War

[Kevin_Stallard1]

In the context of other cultures and societies, there are definatly things
that are permissable there that may not be in another. However, while I
don’t have the aticulate capabilities as of yet to defend 100% the following
position and as naive as it sounds, I do beleive that truth strikes an
individual at the core so I will rely on that to make the following point.

That there are fundemental truths that should be used by all human beings
to judge what they do, what they say and their actions. One way to describe
some of these is to articulate them in the form of natural rights, i.e.
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. When any of these are infringed
upon without there being due justification (i.e. did this person infringe
upon the basic rights of another…), the truth is that this is bad. When
people take upon themselves to do things the infringe upon these basic
rights, whether to strip a woman teacher in some extremist country, her
credintials and confin her to her home for the rest of her life, or the
destruction of lives in a foreign nation, this is bad. The only way someone
could argue otherwise is that they either are doing such acts themselves and
have ignormed their conscience or they are a person of mush and do not have
any core beliefs and/or have a timid an uncomitted character.

It is a fundemental belief of mine that many if not all cultures and
religons and peoples can exist and prosper under such a standard without
infringing upon the intents of the founders of such religions unless those
founders do not recognize the importance of the individual. It is also a
fundemental belief of mine that our society should not tolerate such people
(those who do not recognize the importance of the individual).

It is also a fundemental belief of mine that all human beings have amazing
potential for good, if they would only believe it themselves.

It is also a belief of mine that there are people who think that happiness
comes in the form of power and control over others in ways that ignore the
will or desires of the persons he or she wishes to control. I have no
tolerance for such individuals. This to me is clearly wrong and there is no
room for their “moral” in this situation. I don’t mind imposing the moral
that every individual have individual freedoms and liberties that are God
given and not man made and that do not come from government or any other
controlling power, because there is not harm in it, it does not bring people
into slavery it does not put people down it does not bring oppression, but
lifts them up, and this is what I want to do. I want to lift people up.

This has all been a very interesting discussion, but I have spent far too
much time here. One final thing I wish to say, and I say it with all the
feelings of my heart.

God Bless America, may she continue to be a light and an example to all with
her graciousness, love of liberty, strength and might forever more.

Over and out,
Kevin






“Rennie Allen” <RAllen@csical.com> wrote in message
news:64F00D816A85D51198390050046F80C9BC82@exchangecal.hq.csical.com…

For something as basic as violence I agree; however, you are completely
wrong with a general assertion as given below. There are most
definitely different moral codes.

As an example, there are many people for whom polygamy is completely
acceptable. You can argue that the moral code these people live by is
unacceptable in your eyes (or those of the majority of people in the
United States), but you cannot argue that these indivduals do not
have a moral code, and that it is not different from yours.

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Stallard [mailto:> kevin@robots.flyingrobots.fly> .]
Posted At: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 8:14 AM
Posted To: advocacy
Conversation: War
Subject: Re: War


There is no such thing as a different moral code. There is RIGHT and
there
is WRONG. End of story. Period.

Kevin Stallard

“Maynard Lanting” <> mlanting@atsautomation.com> > wrote in message
news:3b9e34bb$> 1@ats2.sentex.ca> …

“Mario Charest” <> mcharest@clipzinformatic.com> > wrote in message
news:9nlb16$60a$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …

“Miguel Simon” <> simon@ou.edu> > wrote in message
news:> 3B9E2CAA.8C076F6C@ou.edu> …
Hi…

The terrorist attack in NewYork and elsewhere is the reason why we
here
in North America have to go forth and utilize our resources to
protect
our nation. Period.

It is inexplicable to me how any terrorist people can possibly
justify
the lost of innocent lives for whatever fanatic reasons they may
harbor.


It’s making me feel so sad. I looking for something to hold on to:

Probably for the same reason researchers implant cancer in
animal to learn about the desease. Because people that do it
things the cause justify the means. It just that this time the
target is human.

Still If somebody could create a symbol that express more sadness
then
the
often used “;(” I would be using it now.

> (

Miguel.


“inn.qnx.com” wrote:


Some people may say that they just have a different moral code. . . .
i
simply don’t see that as acceptable. I find that idea repugnant.
Please
tell me you don’t see it that way. . . What did thousands of people
from
all
different nations in the World Trade Center do that deserve to be the
brunt
of some terrorist group? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. And they
deserve
to
be punished.


\

[Rick_Lake1]

I work at a press agency so I’m the last to infringe on freedom of speech.
I used the word “please” indicating it was just a request. And the word
“extreme” was a bad choice of word on my part, for which I apologize.
This morning after re-reading my post, I realized that. When I post
something I always weigh every word I write, and still there’s danger that
it can be misinterpreted

regards,
rick


Maynard Lanting <mlanting@atsautomation.com> wrote:

Rick:

You’re right, it is a matter of opinion isn’t it? And in my opinion, i
think it’s completely valid given the exchange that Mario and I have had.
In addition, I also find it offending when people without the authority to
do so, infringe on one of the most basic freedoms of democratic counties:
that of freedom of speech.

Its not up to you to decide what’s too extreme, or what’s out of line, or
off topic. This is run by QNX, for QNX users. If they want to block me,
that’s their perogative and I’ll deal with that situation as it comes up.

Respectfully,
Maynard Lanting

P.S. I notice that QSSL guys are back this morning. Glad to see that. I
was missing their input.



