On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 12:53:39 -0400, Justan Olphart
wrote:

On 10/30/2015 12:46 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 10/30/15 12:31 PM, wrote:

Most of what you consider the "iraq war" was actually trying to
establish a functional government there. If we had simply taken down
Saddam and left, the US death toll would have been a couple hundred,
not thousands.

The reality is that we should have left in 1991. In retrospect, Saddam
was never a threat to the US. Getting the troops out of Saudi Arabia
would have prevented BOTH WTC attacks and all of the problems since
... at least for the US. (No Iraq, no Afghanistan, no USS Cole).


I concur.

Now that that's settled, What about Syria?

Let Putin deal with them. Let him greet his boys coming home in body
bags at the airport.
Even the Israelis are starting to come around to the idea that there
are far worse things than Assad.

In article ou773b5kiuk67si9evuqso9ddovvqhjtrh@
4ax.com, says...

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 11:20:29 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

Sure, blame HRC for UN Resolution 1973.

The UN is the US (and the 4 other super members), Why don't you blame
the UN for Iraq too if you think not. That was the result of a UN
resolution too.

No, it wasn't. In fact, the UN Secretary General
called our invasion of Iraq "illegal".
OTOH, Resolution 1973 called for no-fly zones over
Libya and the use of all force necessary to protect
the civilian population.

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:17:46 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/30/2015 1:05 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 12:42:55 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I seem to recall discussions during the hearing of the overthrow of
Gaddafi. I guess I've forgotten what "the plan" was to fill the power
vacuum in Iraq after the Bush/Cheney war.

*That* was the biggest error made by Bush and his administration. They
didn't anticipate a power vacuum. They planned and called for free
elections allowing the people of Iraq to democratically choose their
leadership like the rest of the civilized, free world.

That is the flaw in our thinking. We tend to assume these 3d world
countries are "civilized" and just waiting for a Jeffersonian
democracy to be offered to them.
They are ruled by dictators because that is the only form of
government that can control them. Without that single point of
control, they quickly dissolve into a warring rabble of feuding tribes
and cults with 1000 year old conflicts.

If the west would just leave them alone to kill each other, they would
leave us alone. You notice, we don't see a lot of terrorism here
coming from central Africa. That is because we are not spending a lot
of time there meddling in their civil wars. They are more interested
in "death to that guy down the road" than "death to America".



Problem is, historically the USA does not tend to "ignore" barbaric
dictatorships that kill hundreds or thousands of their own citizens
in order to maintain power. It's a damned if you do, damned if you
don't situation. It doesn't sit well in people's minds when we ignore
pleas for help by people being systematically exterminated.


I think it may be a policy we need to reevaluate. Before we jump in
and topple a stable government, we should take a long hard look at
exactly who is asking for help and what the chances are that they are
simply religious fanatics who will immediately turn on us.

Hitler may be the last dictator we toppled that actually worked out
well for us or the country he ruled and this was Europe, a place we
understand.

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:21:32 -0400, Justan Olphart
wrote:

We need to take baby steps. Teach them to use toilet paper first.

Typical answer. I bet the Koch brothers put you up to that.

"Make the world safe for Angel Soft and Quilted Northern" ;-)

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:00:03 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ou773b5kiuk67si9evuqso9ddovvqhjtrh@
4ax.com, says...

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 11:20:29 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

Sure, blame HRC for UN Resolution 1973.

The UN is the US (and the 4 other super members), Why don't you blame
the UN for Iraq too if you think not. That was the result of a UN
resolution too.

No, it wasn't. In fact, the UN Secretary General
called our invasion of Iraq "illegal".

They never bothered to repeal the resolutions that justified it tho.

OTOH, Resolution 1973 called for no-fly zones over
Libya and the use of all force necessary to protect
the civilian population.

Somehow that morphed into air support for the forces taking down
Q'daffy

The fact remains that without the US and a couple of other English
speaking countries, the UN is just a debating club.

On 10/30/2015 1:56 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 12:53:39 -0400, Justan Olphart
wrote:

On 10/30/2015 12:46 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 10/30/15 12:31 PM, wrote:

Most of what you consider the "iraq war" was actually trying to
establish a functional government there. If we had simply taken down
Saddam and left, the US death toll would have been a couple hundred,
not thousands.

