Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 16:41:48 -0500 (EST)
From: danceswithcarp <dcombs-AT-bloomington.in.us>
Subject: Re: POSSIBLY Incomplete Message: Re: i love butchers




On Sat, 17 Apr 1999, Aaron Micheau wrote:

> 
> >So, make it impossible for the tanks and apcs to cross rivers or
> >be refueled and all of a sudden the playing field for the +interior+
> >anti-milosevic forces.  <is leveled. ver 1.1>
> 
> ...which still doesn't explain why they should turn against Milosevic when
> they've done exactly the opposite thus far and NATO is the one dropping
> bombs around their ears.  No amount of bombs is going to create an
> impassable border between Serbia and Kosovo.  i'll just assume you don't
> have an explanation for this magical 'reversal' theory of yours.

It doesn't have to be "impassable," just very difficult.  Contrary to what
the U$$R used to show in the movies, T55s and 62s are not amphibious.
Bridges gone?  No tanks.

> >Then we see whether your line is a crock of shit,
> >or whther the serb people can set up alternatives to Milosevic.  If they
> >go nationalist, then I'd have to say their committement to revolution
> >wasn't too deep to begin with, wouldn't you? 
> 
> Well, yes, except that noone suggested that Serbs generally had a
> "commitment to revolution", whatever that's supposed to mean. Only that
> many were opposed to Milosevic, and many were not nationalists.  

Oh.  I misread this all:  I thought NATO had stopped a +revolution+.  Now
I'm clear.  NATO stopped an EVOLUTION.  Heh-heh.  That's a croaker, aaron.

> >Are you saying "Give Milosevic a chance to change his mind?"   How long,
> >then do we wait?  100,000 dispossessed refugees?  200,000?  300,000?  A
> >MILLION?  The problem is you have no alternative to war.  None.  Zip.
> >Nada.
> 
> If you weren't actually typing this, i'd be convinced you were illiterate,
> it reveals no evidence that you read my posts. i'll just chalk this one up
> to selective memory, then, OK? 

What have you offered except "negotiate?"

> you know, actually i did look it up.
> 
>  this has to be one of your personal bests in distortion and sheer
> intellectual dishonesty.  The "leftist" Presidential Advisory Committee on
> GWS in 12/96 stated "No studies of longterm human health effects of uranium
> metal implanted in tissue exist..."  Which is a paraphrase of what i said
> above.  The PAC continued,  "Nevertheless, toxic effects are likely to be
> similar to the kidney toxicity observed from inhaled or ingested uranium." 

No, what you said was NATO was going to leave a radioactive Kosovo.  And
"likely" is hardly the wird "will."  And you will notice that "No studies
exist..." which means that your argument that NATO will leave a
"radioactive" wasteland is exactly the High Level Bullshit I called it.  

"NO STUDIES..."  Whoa. Face it, aaron, you lied to make a fear-mongering
point.
 
> The problem, honey, is that ON IMPACT, DU  becomes hot enough to burn,
> turning into smoke and dust, which then makes it inhalable and ingestible. 

The amount of vaporized depleted uranium that accumulates in a bio-chain
from using DU will be undetectable in the population at large.  Your
assumption is that every bit of DU used in the country will somehow enter
the food chain.  Most will not be vaporized to begin with, and most of
that which is will not settle in agriculturally useful land.  

There is absolutely no data (nor will there be) that shows depleted
uranium dust in the ground will transpose itself up a plant stem by
osmosis and enter into the fruit or seed of that plant, because that is
not how radiation bonded with a dense metal like uranium acts. Plus, we
are not even talking about a metal with the very low-level radiation of
naturally occuring uranium, but rather a "depeleted uranium" which is what
remains after over 99% of the hot has been removed for fuel rod making.

The Kosovars and serbs receive far more radioative exposure (radon)
from using their native granite as a building stone for their homes and
schools than they are ever going to get from DU anti-tank shells.

I will grant you that a cow that grazes on grass that has had dust settle
on it prior to rain transporting the dust to the ground will ingest
whatever miniscule amount of DU was left, but even this is going to be
hard to measure and it's still not hot in any sense of the term being used
as synonomous as lethal.
 
