the world economy in a huge way (i.e. oil) and it could have destabilized many oil producing nations around it.

Quite. The US is there because of the oil, not because it wants to bring 'freedom' to the country. It is trying to impose democracy on an area to which democracy is an alien concept. You and I might think that democracy is a pretty good idea but imposing democracy on unwilling peoples isn't. (Churchill said democracy was the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried)

The oil directly relates to our national security as it does for a large part of the world. I think it is much too early to say the Iraqis don't want a democracy based government. On the contrary the Kurds and Shiites do want it. The Sunnis do also but on their terms. I don't see any faction in Iraq that objects to an elected government.

It is also in an area that is very aggressive toward western governments and has radical elements that are actively promoting terrorism abroad.

Iraq was not aggressive towards western governments, only, under Saddam, to other countries in the region. He got a bit pissed off when western governments tried to interfere with his plans, though. Also, Iraq was a secular region and not involved in terrorism abroad. That was just one of the excuses given for invading.

He was hell bent on controlling the region. He picked a fight with Iran, overrun Kuwait and probably would have made a play for Saudi Arabia had he been left unchecked. He also supported terrorism against Israel and did not want peace between them and the Palestinians. IMO, he was a much larger problem than many care to admit. If he had acquired nuclear weapons he would have really run wild and could not have been restrained without major fatalities.

The Iraq war was initiated for several reasons.  Some were for national
security, ...


I've seen no evidence that Iraq posed any threat to US national security.

...some for economic stability... 

A weak economy does not promote national security.

Yes, the oil again.

...and some for freeing a repressed population. 

A rationalisation that doesn't hold water.

My point, again, is that it's immaterial what excuses are given for invading. Starting a war cannot be rationalised. It is always wrong.

I disagree. History has shown time and again that millions of lives could have been saved had evil people (like Hitler as an example) been confronted before they gained power. This might have prevented a future war that would have killed millions.

Only by those who were labouring under the delusion that invading Iraq would be a walkover and that all Iraqis would welcome an invader with open arms. Those that know the area warned of what would happen but were ignored because their warnings, inconveniently, weren't what the avaricious wanted to hear.
Some of the problem is that the actual invasion was a walkover. It is the political issues that are proving to be problematic.

It was the political issues that people were warning of. I don't think anyone doubted the military walkover.

...but in Afghanistan, while not perfect, progress in much more visible.
Not from where I'm sitting.
If you were an Afghani school girl sitting in a class room today you might think differently. Or maybe a woman who just voted or might have been a candidate in the last election. I really don't see how anyone can say there hasn't been progress in that country since we arrived.

There has been change, and most of it for the good. What I don't see is progress towards the stated aims. At some point, the foreign forces will have to leave and then I suspect that things will deteriorate again.

I don't think we will leave for the foreseeable future. Look at South Korea. We have been there for 50 years and don't have plans to leave. We are still Europe. I don't see where having a presence in Iraq or Afghanistan for decades is all that terrible or surprising.

First, polls can be swung depending on who is asking the questions.

There have been very many polls, carried out by different groups, and they all produced very similar results. As I commented, even those involving Fox News. Not exactly one of the major US left-wing organisations.
Second, disapproval of "handling" and disapproval of the war in general are two completely different questions.

Repeat polls show a growing number of people believe that it was a mistake to invade Iraq. A few weeks back, the CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll put the number at 59%.

Wait until the December elections in Iraq. Those poll numbers will likely change if not before then.

Third, we just had a poll taken last November that matters (i.e.
presidential election) and Bush won.

Moot point. 

I think it is far from moot.  It is the only poll that counts for anything.

Cindy Sheehan is a nut case.

I don't know the woman so can't comment on her sanity. What I said was: "Cindy Sheehan's protest and the number of Iraq vets speaking their minds has further eroded confidence in him...". Whatever her state of mind. she's been having an effect. As have the Iraqi vets. 

Most people are tired of her.  She gets very little press here anymore.

Do you know she said the troops in New Orleans were an occupying force
and demanded they leave immediately!