“Rick Lake” <> rwlake@spamfree.domain.invalid> > wrote in message
news:9noftj$47g$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
Maynard Lanting <> mlanting@atsautomation.com> > wrote:
[…]
That being said if you
ever hurt my children I will beat the crap out of your sorry ass if you
see what I mean, cause I’m sure I won`t be able to control my
genetic background >

People who are self-righteous, holier-than-thou passifists really piss
me
off. I hope its safe to say from the above, that this you are not. >

Please don’t go there. You’re pushing the thread off topic, to say the
least (IMO). I scanned back through the postings and I can’t quite see any
that fits the category you just painted. (That is, if you know the
characters from previous posts in the past…)

Having said that, OTOH, I know where you’re coming from. Words fail me
completely to describe the events that transpired in the past two days.
They fail me even more desperately to describe what the directly involved
must be experiencing. My deepest condolences go out to them. Eventhough
I’m not a U.S. citizen, I feel deeply with them. So I understand
completely some of the (rather extreme) posts in this thread.

regards,
Rick Lake

P.S: Keep in mind that this is QSSL’s forum. I suggest we try not to post
anything that might damage their name. Notice they stopped participating
in
this thread for quite some time now?

[Mario_Charest1]

btw: I meant the “Good for you” completely genuinely, I meant “Good for
you” in educating your children about the situation, and telling them
the truth.

Thanks for the clarification. I understood it in a negative way.
I’m probably too much on the defensive here

[Igor_Kovalenko2]

“Kevin Stallard” <kevin@robots.flyingrobots.fly.> wrote in message
news:9nqn03$fd3$1@inn.qnx.com…

In the context of other cultures and societies, there are definatly things
that are permissable there that may not be in another. However, while I
don’t have the aticulate capabilities as of yet to defend 100% the
following
position and as naive as it sounds, I do beleive that truth strikes an
individual at the core so I will rely on that to make the following point.

That there are fundemental truths that should be used by all human
beings
to judge what they do, what they say and their actions. One way to
describe
some of these is to articulate them in the form of natural rights, i.e.
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. When any of these are
infringed
upon without there being due justification (i.e. did this person infringe
upon the basic rights of another…), the truth is that this is bad.

Now imagine that some person/group/nation puts ‘serving God’ as basic right
before even ‘Life’, ‘Liberty’ and ‘Pursuit of Happiness’. Did not people
in western cultures sacrifice those values to serve God? Catholic church
denies right to marry which may essentially translate into denial of Pursuit
of Happines, to their priests. They just hold more value in serving God. Now
what if someone has done something what in some way infringed their right to
serve God, which is their basic right? Would it be just for them to infringe
basic rigths to offenders? Catholic priests these days would not kill
offenders, but remember there were times when they did…

Now let’s leave alone catholic priests. Have you seen ‘Scarlet Letter’ movie
(US). Didn’t they want to hang woman because she violated their principles
(she got pregnant outside of marriage)? That was Massachusetts, although
still under British rule. But they were ancestors of US population, weren’t
they? Weren’t there witch-hunts in US after British rule? All because
someone felt their ‘rights’ are infringed…

When
people take upon themselves to do things the infringe upon these basic
rights, whether to strip a woman teacher in some extremist country, her
credintials and confin her to her home for the rest of her life,

What if she does not mind and considers this ‘natural’?

or the
destruction of lives in a foreign nation, this is bad. The only way
someone
could argue otherwise is that they either are doing such acts themselves
and
have ignormed their conscience or they are a person of mush and do not
have
any core beliefs and/or have a timid an uncomitted character.

You’re fast in judgement.

It is a fundemental belief of mine that many if not all cultures and
religons and peoples can exist and prosper under such a standard without
infringing upon the intents of the founders of such religions unless those
founders do not recognize the importance of the individual. It is also a
fundemental belief of mine that our society should not tolerate such
people
(those who do not recognize the importance of the individual).

That is key issue. Indeed, importance of individual is questionable value in
many cultures. You may not accept that and neither do I, but that is fact.

It is also a fundemental belief of mine that all human beings have amazing
potential for good, if they would only believe it themselves.

It is also a belief of mine that there are people who think that happiness
comes in the form of power and control over others in ways that ignore the
will or desires of the persons he or she wishes to control. I have no
tolerance for such individuals. This to me is clearly wrong and there is
no
room for their “moral” in this situation. I don’t mind imposing the moral
that every individual have individual freedoms and liberties that are God
given and not man made and that do not come from government or any other
controlling power, because there is not harm in it, it does not bring
people
into slavery it does not put people down it does not bring oppression, but
lifts them up, and this is what I want to do. I want to lift people up.

Some cultures do not believe into ‘lifting people’. They rather think people
should be ‘under God’ and promote modesty. Notice how Talibs call their
‘Ministry of Prevention of Wisdom and Promotion of Wise’.

This has all been a very interesting discussion, but I have spent far too
much time here. One final thing I wish to say, and I say it with all the
feelings of my heart.

God Bless America, may she continue to be a light and an example to all
with
her graciousness, love of liberty, strength and might forever more.

Amen. I am starting to think this is real religion in US, if anything.