> But thanks for the extra facts  (i hadn't known that uranium was not
> plutonium). 
> 
> So, like, is the Department of Defense the source of all of your
> information? That would explain a few things...

No. The Department of Energy and any university or otherwise studies I can
get my hads on.  I once wandered around on durnk on Hanford Nuclear
Reservation in Washington state and ever since I've wondered what I
breathed.  Plus, there was a radon awareness group here at one time that
had lots of reading materials, and finally I've spent a lot of time trying
to figure out how to survive in a post-nuclear war environment.  It's a
hobby, you see.

> >Maybe you don't read your own stooges' propoganda.  What has been posted
> >here is that NATO will be there forever.
> 
> What's been posted where, Carp?  Try to be specific this time and respond
> to MY emails instead of your Leftist Straw Men.   i sincerely doubt that
> NATO wants a permanent protectorate in Kosovo - what i did argue is that
> NATO is looking for a new source of legitimacy.  

Someone posted a lefty critique of the Rambouilit treaty right here, in
River City, which claimed that what NATO wanted was a permanent presence
in Yugoslavia in order to force serbia into the global market.  You didn't
disown it.  And it fits right in with all of the other limp stuff that's
been posted so I'll give you credit for it anyway. 

> Once it's shown how tough
> it can be - that it can 'punish' Nasty Bad Guys as long as it gets to
> choose who the Nasty Bad Guys are, there's no point in it continuing to
> occupy Kosovo.  

Then why are so many international troops still in Bosnia?  
 
> this is just silly.  i don't see this war as a particularly good
> opportunity for building anarchism.  i might just as well pose the question
> to you:  The Albanian refugees are free from oppression of the Yugoslav
> state in their cross-border camps and mountain hideaways.  This is a
> perfect opportunity for them to build anarchist communities.  So what are
> you whining about?

That is not their home.  They have had those taken by force.  They are
charity cases and do not have their own resources.  Put me or anyone else
in a similar situation where the state has been crippled and we still DO
have our homes and the land and I can guarantee you cooperative communites
will rise.

>  And why is it that later on in your post you ask me who but NATO is going
> to protect all of the Albanians, but here you claim that people should
> protect themselves?  

I asked you who was going to protect them if they went back with Milosevic
and Arkan still runnning the show.  Take out Milosevic and the
nationalists ability to wreak havoc, arm everyone, and no one will need
protection; the people can do it themselves.  That's anarchy.  Neh?

> Isn't this one of those times you make one of those
> colorful statements about someone's logic being so convoluted that their
> nose is stuck up their anus, or some such? What exactly DO you stand for? 

Against fascism and ethnic cleansing and capitalism; For people to have
the absolute least amount of harm inflicted on them by forces within the
control of people who can prevent it.

What are you for, petitions?

 
> >Would you negotiate with a rapist?  Maybe where you come from people
> >negotiate with psychopaths and sociopaths, but this guy has the blood of
> >100,000s of thousands on his hands.  And you want to NEGOTIATE with him?  
> >For what?
> 
> Great soundbite stuff.  Running for office anytime soon?  Holding any
> stocks in the prison industry? 
> i would negotiate with a rapist, if i thought a resolution might prevent
> him, or induce him, to stop commiting rapes.  

And you would tell the victim....what?

>  Particulary if my ability to
> force him to stop committing rapes was ineffective, and as a result of my
> attempts to use force, he stepped up his commission of rapes.   

Then the solution is simple.  You shoot him.  Then his commission of rapes
rate will drop to zero.

> One thing
> is clear, negotiation is virtually impossible while bombs are dropping, and
> NATO has refused all calls for a cease-fire in order to try.  i guess
> they're just too busy saving Albanians.  

Who wants to NEGOTIATE?  What am I missing?  "First, stop shooting at us
while we finish our murderous business, and then we'll talk, and talk, and
talk, and then talk some more.  Because if you aren't going to shoot me,
there is nothing I need to offer you..."

You undertand this really, don't you aaron?  You're just pissed off you
missed the sixties and are trying to bring back tie-dyes, inscense, and
long hair.  Right?




carp