"Steve Underwood" <steveu@dis.org> wrote in message
news:d7f7jm$3gi$1@nnews.pacific.net.hk...
>
> You might like to try visiting us in Hong Kong some time,
> and see this evil communist system at work. :-) Maybe you
> might then get a clue.
>
Thanks for the invitation. I don't think I'll be able to
avail myself of your hospitality any time soon. So far as
who is clueless here, I'm willing to leave that judgment to
posterity.
Reply by Steve Underwood●May 30, 20052005-05-30
John E. Hadstate wrote:
> "Steve Underwood" <steveu@dis.org> wrote in message
> news:d7dt2k$pc5$1@home.itg.ti.com...
>
>>>Control of the Panama Canal has been handed over to
>>>Hutchison Wampoa, a Hong Kong mega-conglomerate under the
>>>control of the Chinese Communists.
>>>
>>
>>Hutchison Whampoa is a private company under the control
>>of Lee Ka Shing, one of the world's richest men. It just
>>happens to be based in Hong Kong where he lives.
>>
>
>
> Hutchison Whampoa just happens to be based in Hong Kong
> which is now firmly under the control of the Chinese
> Communists.
>
> "Hong Kong became the Hong Kong Special Administrative
> Region (SAR) of China on 1 July 1997. In this agreement,
> China has promised that, under its "one country, two
> systems" formula, China's socialist economic system will not
> be imposed on Hong Kong and that Hong Kong will enjoy a high
> degree of autonomy in all matters except foreign and defense
> affairs for the next 50 years." -- CIA, The World Fact Book
>
> Now, do you suppose, just maybe, that control of a resource
> such as the Panama Canal might fall under the heading of
> "foreign and defense affairs"?
You might like to try visiting us in Hong Kong some time, and see this
evil communist system at work. :-) Maybe you might then get a clue.
Regards,
Steve
Reply by John E. Hadstate●May 30, 20052005-05-30
"Steve Underwood" <steveu@dis.org> wrote in message
news:d7dt2k$pc5$1@home.itg.ti.com...
>>Control of the Panama Canal has been handed over to
>>Hutchison Wampoa, a Hong Kong mega-conglomerate under the
>>control of the Chinese Communists.
>>
> Hutchison Whampoa is a private company under the control
> of Lee Ka Shing, one of the world's richest men. It just
> happens to be based in Hong Kong where he lives.
>
Hutchison Whampoa just happens to be based in Hong Kong
which is now firmly under the control of the Chinese
Communists.
"Hong Kong became the Hong Kong Special Administrative
Region (SAR) of China on 1 July 1997. In this agreement,
China has promised that, under its "one country, two
systems" formula, China's socialist economic system will not
be imposed on Hong Kong and that Hong Kong will enjoy a high
degree of autonomy in all matters except foreign and defense
affairs for the next 50 years." -- CIA, The World Fact Book
Now, do you suppose, just maybe, that control of a resource
such as the Panama Canal might fall under the heading of
"foreign and defense affairs"?
Reply by Steve Underwood●May 30, 20052005-05-30
bhooshaniyer wrote:
>Today:
>
> Myers said he did not think the United States should have used more
>troops in the Iraq invasion but acknowledged that progress has proved
>slower than Pentagon officials had hoped.
>
>"I don't think we understood that people had been suppressed, and their
>spirit had been suppressed to the point where it wasn't just going to
>naturally blossom once they had the opportunity," Myers said on a
>broadcast Sunday morning news show.
>
>Yesterday:
>
>The CIA wrote a detailed internal report which lays blame for the failure
>squarely on internal incompetence. A number of grave errors by the CIA and
>other American analysts contributed to the debacle:
>
>They believed that Cubans would be grateful to be liberated from Castro
>and would quickly join the battle, however Cubans greatly supported Castro
>and the Revolution.The CIA's near certainty that the Cuban people would
>"rise up and join them" was almost certainly based on the agency's
>extremely weak presence on the ground in Cuba. Because of this, almost all
>their information came from exiles and defectors, who turned out to be
>unreliable sources of information.
>
>They believed that the spirits of the invasion army were high, so invasion
>had to take place quickly. In fact, the Cuban refugee army was not very
>motivated.
