Weiser, again on the genesis of this thread:
===============
Ah, now it's turned from economics to "environmental costs." Please try
to
pick one thesis and stick to it.
=================

If you read carefully, it is still about subsidies. Clearly, if
environmental costs are not accounted for, we have a subsidy to the
firm -- the "people's" water being given, very cheaply, to firms.

I'm on topic, but I'm not sure about you.

frtzw906

Weiser says:
==============
I suspect that it has nothing to do
with economics or subsidies, but rather you are using those arguments
as
stalking horses for your real agenda, which is "environmental costs." I
translate that, in the context of RBP, to mean that you want the water
to
remain in the river and not be diverted for agricultural (or any other)
use
so that YOU can use it for recreation.
===============

Did you read where I've said that? I have no real "agenda". As I said,
I pulled agri-business out of a hat -- any firm that is the recipient
of subsidies would have done just as well.

frtzw906

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 00:40:58 GMT, "No Spam"
wrote:

"Galen Hekhuis" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 23:56:14 GMT, "Michael Daly"
wrote:

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

First, he was a brutal tyrant who was murdering
his own people wholesale and was engaging (and condoning) the most
heinous
sorts of torture, rape and brutality imaginable.

Which also describes US treatment of prisoners in Iraq.

I've kind of wondered about this. Who thought Abu Ghraib was a good place
to continue to keep prisoners? From what I understand, the place had a
pretty bad rep even before the US got there. Why not just tear it down?

The prison existed - much faster than building new.

I realize it was faster to use the existing prison, but if speed is the
criteria, it would have been faster to not have any trials or prisoners at
all. Obviously speed was not the criteria.

It should be destroyed
now that there is time to do it. But since it belongs to the new government
it really should be their decision what to do with it. I'm sure the families
of anyone that was ever there would like to see it replaced by something
else.

So why was it used and not destroyed in the first place?

For that matter, why did US generals and others use Saddam's palaces?
Having an occupying army billeted in luxury smacks more of "new boss same
as the old boss" than it does of any kind of "liberation."

Yes it probably does, but it was a fast moving invading force and they
wanted secure command areas and I would assume that the palaces were
fortified and built to be easily defended. I wonder what they will do with
them now? I suggest Universitys/Schools/librarys something for the public
good.

For Pete's sake. The palaces and such have been used long after the
invasion. I could see taking them and holding them as strategic locations,
but turning them over to the CPA and having US soldiers swimming in
Saddam's swimming pools is just a little over the top. Remember, these
things were Saddam's previously, but the wherewith all to get them was
*stolen* from the Iraqi people. Didn't anyone think about *them*?

Second, he was facilitating
and harboring terrorists, which threatened world peace and facilitated
the
9/11 attacks.

No one has ever made a credible link between Saddam and 9/11.

Even George W Bush has said he has seen no evidence to link Saddam and
9/11.

I imagine you get your news from the CBC, so I wouldn't expect you
to have heard anything even reasonably unbiased.

I get news from The Economist, a British right-wing news magazine. They
reported the same news and then condemned the US for fraud after the
results of the invasion were revealed.

Third, all the above justifications were repeated by the administration
many, many times. That the liberal press refused to publish them is not
the
administration's fault

The first invasion of Iraq was preceded by a huge mass of propaganda that
proved to be complete fiction (e.g. nuclear-hardened bunkers filled with
Republican Guards just inside the border). Given such a precedent, why
should we believe anything the US Administration says?

Lets see if I've got this straight: The same bunch that predicted what
would happen to the Peacock Throne in Iran, the same crowd that accurately
forewarned folks about the Tet offensive, among other things in Viet Nam,
the folks that told all of us about the eventual breakup of the Soviet
Union, the crew that provided us with the hard evidence of WMD in Iraq,
this gang now wants us to believe they know what is going on in Syria?

Inteligence agents and weathermen - don't bet your life on either. But I
guess each are right sometime - as I sit watching the snow come down that
was supposed to be over by now.

I call 'em the weatherguessers. If we changed the nation's economists with
the nation's meterologists...no one would ever notice.

Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
Illiterate? Write for FREE help

"Galen Hekhuis" wrote in message
...
...Obviously speed was not the criteria...