The reality is that we should have left in 1991. In retrospect, Saddam
was never a threat to the US. Getting the troops out of Saudi Arabia
would have prevented BOTH WTC attacks and all of the problems since
... at least for the US. (No Iraq, no Afghanistan, no USS Cole).


I concur.

Now that that's settled, What about Syria?

Let Putin deal with them. Let him greet his boys coming home in body
bags at the airport.
Even the Israelis are starting to come around to the idea that there
are far worse things than Assad.


You need to convince your leader.

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 14:38:05 -0400, Justan Olphart
wrote:

On 10/30/2015 1:56 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 12:53:39 -0400, Justan Olphart
wrote:

On 10/30/2015 12:46 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 10/30/15 12:31 PM, wrote:

Most of what you consider the "iraq war" was actually trying to
establish a functional government there. If we had simply taken down
Saddam and left, the US death toll would have been a couple hundred,
not thousands.

The reality is that we should have left in 1991. In retrospect, Saddam
was never a threat to the US. Getting the troops out of Saudi Arabia
would have prevented BOTH WTC attacks and all of the problems since
... at least for the US. (No Iraq, no Afghanistan, no USS Cole).


I concur.

Now that that's settled, What about Syria?

Let Putin deal with them. Let him greet his boys coming home in body
bags at the airport.
Even the Israelis are starting to come around to the idea that there
are far worse things than Assad.


You need to convince your leader.

I didn't vote for any of the "leaders" (winning President) since
Reagan.

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/29/2015 7:34 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, October 29, 2015 at 6:51:36 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/29/2015 2:29 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 10/29/15 1:01 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

Maybe I am but wouldn't it be nice to have more products say "Made in
the USA" on them? Either that or maybe you should take some
courses in
basic Hindi. :-)







Sure, it would be nice.

Do I detect a note of hopelessness?



Not too long ago, I went to Lowe's to buy some outlet strips. I
couldn't find anything that wasn't made in China. While I wanted
some high quality strips, there was nothing available but the cheap
junk. I was willing to pay more for better quality. It seems that
some enterprising companies would realize that there are consumers
that are willing to pay for quality, and while their market
penetration and product output would be small, they could make
money. It's frustrating.


I think it's a misnomer to assume that all Chinese made products are
sub-quality or "junk". There are plenty of examples of products made
in China that are of equal or even better quality compared to the same
product when it was made here in the USA. For example, I was just
looking at a space heater that I bought last year. It's a Honeywell
product, made in China, is UL tested and certified and is not anything
less in quality or performance than the same thing if it were made in
here.

There was a period of time, early on in the "invasion" of Chinese
manufactured products where quality or even adherence to any
established codes didn't exist. Remember the imported, made in China
sheet-rock that ended up having to be ripped out and replaced in new
construction? Or the problems with plastic bottles?

Over the years I think China has quickly learned and is producing
quality products that meet general code requirements. Once in a while
you'll find something made by a fly-by-night operation in China like the
stage lighting I bought on e-Bay a few years ago and was flabbergasted
by the crappy construction with weird electrical sockets and wiring
that were a hazard to operate. They quickly ended up busted up and
thrown in the dumpster.

There was also a period of time ... maybe it still exists ... that
because China does not recognize patents, trademarks or copyrights
of other nations, there were illegal (here) copies of Gibson and
Martin guitars being manufactured there. A guy showed up at my shop
a few years back. He had traveled to China on business and somehow
ran across an operation making Gibson electric guitar copies. He
bought 21 of them .... get this ... for about $1 each but paid a
hundred or so each to ship them to the USA. He brought some to the
shop trying to sell them to me. I was aware of the illegal copies
being brought to the states and knew how to determine that they were
fakes. It is illegal here to sell them, but I have to admit that
other than not being a "real" Gibson, they were of excellent quality
and workmanship.

I suspect the made in China outlet strips you saw at Lowe's are
probably fine, quality-wise, and I'll bet they are UL approved.


Many major US manufacturers have operations in China that they closely
oversee. They have a reputation to uphold.