• igor

[Igor_Kovalenko2]

“Igor Kovalenko” <kovalenko@home.com> wrote in message
news:9nqu2p$jhq$1@inn.qnx.com…

Notice how Talibs call their
‘Ministry of Prevention of Wisdom and Promotion of Wise’.

Err, my bad. That should read ‘Ministry of Prevention of Wise and Promotion
of Virtue’

• igor

[Igor_Kovalenko2]

“ian zagorskih” <ianzag@novosoft-us.com> wrote in message
news:9nqlsi$eq4$1@inn.qnx.com…

“Rick Lake” <> rwlake@spamfree.domain.invalid> > wrote in message
news:9nqb43$86c$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
Igor Kovalenko <> kovalenko@home.com> > wrote:
[…]
Granted. Electronics industry never was real good in USSR, for reasons
which
I don’t really know. Seems like there was some kind of trademark
russian
negligence to sophisticated eqiupment. We just liked ‘simple things’

Perhaps this has nothing to do with it, but I heard a theory once that
the
USSR sometimes used vacuum tubes deliberately, where others would use
sophisticated electronics, because of the “EMP” (Electro-Magnetic Pulse)
threat: If you explode a nuclear bomb above a place, it sends out a very
strong EMP rendering all sensitive electronic equipment inoperable in
that
place. But vacuum tubes would withstand the pulse.

regards,
rick

As far as i know you’r right in your assumption. Old good analogues
components were/are used in military critical systems just due to they are
much less sensitive to electro-magnetic radiation and still keep working
when semiconductor based equipment would be destroyed. I think Igor will
also admit it.

Igor is not sure about vacuum tube based circuits being able to withstand
EMI. Igor is also not sure about vacuum tubes being good choice for figher
jets due to mechanical issues and he does not think EMI issue was so
important for passenger jets.

As for analog systems in general (which has nothing to do with vacuum
tubes), yes it is true that they are more resilient to all kinds of
interferense and yes that is probably why some russian systems appear to be
‘simplistic’. It yet has to be proven that super-sophisticated avionics
systems of US aircraft will do any good in real combat. I mean, against
worthy enemy, not Saddam or Milosevish.

• igor

[Rennie_Allen2]

Model
aircraft enthusiasts have been known to build their own jet and (even
more impressively) gas turbine engines in their garage machine shops.
There are dozens of nations that can build gas turbines “on their
own”.



You must be very naive to think that. There is HUGE difference
between
making a model in garage and designing and making an engine which can
be
realistically used to power a ‘real’ heavy jet.

I agree, to produce a turbine that is reliable and economical, that is a
different story (I said so originally), however, here are many more than
4 nations that can produce gas turbines, whether they want to or not is
another story, and relates to your point about countries doing what they
do best, and buying what others do best.

The gas turbine/turbojet was developed over 50 years ago, it’s
manufacture is well understood by many many people (far more than
understand compiler design for instance).

Those things are so far
apart that I can’t even stress it enough. Think of nuclear synthesis
reaction problem. It is (relatively) easy to show proof of concept or
even
build a small scale reactor which can produce some tiny amount of
energy.
But making a practically viable system is still unsolved challenge.

What is nuclear synthesis ?

That is lame. All avionics blow, not only russian. Unless you can show
statistical evidence that russian blows more, I’d refrain from such
statements.

By blow I am paraphrasing “blow chunks”, also known as “honk”, “spew” or
“hurl” (rent Wayne’s World for a full explanation

I am quite sure that Russian avionics actually explodes less than
Western avionics, its just that it is less sophisticated.

You must be reading between lines. Where did I forget anything? I said
luck
was on US side with moon race. Where did I deny there was a race? I
just
said they did not want to do it after US already did, since it made
no
sense anymore.

You implied it was luck that the Americans made it to the moon. It was
not luck, it was hard work. It was a systematic failure that allowed
the Russians to lose their substantial lead.

error of judgement. It might be hard to see for you, but I have
somewhat

It is not hard for me to see that other nationalities might consider
Americans to be generally arrogant and self absorbed, it is very
difficult for me to see how that translates into hatred, particularly
when arrogant and self-absorbed as they might be, they are exceptionally
good world citizens overall.

To the subject, I guess just ‘showing off’ alone would not be enough.
But
when ‘showing off’ is coupled with bombing of other countries which
can
not defend themselves, it becomes quite more insulting.

You must have some defenseless countries in mind here ?

Would that surprize you?

Yup.

It all depends on how much value they put into
human life.

I believe that only mentally defective people don’t value human life. I
also believe that we (as human beings) simply cannot allow freedom for
people who do not value human life, this just isn’t an option.

Add regular bombing of Iraq, older bombing of Libya, support of Israel
(so palestinians feel pissed off),

These are understandable as disputes. I don’t want to get into what my
position on these are, but I can related to the concept of an actual
dispute. As a pacifist I believe that disputes should be settled
non-violently. As a realist, the only way you can hope to make any
progress in a dispute with a bigger party is non-violently. Violence is
only a practical option (in terms of reaching a specific goal) for the
bigger party, this is why the whole concept of terrorism is baffling.

Ghandi had it right, and the results speak for themselves (Ghandi freed
a population larger than the U.S. population from under the
(progressively less over time) oppressive, and exploitative rule of
Britain in a few years. The Palestinians have been committing terrorism
for 50 years, and they are only getting further from their goal each
year).

troops in ‘holy land’, etc. Then mix it with ‘showing off’ and I can
very

This is the part I don’t get… what is “showing off” in this respect ?