>
>--Has anything changed in 40 odd years?
>
>--Bhooshan
>
>
They seldom lack information. They either ignore it, for their own
political ends, or have actually bought into their own garbage. In both
the above cases, and especially in Iraq, I think the average person had
a pretty good idea of what would happen.
The "yesterday" report sounds like a reasoned assessment of a screwup.
The "today" report just ignores the fact that an invader it treated with
much more distrust than even the worse government.
Regards,
Steve
Reply by bhooshaniyer●May 30, 20052005-05-30
Today:
Myers said he did not think the United States should have used more
troops in the Iraq invasion but acknowledged that progress has proved
slower than Pentagon officials had hoped.
"I don't think we understood that people had been suppressed, and their
spirit had been suppressed to the point where it wasn't just going to
naturally blossom once they had the opportunity," Myers said on a
broadcast Sunday morning news show.
Yesterday:
The CIA wrote a detailed internal report which lays blame for the failure
squarely on internal incompetence. A number of grave errors by the CIA and
other American analysts contributed to the debacle:
They believed that Cubans would be grateful to be liberated from Castro
and would quickly join the battle, however Cubans greatly supported Castro
and the Revolution.The CIA's near certainty that the Cuban people would
"rise up and join them" was almost certainly based on the agency's
extremely weak presence on the ground in Cuba. Because of this, almost all
their information came from exiles and defectors, who turned out to be
unreliable sources of information.
They believed that the spirits of the invasion army were high, so invasion
had to take place quickly. In fact, the Cuban refugee army was not very
motivated.
--Has anything changed in 40 odd years?
--Bhooshan
This message was sent using the Comp.DSP web interface on
www.DSPRelated.com
Reply by Steve Underwood●May 29, 20052005-05-29
John E. Hadstate wrote:
>"Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message
>news:tuydncicTrs4dATfRVn-jw@rcn.net...
>
>
>>John E. Hadstate wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"robert bristow-johnson" <rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote
>>>in message news:BEBDFBC1.7B64%rbj@audioimagination.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>He created the National Park System and a lot of other
>>>>>things
>>>>>that the current crop of left-wing loonies and
>>>>>right-wing
>>>>>robbers have mostly managed to destroy.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>what, that TR created, did the left destroy? i can't
>>>>think of a thing. but
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>The only fully functional, successful, profitable,
>>>self-perpetuating, socialist system the world has ever
>>>seen that did not have to be maintained by force. (It
>>>did require protection, which the left declined to
>>>provide, from enemies outside the system some of whom are
>>>now actively plundering it. Ironically, the plunderers
>>>are Communists.)
>>>
>>>
>>And the system is ...? I don't question the accuracy of
>>your statement, but I can't fill in the blank.
>>
>>
>>
>
>The Panama Canal Zone!
>
>TR did not live to see the first transit of the Canal by a
>sea-going vessel; he died a few months earlier. He was,
>however, instrumental in bringing into existence both the
>Republic of Panama and the Panama Canal Zone and he, as much
>as any other person, was responsible for instituting the
>model for the Canal Zone Government which persisted until
>the leftist Luddites under JFK achieved enough power to
>start tearing it apart. Today, the Panama Canal Zone no
>longer exists thanks to the destruction started under JFK,
>perpetuated under LBJ, ignored by Nixon and Ford, and
>finished-off by Carter's boys. Control of the Panama Canal
>has been handed over to Hutchison Wampoa, a Hong Kong
>mega-conglomerate under the control of the Chinese
>Communists.
>
>
Hutchison Whampoa is a private company under the control of Lee Ka
Shing, one of the world's richest men. It just happens to be based in
Hong Kong where he lives.
Regards,
Steve
Reply by John E. Hadstate●May 29, 20052005-05-29
"Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:tuydncicTrs4dATfRVn-jw@rcn.net...
> John E. Hadstate wrote:
>> "robert bristow-johnson" <rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote
>> in message news:BEBDFBC1.7B64%rbj@audioimagination.com...
>>
>>>> He created the National Park System and a lot of other
>>>> things
>>>>that the current crop of left-wing loonies and
>>>>right-wing
>>>>robbers have mostly managed to destroy.