I've no idea of the context in which she said that but I've heard people who were there saying that some were acting more like an occupying force than rescuers. Perhaps that was her point?

This is just one of her gaffs. She is quite the anti-Semite too. I bet her son is rolling over in his grave over what she has done in his name. None of her family supports what she is doing. The far left is just taking advantage of her and when she serves no useful purpose they will drop her like a rock.

Also, about 75% of the military that voted in the last election voted
for Bush.

I'm afraid I don't find that a significant statistic at all. In a US military composed solely of volunteers, the majority are bound to vote Republican. It's a self-selecting group.

The left likes to portray the military as not supporting Bush when in reality it is just the opposite.

His public persona suggests otherwise and in politics that's very important. Whatever his intellect is like, most of the world sees him as a fool and that's not good for the US.
Well if the rest of the world only cares about "persona" then that is their problem. Here, we look a little deeper. ;)

I disagree. I think it is very harmful for the US to be governed by someone that is perceived as a fool. That's a US problem, not the rest of the world's.

I see it as the world's problem. We choose our leaders, not the rest of the world. Saying Bush is horrible means you are saying a majority of the voting public here is horrible for voting for him or too stupid to know better. I don't make the same judgments on voters in the UK. I don;t think it unreasonable to expect the same in return.

We do not expel people from the country for their statements. Hasn't the UK done this recently with some clerics?

Yes. As I said, they were in the country because they claimed asylum and they abused the nation's hospitality by preaching religious or racial hatred and had their asylum rights withdrawn. The moderate Muslim clerics heaved a sigh of relief.

There is a big difference between law breakers and enemy combatants.

The people I'm referring to have not been proved in a court of law to have been combatants. Many of them were seized in countries where there was no combat. If they had been proved to be combatants, then the Geneva convention would apply to their detention, as they have not been proven to have been combatants, civil law should prevail.

If they were seized in a foreign country then they are not subject to our civil laws. Frankly, I'm not going to send our military abroad to defend us and then critique how they do it. I'll take there word regarding who should be detained and who should be released. Also, the courts here have upheld many of the detentions so I assume there is good reason. I don't need to know every detail of every person who is detained. We are at war and I would rather err on the side of caution than let someone go that will go underground and just resume killing us.

Enemy combatants can be held for long periods of time and it looks like this war will go on for a long time.

According to Bush and Blair, the war ended a long time ago but they're still being held. However, in reality you're right. It's another Vietnam.

They didn't say the war ended. Bush said that major combat operations were over. There is a difference. It is far from another Vietnam. Trying to equate the two wars shows a lack of understanding of both.

You need to understand there is a difference between the law in relation to the continental USA and a foreign battlefield.

One is US law, the other is the Geneva Convention. The US is not treating these people in accordance with either.

I don't think the Geneva Convention anticipated a war on terrorists that have no country and operates across many countries. Much of the Geneva Convention is not practical to follow and still be effective against our enemies.

Also, national security matters play a large part in how prisoners are treated.
Yes, that's what Stalin said, too.
So you equate us with Stalin?

I'm saying that the attitude you express is comparable to the attitude of Stalin's security forces. They're both indicative of extremist regimes (where the 'far-left' and 'far-right' meet in the alternative taxonomy). I don't think there's anything in US law that says that any one group of prisoners can be treated less humanely than any other group. And once again, these prisoners have not been charged with anything, let alone found guilty.

Domestic prisoners and prisoners of war (or enemy combatants) are not one and the same under our Constitution and therefore are not treated the same.

Hmmm... I'll take a little sleep derivation and prolonged standing over getting my head cut off. ;)

As I said, these are just the techniques the military is happy to acknowledge. Far worse charges have been made.

How do you know this? My advice is don;t believe everything you read. Much of it is very biased against the US.

Besides, these techniques are not considered to be torture.

By whom? They're at least 'cruel and unusual punishment' and certainly against the Geneva Convention.