Rennie

[Rennie_Allen2]

As I stated in my response, I agree with you regarding basic human
rights. I think you probably add a few more things into the category of
basic human rights than is reasonable for a global perspective, but I
believe the vast majority of humanity agrees that a basic human right is
the right to maintain life and limb. I would add, that all human beings
have a right to food and shelter. I believe that we should tolerate any
nation that confers these basic human rights on it’s citizens (notice
freedom of mobility and association is not in there), and that we should
not tolerate any nation that does not confer these basic rights on it’s
citizens.

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Stallard [mailto:kevin@robots.flyingrobots.fly.]
Posted At: Thursday, September 13, 2001 9:32 AM
Posted To: advocacy
Conversation: War
Subject: Re: War


In the context of other cultures and societies, there are definatly
things
that are permissable there that may not be in another. However, while I
don’t have the aticulate capabilities as of yet to defend 100% the
following
position and as naive as it sounds, I do beleive that truth strikes an
individual at the core so I will rely on that to make the following
point.

That there are fundemental truths that should be used by all human
beings
to judge what they do, what they say and their actions. One way to
describe
some of these is to articulate them in the form of natural rights, i.e.
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. When any of these are
infringed
upon without there being due justification (i.e. did this person
infringe
upon the basic rights of another…), the truth is that this is bad.
When
people take upon themselves to do things the infringe upon these basic
rights, whether to strip a woman teacher in some extremist country, her
credintials and confin her to her home for the rest of her life, or the
destruction of lives in a foreign nation, this is bad. The only way
someone
could argue otherwise is that they either are doing such acts themselves
and
have ignormed their conscience or they are a person of mush and do not
have
any core beliefs and/or have a timid an uncomitted character.

It is a fundemental belief of mine that many if not all cultures and
religons and peoples can exist and prosper under such a standard without
infringing upon the intents of the founders of such religions unless
those
founders do not recognize the importance of the individual. It is also
a
fundemental belief of mine that our society should not tolerate such
people
(those who do not recognize the importance of the individual).

It is also a fundemental belief of mine that all human beings have
amazing
potential for good, if they would only believe it themselves.

It is also a belief of mine that there are people who think that
happiness
comes in the form of power and control over others in ways that ignore
the
will or desires of the persons he or she wishes to control. I have no
tolerance for such individuals. This to me is clearly wrong and there
is no
room for their “moral” in this situation. I don’t mind imposing the
moral
that every individual have individual freedoms and liberties that are
God
given and not man made and that do not come from government or any
other
controlling power, because there is not harm in it, it does not bring
people
into slavery it does not put people down it does not bring oppression,
but
lifts them up, and this is what I want to do. I want to lift people up.

This has all been a very interesting discussion, but I have spent far
too
much time here. One final thing I wish to say, and I say it with all
the
feelings of my heart.

God Bless America, may she continue to be a light and an example to all
with
her graciousness, love of liberty, strength and might forever more.

Over and out,
Kevin






“Rennie Allen” <RAllen@csical.com> wrote in message
news:64F00D816A85D51198390050046F80C9BC82@exchangecal.hq.csical.com…

For something as basic as violence I agree; however, you are
completely
wrong with a general assertion as given below. There are most
definitely different moral codes.

As an example, there are many people for whom polygamy is completely
acceptable. You can argue that the moral code these people live by is
unacceptable in your eyes (or those of the majority of people in the
United States), but you cannot argue that these indivduals do not
have a moral code, and that it is not different from yours.

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Stallard [mailto:> kevin@robots.flyingrobots.fly> .]
Posted At: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 8:14 AM
Posted To: advocacy
Conversation: War
Subject: Re: War


There is no such thing as a different moral code. There is RIGHT and
there
is WRONG. End of story. Period.

Kevin Stallard

“Maynard Lanting” <> mlanting@atsautomation.com> > wrote in message
news:3b9e34bb$> 1@ats2.sentex.ca> …

“Mario Charest” <> mcharest@clipzinformatic.com> > wrote in message
news:9nlb16$60a$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …

“Miguel Simon” <> simon@ou.edu> > wrote in message
news:> 3B9E2CAA.8C076F6C@ou.edu> …
Hi…

The terrorist attack in NewYork and elsewhere is the reason why
we
here
in North America have to go forth and utilize our resources to
protect
our nation. Period.

It is inexplicable to me how any terrorist people can possibly
justify
the lost of innocent lives for whatever fanatic reasons they may
harbor.


It’s making me feel so sad. I looking for something to hold on
to:

Probably for the same reason researchers implant cancer in
animal to learn about the desease. Because people that do it
things the cause justify the means. It just that this time the
target is human.

Still If somebody could create a symbol that express more sadness
then
the
often used “;(” I would be using it now.

> (

Miguel.


“inn.qnx.com” wrote:


Some people may say that they just have a different moral code. . .
..
i
simply don’t see that as acceptable. I find that idea repugnant.
Please
tell me you don’t see it that way. . . What did thousands of people
from
all
different nations in the World Trade Center do that deserve to be
the
brunt
of some terrorist group? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. And they
deserve
to
be punished.