>>>
>>>what, that TR created, did the left destroy? i can't
>>>think of a thing. but
>>
>>
>>
>> The only fully functional, successful, profitable,
>> self-perpetuating, socialist system the world has ever
>> seen that did not have to be maintained by force. (It
>> did require protection, which the left declined to
>> provide, from enemies outside the system some of whom are
>> now actively plundering it. Ironically, the plunderers
>> are Communists.)
>
> And the system is ...? I don't question the accuracy of
> your statement, but I can't fill in the blank.
>
The Panama Canal Zone!
TR did not live to see the first transit of the Canal by a
sea-going vessel; he died a few months earlier. He was,
however, instrumental in bringing into existence both the
Republic of Panama and the Panama Canal Zone and he, as much
as any other person, was responsible for instituting the
model for the Canal Zone Government which persisted until
the leftist Luddites under JFK achieved enough power to
start tearing it apart. Today, the Panama Canal Zone no
longer exists thanks to the destruction started under JFK,
perpetuated under LBJ, ignored by Nixon and Ford, and
finished-off by Carter's boys. Control of the Panama Canal
has been handed over to Hutchison Wampoa, a Hong Kong
mega-conglomerate under the control of the Chinese
Communists.
Reply by Jerry Avins●May 29, 20052005-05-29
John E. Hadstate wrote:
> "robert bristow-johnson" <rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote in
> message news:BEBDFBC1.7B64%rbj@audioimagination.com...
>
>>> He created the National Park System and a lot of other
>>>things
>>>that the current crop of left-wing loonies and right-wing
>>>robbers have mostly managed to destroy.
>>
>>what, that TR created, did the left destroy? i can't
>>think of a thing. but
>
>
>
> The only fully functional, successful, profitable,
> self-perpetuating, socialist system the world has ever seen
> that did not have to be maintained by force. (It did
> require protection, which the left declined to provide, from
> enemies outside the system some of whom are now actively
> plundering it. Ironically, the plunderers are Communists.)
And the system is ...? I don't question the accuracy of your statement,
but I can't fill in the blank.
Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by John E. Hadstate●May 29, 20052005-05-29
"robert bristow-johnson" <rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote in
message news:BEBDFBC1.7B64%rbj@audioimagination.com...
>
>> He created the National Park System and a lot of other
>> things
>> that the current crop of left-wing loonies and right-wing
>> robbers have mostly managed to destroy.
>
> what, that TR created, did the left destroy? i can't
> think of a thing. but
The only fully functional, successful, profitable,
self-perpetuating, socialist system the world has ever seen
that did not have to be maintained by force. (It did
require protection, which the left declined to provide, from
enemies outside the system some of whom are now actively
plundering it. Ironically, the plunderers are Communists.)
Reply by robert bristow-johnson●May 28, 20052005-05-28
in article 119i09fs134ie32@corp.supernews.com, Richard Owlett at
rowlett@atlascomm.net wrote on 05/28/2005 19:39:
> I think the Left is its own worst enemy.
sorry, Richard. i ain't gonna bite. Jim did a good enough job
systematically setting that aside.
> BTW I get myself in frequent trouble as conservative place me to left of
> Clinton and liberals place me to right of Goldwater
it ain't hard to get to the left of Clinton. in 92 and 96 we had our choice
between one Republican candidate for President and another Republican
candidate for President. and sure enough, when one Republican runs against
another Republican, it's the Republican that always wins. there was welfare
"reform", "the era of big-government is over", "we will seek the death
penalty", bombing the fuck outa a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan and we
wonder why they hate us, there was the big lie that they didn't know that
genocide was taking place in Rwanda, failed health-care policy even when
they had a Democratic congress. i voted for this closet Republican in the
general elections but i voted Tsongas in the 92 and Brown in the 96
primaries. they couldn't even get a 5 cent gas tax (as part of a carbon
fuel tax) passed when what we needed (when gas was 89 cents in NJ in the
90s) was a 50 cent tax phased in. then we wouldn't have all these worthless
Hummers and SUVs depleting all of our fossil fuel reserves.
Richard, this is such a great example for how right our national perspective
is skewed if you think that being left of Clinton is left at all.
--
r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."