No, probably not. I mean, hell, fast as it is, speed generally has its
hands full being even a single criterion.

Wolfgang
typing slowly for those who.....um......well, you know.

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser says (in answer to frtzw906):
=====================
Fixing a border
problem would cost a mere pittance in relation to the trade we're
talking about.

That's a good reason for Canada to clean up its act. Mexico too..
=======================

But, who sees it as a problem? We don't.

Indeed. Therein lies the problem.


If canada thought it were a problem, we'd have done something about it.

And we intend to convince you it's a problem, and cause you to do something
about it.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser says:
==================
BTW, a news story today details admissions made by a Syrian
intelligence
officer that Syria is deeply involved in the Iraqi insurgency,
supplying
arms and support, with the express purpose of keeping the US away from
Syria.
================

Interesting. I hadn't heard that.

Interesting indeed. Smoking gun interesting.

Of course, if it is, as you cite, "with the express purpose of keeping
the US away from
Syria. ", then that sounds like a strategic move in the interests of
Syria. Or aren't they supposed to take actions which support their
cause?

More likely it's because they know darned well that the US will discover all
sorts of WMD's and other terrorist-facilitating evidence upon which to base
a decision to sanction them.


Historically, has the USA never supported freedom fighters?

Terrorists and terrorist-supporting nations are not "freedom fighters."

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Still, even if it weren't, banning guns only results in MORE gun related
deaths, not fewer. Just ask Britain, Australia and, yes, Canada.

Absolute bull****. There are _far_ fewer gun deaths in those countries.
In fact, there are far fewer murders of any type in those countries.
The US has the highest murder rate and highest gun death rate of any
western country.

The issue is not the absolute number of violent crimes it's the TREND of
violent crime associated with the banning of guns.

Canada might reach absolute numerical parity in gun deaths with the US in a
few years, but it'll take a long time because there are so few Canadians,
comparatively speaking.

What's of interest is the increase in the per-capita RATE of violent crime,
which is indeed skyrocketing in Britain and Australia, increasing in Canada,
and dropping in the US.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:06:32 -0600, "Wolfgang" wrote:


"Galen Hekhuis" wrote in message
.. .
...Obviously speed was not the criteria...

No, probably not. I mean, hell, fast as it is, speed generally has its
hands full being even a single criterion.

Wolfgang
typing slowly for those who.....um......well, you know.

Hey, if you take enough speed you can do anything.

Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
Illiterate? Write for FREE help

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Californians need to be on a water diet. They waste enormous amounts of
water. Before you start bashing agriculture, how about taking on swimming
pools and Bluegrass laws?

You're an idiot. Agriculture wastes most of the water and contributes
little to the economy and the guilty are the non-agricultural users.

Yeah, right.

Anyone who says that agriculture contributes "little" to the economy is just
too stupid to bother arguing with.

Buh-bye Netwit.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser says:
==============
I suspect that it has nothing to do
with economics or subsidies, but rather you are using those arguments
as
stalking horses for your real agenda, which is "environmental costs."
I
translate that, in the context of RBP, to mean that you want the
water
to
remain in the river and not be diverted for agricultural (or any
other)
use
so that YOU can use it for recreation.
===============

Did you read where I've said that? I have no real "agenda". As I
said,
I pulled agri-business out of a hat -- any firm that is the recipient
of subsidies would have done just as well.

frtzw906

On the topic of subsidies, I chatted with my sugar-beet farmer
relative, in Mn, and ask about the price of sugar beets being
subsidized by US Gov. He said in agreement with you that there is no
subsidy, the price of sugar depends on world market price. That is part
of the problem for the small farmer, it is hard to compete unless you
have a very large operation, ie. Corporate farm, that can operate on a
very small margin.

He can take out a low interest loan, to buy fuel and seed, but if he
has to rent land, it kills what profit margin is left. Then if you have
a bad year, you can literally lose the farm. He has chosen to keep is
operation small, and out of debt, not rent land. Even at that, last
year he invested $35,000 for an annual return of $3,500 profit, and
says it is hardly worth the effort if you figure your time in to the
equation at all. More of a hobby income than anything. He ends up
working for one of the large farm operations with side jobs for income.


Anyway, I stand corrected, but I knew the farm life is a hard way to
make a living. TnT