\

[Rennie_Allen2]

Thanks for sharing that with us, and thanks for a well timed, and
(evidently) provocative discussion., I hoped it helped you decide.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mario Charest [mailto:mcharest@nowayzinformatic.com]
Posted At: Thursday, September 13, 2001 9:31 AM
Posted To: advocacy
Conversation: War
Subject: Re: War



“Rennie Allen” <RAllen@csical.com> wrote in message
news:64F00D816A85D51198390050046F80C9BC85@exchangecal.hq.csical.com…

So, Mario, after this discussion (and the events of the past few
days),
what is your decision ? I think the many people who contributed to
this
discussion would be interested in knowing.

I will sell

[Rennie_Allen2]

Rennie, it seems you have own definition of war, country, violance,
…
to fit your theories. If liqudation of red indians is not war for you,
may be, but if war USA - Mexico is not war, what is war at all ?

For the purpose of the discussion, I did limit the definition of war as
violence between nations (see my original post). I have an adopted
sister of native American descent, so you can imagine that I do not have
a very high opinion of the treatment of the native Americans, however, I
am also positive that the same thing could not happen today due to
presence of a functioning democracy. I am perfectly willing to consider
the conflict between the native Americans and the Europeans a war, in a
different discussion.

USA also produces wars and violence as any other forceful country.
May be USA are better than others, but they are not saint.

I don’t recall saying that the USA was a “saint”. Theological
misgivings aside, I would consider Mother Theresa a saint.

When
aircrafts had bombed Yugoslavia, there was also many innocent
peoples killed and it was as terrible as the tragedy in New York.

The tragedy was worse than New York, almost certainly. The difference
is, that Slobodan Milosovic killed those people, not the United States.
The United States was simply trying to act as a good world citizen, and
break-up a fight in which (now pay attention closely) Moslems were
being slaughtered by Christians. I do not doubt at all that the NATO
action in Yugoslavia saved lives (perhaps the fact that additional
Christian lives were lost in order to have an overall lower death toll
bothers you i.e. perhaps Christian lives are worth more to you than
Moslem lives, in which case your consternation is understandable).

The reward that the United States gets for intervening in the Balkans,
is criticism like this in general, and a couple of Boeings up the World
Trade Center, specifically. Sorry, for getting a little emotional here,
but this is really quite difficult to stomach.

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrej Lucny [mailto:andy@nod10.mstep]
Posted At: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 11:42 PM
Posted To: advocacy
Conversation: War
Subject: Re: War


Rennie Allen <RAllen@csical.com> wrote:

Sorry to intrude in a thread, but I am not sure about how Mexico
feels
from
having been robbed of California, Texas, New Mexico, etc. by a
democratic
country. I’m not sure whether the U.S.A. formally declared war, or
just
considered themselves attacked by the provocations of the mexican
army
that
denied the rightful occupation of mexican ground by innocent
americans,

Mexico was not a country, even by the standards of the time (and

Andy

certainly not a country by today’s standards), neither was the U.S.A.
The Americas (certainly, until the latter half of the 19th century)
were
frontier’s. Frontier’s are characterized as unsettled areas, that are
essentially lawless. Without the rule of law a democracy cannot
exists.
period.

[Rennie_Allen2]

I think that presenting international relations as analogous to paternal
relations, can definately be viewed as paternalistic. I’m not
criticizing anything except the analogy. I agree that I probably read
more into it than was intended.

-----Original Message-----
From: Maynard Lanting [mailto:mlanting@atsautomation.com]
Posted At: Thursday, September 13, 2001 6:50 AM
Posted To: advocacy
Conversation: War
Subject: Re: War


That’s out of context Rennie. He obviously just meant that you don’t
let
you kid keep getting away with doing wrong without discipline. And yes,
disciplining one child is often a deterent and a lesson for the other
children.
This analogy is simply a similar situation on a much, much smaller
scale.


“Rennie Allen” <RAllen@csical.com> wrote in message
news:64F00D816A85D51198390050046F80C9BC7C@exchangecal.hq.csical.com…

Hmmm, I’m glad your not my dad.

Dad:

“Did you take out the garbage son ?”

Son:

“Nope, I’ve been playing with my hotwheels”

Dad:

“You will feel the might, power and wrath of your parent. I will
crush you so that any of my other offspring will remember what
happened
the last time”

I didn’t make this analogy, you did. Bad analogy.

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Stallard [mailto:> kevin@robots.flyingrobots.fly> .]
Posted At: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 8:11 AM
Posted To: advocacy
Conversation: War
Subject: Re: War



Somebody can come in the US (or anywhere else) with a bottle of
perfume that could be biochemical poison. How the hell can
you deal with that. Apparently these people are ready to die.

Washington, the center of the “government” has been hit, one
major symbol of US capability has been obliterated. Quite
frankly I don’t see how it was avoidable. The amount of control
required to prevent this is uncalculable.

Thats why, when we find who was responsible and who helped them, they
should
feel the might, power and wrath of the United States. We will crush
them so
that anyone, ANYONE who thinks about doing this again will remember
what
happened the last time.

You do not negotiate with madmen and sick-os.

You DO NOT let cowards get away with garbage like this with out
reprisal.
The only problem Isreal has is that they are always “reigned in” by
the
U.S.
and others. They should be unleashed. Terrorisom SHOULD NOT and I
repreat
SHOULD NOT BE TOLERATED. It should be crushed.