If we were at war with a country I would agree to an extent. IMO, sleep derivation and prolonged standing is not "torture". Some may think differently. There are times when EVERY country has disregarded the Geneva Convention on prisoner interrogation. In the real world decisions have to be made and the security of many has to be weighed against the rights of a few. To think otherwise is being naive. If someone had kidnapped your child and you had to find out where they were or they would die in a matter of hours, how far would you go to get information? I know what I would be willing to do to save my child. If you fell the same I don;t think you have a right to be too judgmental on those we have charged with keeping us safe.

Reports from inside US civilian prisons also detail inhumane treatment.
And I imagine the same occurs in the prisons of the UK.

Not to anywhere near the same extent. Few prison systems are perfect but the US is notorious for the bad conditions in many of its prisons. I'm afraid the penal system is one area where the US comes off extremely badly.

Now we are just talking about degrees of bad? I thought it was either bad or not.

The UK has had similar problems with prisoner abuse too. 

As I acknowledged.

It happens in wartime.

That doesn't make it right but it does support my contention that war is not noble and never can be.

IMO, then you should not be too judgmental on the US military. You're painting with an awfully wide brush.

That's Abu Ghraib
Several sites Googled back under my spelling.

Type any mis-spelling into Google and you'll get hits. There are a lot of sloppily written web pages out there.

I'm sure that's a big consolation to the people they mistreated. It doesn't make the treatment they, and some British troops, handed out go away though, does it?

British troops have done the same... 

What I said.

and expecting perfection from humans just isn't practical.

Glass half empty? Expecting civilised behaviour from people is perfectly reasonable. Whether you can get it from troops of any nation after you've trained them to regard their opponents as less than human, which is what military training involves, is another matter.

I think many expect too much from the military. The reality of warfare is probably much different than what you and I perceive. Having to access who in an enemy in a matter of a split second can not be an easy task. Compared to prisoner abuse in past wars (by all sides) I think the Iraq war have been fairly tame.

We had them strip naked and wear a dog leash. The people that did it
were punished and you seem to want to taint our entire country over one
incident.

No, I commented on the fact that you seem to find that kind of behaviour acceptable and that, perhaps, the reason some of those people saw nothing wrong with it is because it isn't unknown in some US prisons. By using the word 'we' you seem to be doing so, though.

Where did I say I found it acceptable? I think they should have been punished. They were. I'm not going to continually beat up the military over it or make it out to any worse than is was. Compared to beheading, shootings, stabbings, beating to death etc. what they did was pretty tame in comparison.

I could make the same extrapolations in regard to the UK but I know that wouldn't be an honest assessment on my part. Just like it isn't on your part.

The UK troops were all regular army, not part-timers working in the prison service. They probably did it because they're sub-human scum, just like anyone else that would treat people that way.

What makes you think "part timers" are less capable than "full timers"? Most "part timers" were "full timers" at some point. Never the less, I still don't think the actions of a few is a general representation of your military.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: France keeps up pressure on Hewlett-Packard jobs
    ... > Christian country shows you really don't understand us at all. ... > The left wing is busy trying to remove religion (especially Christian ... Iraq war would not have happened had the USSR still been a world power. ... > And I imagine the same occurs in the prisons of the UK. ...
    (comp.periphs.printers)
  • Re: OT John 8:32
    ... Israel only came up a few times in discussions here. ... both in my home country and other EU member ... I do have a problem with some of the politics of he ... Same in the Western world, of course, wherever religion and irrational ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
  • Re: OT John 8:32
    ... Israel only came up a few times in discussions here. ... both in my home country and other EU member ... I do have a problem with some of the politics of he ... Same in the Western world, of course, wherever religion and irrational ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
  • Re: for the women in my life.....
    ... First, she said, the number of honor killings in Iraq have increased ... Second, she went on, 10 years ago, long before the country was ... of an Iraqi village for fraternizing with a boy from another religion. ... Iraq, in an interview with Women's Human Rights Net highlighted ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
  • Re: Kissinger a warmonger? No. And...
    ... Iraq was no threat to us at any time in history. ... Your politics are inconsistent. ... Ever since John Adams refused to bow to King ... Israel became a recognized state was because no country wanted ...
    (alt.politics)