Garden Forge -- you are quite right, re. the hijack. I think it happened
when the illegality of workers coming to the US was contrasted with the
illegality of US soldiers going to Iraq.

I'll desist, and thank you for the courteous way you pointed it out.

Oceans

Andrea!

Everybody just brings and does what they can, and we could package some
great adventures together!

Cooking and cleaning are not, ahem, my long suits....(hint, hint)

If a country wishes to be the world's policeman, they must do so with
intelligence, compassion and the request of others -- or else they
simply become the world's bully.

Hitler became the world's bully. Hirohito became the world's bully.
They both thought they were serving as the world's policemen, the
'enforcers', the 'bringers of peace'. They dubbed their victims as
‘evil’. They were both raving bullies, and responsible for the
butchery of millions.

Bush is now responsible for the 'non-existence' of some 650,000 Iraqis,
as of about a year ago. The US has turned the country to rubble. Infant
mortality has shot up under US occupation. Our presence has sparked a
near-civil war. Refugees are streaming out of Iraq as we speak. US
forces have detained a vast number of Iraqis illegally, and tortured
many of them. US forces breaks into private homes in the middle of the
night and humiliates the population. And now the US is trying to
strong-arm the Iraqi 'government' into signing long-term oil contracts
favorable to US oil companies.

Bush is without a doubt the most despised man in the world.

How can you defend such a man and excuse such behavior?

The world's policeman, if such is deemed necessary, must be respected.
Being feared will only lead to the eventual demise of the bully.

Oceans

Spider,

A quick review of international law.

1. Invading another country is illegal. Period.

2. The UN did not "authorize" the US to go to war.

3. If the "UN" (I assume you are referring to the Security Council) has
passed a resolution 'allowing' the US to invade Iraq, it would not have
the effect of making invasion illegal.

4. Once invaded, an occupier has to meet many international legal
requirements, spelled out under the Geneva Conventions. I don't have
time to catalog the US violations here, but if you wanted to really
study the question I can give you pointers to sources that will do so.

5. Local governments set up under the auspices of the occupying force do
not have the authority to bind the occupied country; legally they are
extensions of the occupying force. So the fact that the Iraqi "Prime
Minister" wants the US to stay does not mean that the Iraqi people do.
The former does not speak for the latter. If you wished to give legal
authority to the 'government' then you might want to look at how that
'government' was 'elected' and how it operates, and judge for yourself
how credible it is. Note also that that government has disintegrated
with the withdrawal of the largest party members.

6. To the extent that you wish to give the US-established 'government'
credence, would you then agree that the moment the "Prime Minister"
states that he wants the US to leave, that the US must leave
immediately, no questions asked? That is, that the US occupation is
wholly dependent on the 'government of Iraq'?

Oceans

Bills only come because we've incurred obligations. Jobs can be had
anywhere int he world.

Doesn't anybody just take off for adventure anymore?

Kid, you are young, not ever married...the world lies before you!!!

It doesn't have to be sailing, of course. The open road lies before you.
Freighters will take you anywhere in the world. I have friends who
hitchhike at the general aviation airports....

Do it!!!!!


Oceans

Cruising is not expensive.... I mean, where are you going to spend money
when you are in the middle of an ocean?

Blue Ridge can be pretty rocky. I sometimes take a small hammock with me
camping there. I've also wimped out and taken a mattress and tent.

At least you won't be forced into a campground!


Oceans

Amen, Zap. Amen. Well said, brother.
Give the little fellow a gentle hug for me, will you?


Oceans

Jeez! You guys are loading the poor guy down!

Hey Farmer -- good to see you, amigo.

Hey, everyone

Carebear -- a tarp, rope, matches, flashlight, water and a baggy of
trail mix! NOTHING more, and you will have a fine time.

Where are you headed?



Oceans

Either that or horror-moans, Kid!

How about the Atlantic, Kid? Norfolk at the mouth of the Chesapeake. We
can pick upa JSH crew as we move NE, and then on to Europe and the Med.

Y'know, we've talked about this before and no one actually says,
seriously, "OK, I'm in!"

What are you all waiting for????



Oceans

Nene!

Good to see you back, sweetie!

There are many countries where the people have created a trusting and
trustworthy civilization, and that are essentially devoid of weapons in
terms of self-defense against fears of fellow-citizens. Switzerland,
Costa Rica, Sweden, Egypt, Madagascar, Thailand, Singapore, Canada to
name a few....

It has to do with the character of a people. The US is still an immature
country, powerful but immature. We are still too close to the frontier
days, and have left too many cultural and
political wounds to fester unresolved, unhealed, e.g. the Civil War,
Viet Nam. So the level of self-loathing and mistRust and anger within
the population is high. It takes self-confidence and a feeling of safety
to put aside the toys of war. In the absence of those we puff and we
strut, we bluster and curse, threaten and flare up....



Oceans

Congrats to the mother and father, and a drink with you Zap!



Oceans

I understand well how the neocons became the source of influence on
Middle East policy in the Bush administration. I understand fairly well
the personality and cognitive weaknesses in President Bush, and how he
could be manipulated into doing the neocon bidding. The question that
was left in my mind was the role in all that of Cheney.

Within the last several weeks more and more information has been coming
to light on Cheney's role these last years, and I will post more on this
in the days to come.

At this point it seems that when Sept 11 occurred the Bush was
overwhelmed and couldn't of his own mind understand what to do. It seems
that this is the point at which Cheney essentially took over the White
House functions. He, as a classic (American) conservative was already
in sync with Karl Rove, who is in charge of domestic policy at the White
House, and would have received Rove's full support. As the guy who
masterminded Bush's electoral strategy, Bush was unusually dependent on
Rove, especially before the 2004 and 2006 elections.

I am still trying to learn more about the Cheney-neocon axis.

Clearly, Cheney is a classical conservative. A lot of decent people are
and this of itself is not a cause for existential alarm. But Cheney
doesn't quite fit the definition of a neo-conservative. But beyond
either of those identities lies something quite unique and, in my
opinion, quite dark about Cheney. It is this that I am trying to
understand.

Keep in mind that when we use these 'conservative' and
'neo-conservative' terms that they have nothing to do ideologically with
each other. I know, the terms are confusing.

I've posted several times in these threads about what the difference is
and who the neocons are, and can repeat that if anyone would like me to.

If there is anyone pushing a dramatic expansion of the powers of the
White House and a diminution of the powers of the Congress and the
Judicial system, it is Cheney. To the extent you are concerned about a
de facto anti-democracy coup in the US, a good place to start paying
attention to is Cheney.



Oceans

Thanks, Keg Bar!

What a combination of mistakes, all driven by personality weaknesses....

I wonder if it is possible to discern these personality weaknesses in a
commnader BEFORE he is given life and death decisions over people....?

Get well soon, Libra!

Wow! A lot of inarticulate anger this morning....

Bonny Miss, from memory, 10