Kevin Stallard



It is JUST like disciplining a child. If you let your child get away
with
it, they will do it again and again and again.

[Gary_Dike]

The reward that the United States gets for intervening in the Balkans,
is criticism like this in general, and a couple of Boeings up the World
Trade Center, specifically.

I don’t think the Balkans is the motive behind the attack upon the WTC… I
mean, really. Why do Americans always play the innocent role? While I
certainly don’t condone these attacks whatsoever and hope the guily person
are brought to justice, the United States of America is certainly not the
saint of the world. The US plays the role of both the good cop AND bad cop
at times.

Sorry, for getting a little emotional here,
but this is really quite difficult to stomach.

It is sickening to say the least. I think the most sickening images I’ve
seen is the Palestinians celebrating in the streets.

[Mario_Charest1]

“Rennie Allen” <RAllen@csical.com> wrote in message
news:64F00D816A85D51198390050046F80C9BC85@exchangecal.hq.csical.com…

So, Mario, after this discussion (and the events of the past few days),
what is your decision ? I think the many people who contributed to this
discussion would be interested in knowing.

I will sell.

[Rennie_Allen2]

As for analog systems in general (which has nothing to do with
vacuum
tubes), yes it is true that they are more resilient to all kinds of
interferense and yes that is probably why some russian systems appear
to be
‘simplistic’. It yet has to be proven that super-sophisticated
avionics
systems of US aircraft will do any good in real combat. I mean,
against
worthy enemy, not Saddam or Milosevish.

Igor, I am not trying to be contrarian for the sake of being contrarian,
honest

I disagree. Super sophisticated avionics have proven their worth
against current Russian fighters. The best dog fighting capabilities
(which Russian fighters definately have) are not much use against fire
and forget over the horizon air-to-air missiles (other than the fact
that a pilot may be able to avoid the missile due to superior
manuverability), but then this just means that the opponent fires
another fire and forget when his avionics alert him to the fact that the
kill did not complete. The best fighter would be a Russian airframe
with Western avionics (oh, and hold the tubes

• igor

[system]

I’d like to see just one of those countries that is
gloating over the erosion of the United States
dollar build its own airplane. Does any other
country in the world have a plane to equal the
Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tri-Star, or the
Douglas DC10?

Easy.
US takes every measure against other countries build a
competitive airliners, just to sell US planes.

Other facts:
US takes every measure against other countries to make US cars sell;
any obstacles observed (including “US cars ain’t good enough”) are
considered a “unfair trade customs”.

US takes every measure againt other countries (well, only Japan maybe)
to make a competitive Operating System; that’s why TRON isn’t selling
in US despite of widespread usage in jp telecom.

Japan is considered in alliance with US, but I guess not all japs feel sorry
about the WTC; some people do know US has done a lot of mischief especially
in East.
(Heck, japan is supposed not to have forces; why can she take alliance?)

kabe

[Igor_Kovalenko2]

“Rennie Allen” <RAllen@csical.com> wrote in message
news:64F00D816A85D51198390050046F80C9C681@exchangecal.hq.csical.com…

I agree, to produce a turbine that is reliable and economical, that is a
different story (I said so originally), however, here are many more than
4 nations that can produce gas turbines, whether they want to or not is
another story, and relates to your point about countries doing what they
do best, and buying what others do best.

The gas turbine/turbojet was developed over 50 years ago, it’s
manufacture is well understood by many many people (far more than
understand compiler design for instance).

There is large number of people who understand how nuclear bomb or nuclear
reactor works. But it takes years and years of very expensive research and
experimentation do develop know-how and infrastructure which would allow a
country to actually produce either one.

It is similar, although perhaps less complicated with jet engines. May be
‘theoretically’ many nations could do it, but last time I checked sources of
information on the subject, there were 4 nations capable of doing it ‘here
and now’.

What is nuclear synthesis ?

It is what allows the Sun to work. It is also known as thermo-nuclear
reaction and in essense is opposite of nuclear decay. Typical fuel would be
deuterium (aka heavy hydrogen) or tritium (even heavier hydrogen). Reaction
would produce helium plus enormous amount of energy. There are
thermo-nuclear bombs (pioneered by russians) and they are MUCH more powerful
than nuclear ones (they actually use a plain nuclear bomb as ‘detonator’).
However there are no practically usable reactors, due to problem of
instability of plasma. If problem was solved, it would open unlimited
sources of energy to mankind. Lots of hydrogen around …

You implied it was luck that the Americans made it to the moon. It was
not luck, it was hard work. It was a systematic failure that allowed
the Russians to lose their substantial lead.

You seem to be arguing with different aspect of my statement in every reply.
Last time you said I was forgetting something, this time it is about me
mentioning luck… It is hard to discuss anything that way. But if you wish
so, yes I think it was luck. Sure there was hard work, but it was on both
sides. I will not deny that it was luck what allowed USSR to beat US with
first man in space. It could have been other way around just as well.
Likewise, it was luck what allowed US to be first on Moon. Like in any
competition, there is winner and loser and sometimes it does not really
matter how much hard work each side does.

Note, all that has nothing to do at all with my original statement. You
can’t deny that US education system indeed does skip ‘inconvinient’ parts of
history, like this one. I know because my daughter is in US school.

It is not hard for me to see that other nationalities might consider
Americans to be generally arrogant and self absorbed, it is very
difficult for me to see how that translates into hatred, particularly
when arrogant and self-absorbed as they might be, they are exceptionally
good world citizens overall.

Your problem is that you’re just taking your last statement for granted. You
may think that they are good world citizens and I may think so, but other
nationalities may not.

To the subject, I guess just ‘showing off’ alone would not be enough.
But
when ‘showing off’ is coupled with bombing of other countries which
can
not defend themselves, it becomes quite more insulting.

You must have some defenseless countries in mind here ?

Yugoslavia was defenseless. Not only it was smaller and weaker, it was also
denied right to import weapons and fuel which it could use for self defense.
May be its regime was guilty of atrocities, but you can’t deny that when you
drop a bomb on civilian installation there is a chance of killing innocent
people. Supersophisticated US military also managed to hit chineese embassy.
Did those people deserve to die?

You also can’t deny there are dual standards in US foreign policy. Why does
not US bomb Israel for systematic openly admitted killings of palestinians?
Of course those palestinians aren’t angels and they do kill Israelis, but it
is Israel who occupies their land and denies their right for their own
state, isn’t it? And kosovars were not exactly angels either, they did
provoke serbs and commited atrocities too, so may be Milosevich had right to
establish ‘policy of assasinations’ like Israel does?

Another example, think about Chechnya problem. First russian military action
was triggered by local authorities imposing ‘Islam law’ and practicing
things like systematic kidnappings of people for ransom and showcasing heads
of decapitated people on central square of the capital. Then those people
hijacked hospital in Russia and killed hundreds of helpless patients in
cold blood. They also blew residential buildings in Moscow which caused
hundreds of deaths. They hijacked numerous planes and buses. However US
was very concerned about Russia denying their rights and members of US
congress accepted delegation of rebels. When Russia was talking about
international terrorism (there are foreign mercenaries in Chechnya)
commiting an act of war against it, words practically fell on deaf ears of
western leaders.

Does not that look at least a little dual-standard?

I believe that only mentally defective people don’t value human life. I
also believe that we (as human beings) simply cannot allow freedom for
people who do not value human life, this just isn’t an option.

Just how much US valued human life when they decided to drop nukes at
Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I would understand if they were military bases, but
they were just cities with mostly civilian population. Hundreds of thousands
of innocent people were indiscriminately vaporised in a second and
generations had to suffer later. Of course there was a war and japanese
attacked first, but they struck a navy base. If you ask me, nuclear
bombing was ‘crime against humanity’. If US wanted to end war sooner and
thus save lives by demonstrating its mighty power (one very popular
explanation), it could choose some more reasonable target, could it?

I’ve heard one pilot who actually flew that plane ended up in a mental
institution being unable to cope with his conscience. However many americans
apparently still refuse to admit that was wrong thing to do. See how easily
people can justify horrible acts if they believe in their righteousness?
Why you’re surprized then that someone could justify what has been done with
WTC?

Ghandi had it right, and the results speak for themselves (Ghandi freed
a population larger than the U.S. population from under the
(progressively less over time) oppressive, and exploitative rule of
Britain in a few years. The Palestinians have been committing terrorism
for 50 years, and they are only getting further from their goal each
year).

This is an interesting point. May be you are right, although I suspect case
with India was considerably simpler. It was classical colony, and Britain
had no rights there other than colonial rights. Israel can’t just ‘free a
colony’. I suppose Britain would not conceede so easily if India demanded to
make East London their capital.

And speaking about wisdom of Ghandi, why that wisdom did not help them to
settle Kashemir issue with Pakistan over last 50 years?

This is the part I don’t get… what is “showing off” in this respect ?

You can’t really get it unless you are capable of putting yourself into
‘their shoes’. Imagine yourself a kid in a class. There’s bunch of others,
but there one who just goes and goes and goes about how Great he is, how
he’s The Best, how Generous he is, how all of them are really in Debt to
him, how Important he is, how he’s an Example for all of them, how he should
keep them all under Control so they don’t dare to challenge his way of
life…

How popular you think he’d be among the crowd? Funny thing is, that is
actually understood by some americans too. I remember reading an article
related to the incident between US spy plane and chineese figher. It was
called something like ‘A nation which everyone loves to hate’. The author
apparently understood quite well why nearly everyone would love to hate US.
But then he told ‘it is okay with us, because we can kick everyone’s ass and
frankly, we like it that way’.

Sure, why not.

• igor

[Igor_Kovalenko2]

“Rennie Allen” <RAllen@csical.com> wrote in message
news:64F00D816A85D51198390050046F80C9C6E1@exchangecal.hq.csical.com…

As for analog systems in general (which has nothing to do with
vacuum
tubes), yes it is true that they are more resilient to all kinds of
interferense and yes that is probably why some russian systems appear
to be
‘simplistic’. It yet has to be proven that super-sophisticated
avionics
systems of US aircraft will do any good in real combat. I mean,
against
worthy enemy, not Saddam or Milosevish.

Igor, I am not trying to be contrarian for the sake of being contrarian,
honest >

I disagree. Super sophisticated avionics have proven their worth
against current Russian fighters.

I must have missed that event. When?

The best dog fighting capabilities
(which Russian fighters definately have) are not much use against fire
and forget over the horizon air-to-air missiles (other than the fact
that a pilot may be able to avoid the missile due to superior
manuverability), but then this just means that the opponent fires
another fire and forget when his avionics alert him to the fact that the
kill did not complete.

You must have read too much of Tom Clancy. Sure russian would be just
dancing to avoid incoming missiles and would not dare to disturb ‘fire and
forget’ comfort of US pilot, ROTFL

The best fighter would be a Russian airframe
with Western avionics (oh, and hold the tubes >

Perhaps

• igor

[Igor_Kovalenko2]

“Mario Charest” <mcharest@nowayzinformatic.com> wrote in message
news:9ns2ua$af7$1@inn.qnx.com…

“Rennie Allen” <> RAllen@csical.com> > wrote in message
news:> 64F00D816A85D51198390050046F80C9C687@exchangecal.hq.csical.com> …
Thanks for sharing that with us, and thanks for a well timed, and
(evidently) provocative discussion., I hoped it helped you decide.

Yes it did. I have to say I’m pretty impressed by everyone’s
attitude. This is a very sensitive subject and everyone stay ed
“civilise”. The way exchanges of ideas, thoughs, an opinion occurred
in this thread was examplary (given my own moral …) I wish I have the
chance to meet everyone of you one day, it would be an honor.

Igor: too bad we didn’t get a chance to talk last time we met (QNX 2000).
I think I was turned off by your “direct approach” and reputation, and
you
didn’t
strike me as the kind of person I wanted to get acquinted with.

Eh… not my strong side definitely ;]

I regret that now… Not only because I agree with many of your
statements,
but because it made be realize I had to see beyond cultural differences,
(Russians aren’t so bad after all, LOL!!! )

Just remember, russians do not really wear winter hats everywhere they go.
If you see someone wearing it on Red Square, he must be an american tourist,
lol

I hope we’ll have a chance to get acquinted yet.

Thanks,

• igor

[Volny_DE_PASCALE]

Ooops, you seem to be responding to a mail, not a newsgroup thread.

Not that I am ashamed of whatever I said, but you’ll see that there is a
litte hiatus in the consistency of the thread.
Anyway I didn’t want to publicize my post in order not to fuel a discution
about war and moral position about it, that was a few minutes before events
that did change the context.

Understatement is an habit with me, that I cultivate as it usually helps not
to offend.
Yet I might err a bit here from my habit : the “events” I am refering to are
something quite new, on a scale that had not yet been reached. Words fail,
when it comes to qualify such acts. (barbarism comes to my mind, and I may
very well fall again in understatement)

So I apologize in advance to any one that could deem irreverent or uncaring
the way I refer to the dreadful events of the week. I do have feeling, but
I’m affraid it is out of my capacities of imagination to picture 40,000
human beeings just killed, famillies broken and so on. I am deeply moved by
the catastrophy, but still not enough may be.
To go back to the point, my thread message was about French preparation of
WWII.
I would have been less ironic in the “what about wars?” mail if it had been
public.
(Still you can post my answer if you like, or I can mail it to whoever wants
it)

Regards

\

---

Volny DE PASCALE
EBIM S.A.
ZI Saint-Joseph
FR-04100 MANOSQUE
email volny.de.pascale@ebim.fr
Tel. 33 (0)4 92 72 18 66 - Fax 33 (0)4 92 87 31 86

[Miguel_Simon1]

Hi…

“Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS)” wrote:

“Kevin Stallard” <> kevin@robots.flyingrobots.fly> .> wrote in message
news:9nntsh$naa$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
You DO NOT let cowards get away with garbage like this with out reprisal.
The only problem Isreal has is that they are always “reigned in” by the
U.S.
and others. They should be unleashed. Terrorisom SHOULD NOT and I
repreat
SHOULD NOT BE TOLERATED. It should be crushed.

I can think of a thousand negitive adjectives that I would call the people
that did this. Most of them I wouldn’t repeat in polite company.

Let me key in on a word that you’ve used and many others have used in the
last 30 odd hours.

These people have been called cowards. That, I don’t get.

A coward is a person that does not put a name/face behind their actions
with the intent of fleing responsibility and avoid possible
confrontation in an open way. Moreover, a coward is a person that hurts
innocent people to get their way. For example, the Jap. attack to Pearl
Harbor was wrong and it was an infamy, but you could argue that it was
not a coward act (i.e. the soldiers did not know that war had not been
declared yet).

Miguel.

I have a daughter that love with all of my heart. But I’ve posed the
question to myself many times: If I had to actually risk my life to save
her’s, would I? I can’t honestly swear that I would. I hope that if it
ever were necessary, that I would. I hope even more that it will never be
necessary. But I can’t swear that I would absolutely risk loosing my life
for her’s. OK. So I’m quick to say that maybe I’m a coward, but at least
an honest coward.

But here there are people that sacrificed their lives for something that
they believed in. Of course what they believed in is all screwed up. But
how can someone call them cowards?

NOTE: I’m not justifying what happened. Those people are )(^$#, ^&^(()%,
$))&^%$, and ^&%(#()(&%&() ! ! ! I just can’t see calling them cowards.

–

my opinions are mine, only mine, solely mine, and they are not related
in any possible way to the institution(s) in which I study and work.

Miguel Simon
Research Engineer
School of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering
University of Oklahoma
http://www.amerobotics.ou.edu/
http://www.saic.com