HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thealien@nevada.edu (Minstrel Alien)
Subject: Grrr...news programs  can be so annoying.
Organization: The Danger Zone
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 05:13:49 GMT

	Call me clueless.  Call me unclear on the concept.

		Call me male, if you want.
(AUTHOR'S NOTE:I gave up on this whole personal gender thing a long time ago.)

	"By the way I am a woman not a lady"

This babble over terms has always confused me.  I don't think anyone thought 
you were a female of noble standing(O'Course, that's Lady, not lady).
	
	I also doubt anyone meant you were of exceedingly high manners and 
refinement...I mean, your posts explain that.  

	Therefore, he must have been using the term as an interchange for 
woman(it's much shorter to type, you see).

		Does anyone else out there think that femin*'s would get more 
respect if they didn't constantly pounce on insignificant details in 
conversation?  I know that makes me want to leave...Especially when I'm told 
that I meant something I didn't. I rather think I'm the judge of that.


	Post all flames/manifestos/prices to be laid on my head here
				or
		Mail me.  thealien@magic.cs.unlv.edu
			  thealien@redrock.nevada.edu
			  
Minstrel Alien(Bloodroot|Sean McCarthy|The Alien[DZ89])
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
From: ulfb@ulfb.nada.kth.se (Ulf Berggren)
Subject: Re: War and democracies
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 19:41:28 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.121755.3051@enea.se> sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes:
>Ulf Berggren (ulfb@ulfb.nada.kth.se) originally said:
>>>>>>There seems to be a connection between these <Western> values, economic
>>>>>>strength and less violence.
>
>To which I asked:
>>>We have three things: a set of values, economic
>>>strength and less violence. Which are the causes, and which are the
>>>consequences of these three?
>
>His answer:
>>It seems that the set of values has led to economic strength and together
>>they have led to less violence.
>
>But what intrinsic in the Western Catholic/Protestant values makes
>them superior to give economic strength which Islamic, Orthodox,
>Buddistic etc don't have? Particularly when we now that before the
>economic strength arose, violence were just as regular in the Western
>world as elsewhere.

Historians now think that the western legal system, democracy and
probably individualistic values (more Protestant/humanitarian than 
christian) was the key to the western economic strength.
They haven't said that it is the only way.
Buddistic values also are not so far from the western ones.

>
>I submit that the process is the opposite. Our economic strength
>has given us the possibility to alter the values so that we now
>can favour less violent solutions. We can simply afford to have
>this set of values. And - which is maybe even more important - our
>economic strength makes it possible to impose our values with economic
>means rather than with military ones.

I agree on the less violence issue, but there are evidence that the
western violence wasn't as regular as among the worst.

Do you mean that the other
values also came with economic strength. Why?

Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
From: etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se (Peter Lund)
Subject: Re: Germany in the Security Council
Reply-To: etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se
Organization: Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 07:37:11 GMT

In article 234312DHE2@psuvm.psu.edu, <DHE2@psuvm.psu.edu> () writes:
>Germany had said they "won't resist" if other nations approach them to become p
>ermanent members of the UN Security Council.  Japan is in much the same boat.
>Any ideas on what this might mean to collective security?  To peacekeeping oper
>ations?  On the ability to mount an operation like DESERT SHIELD/STORM?

Firstly, Germany is now a part of EC and soon it will be a part of EU. The EU is
supposed to act unitely in foreign policy affairs, and can thus use the two seats 
France and Brittain already have. There is no need for a German seat.

Secondly, of what long-time importance may the Security Council be? Veto powers
for the less democratic members, will sooner or later put the council in a dead-
lock position, the way it used to be. The less members with veto power, the better.

Thirdly, the only interesting long-time solution to the world's problems does not 
lie in the UN, but in an international binding formation of democracies, that all 
have similar "democratic" goals, and therefore will be both powerful and helpful 
for people all over the world.

Peter Lund	mail: Peter.Lund@eua.ericsson.se
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 23:43:12 EST
From: <DHE2@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
Subject: Germany in the Security Council

Germany had said they "won't resist" if other nations approach them to become p
ermanent members of the UN Security Council.  Japan is in much the same boat.
Any ideas on what this might mean to collective security?  To peacekeeping oper
ations?  On the ability to mount an operation like DESERT SHIELD/STORM?
From: sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
Subject: Re: War and democracies
Date: 15 Nov 92 12:17:55 GMT
Organization: Enea Data AB

Ulf Berggren (ulfb@ulfb.nada.kth.se) originally said:
>>>>>There seems to be a connection between these <Western> values, economic
>>>>>strength and less violence.

To which I asked:
>>We have three things: a set of values, economic
>>strength and less violence. Which are the causes, and which are the
>>consequences of these three?

His answer:
>It seems that the set of values has led to economic strength and together
>they have led to less violence.

But what intrinsic in the Western Catholic/Protestant values makes
them superior to give economic strength which Islamic, Orthodox,
Buddistic etc don't have? Particularly when we now that before the
economic strength arose, violence were just as regular in the Western
world as elsewhere.

I submit that the process is the opposite. Our economic strength
has given us the possibility to alter the values so that we now
can favour less violent solutions. We can simply afford to have
this set of values. And - which is maybe even more important - our
economic strength makes it possible to impose our values with economic
means rather than with military ones.
-- 
Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
From: skok@itwds1.energietechnik.uni-stuttgart.de (Holger Skok)
Subject: Re: Germany in the Security Council
Organization: Inst. f. Thermodynamik u. Waermetechnik (ITW), U. of Stuttgart, FRG
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 10:59:49 GMT

In article <92323.234312DHE2@psuvm.psu.edu> <DHE2@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>Germany had said they "won't resist" if other nations approach them to become p
>ermanent members of the UN Security Council.  Japan is in much the same boat.
>Any ideas on what this might mean to collective security?  To peacekeeping oper
>ations?  On the ability to mount an operation like DESERT SHIELD/STORM?

Two things come to mind:
First of all it would mean that the UN Security Council would have to be
severely reshaped. Right now only China is a permanent member that can
be considered to represent the interests of the Third world in any way.
Having two new First World members would shift the balance unbearably
towards a domination of the Security Council by the rich industrialized
North. The majority Nations of the South (to use that handy metaphor)
would not stand for that.

Secondly, Germany would have to come to terms with its own constitution.
Right now the predominant legal opinion on the matter is that it
prohibits us from participating in any military operation outside the
NATO area. It'll take a while until that changes.
HSK

-- 
Sie singen das alte Entsagungslied, das Eiapopeia vom Himmel,
womit man beruhigt, wenn es greint, das Volk, den grossen Luemmel.
Ein neues Lied, ein besseres Lied, oh Freunde, will ich Euch dichten,
Wir wollen hier auf Erden schon das Himmelreich errichten.    ... H. Heine
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
From: eric@sejnet.sunet.se (Eric Thomas)
Subject: Re: Germany in the Security Council
Reply-To: ERIC@SEARN.SUNET.SE
Organization: SUNET, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 03:26:14 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.35749.16599@ms.uky.edu>, randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) writes:
> Aw, that's just loony.  Come On!  I agree that both France and the UK
> have a NAVY far exceeding that of Germany, but the German army is both
> bigger and (probably) better than either France or the U.K.  In fact,
> it would be an interesting chalange to put BOTH France and the U.K.
> against Germany.

This has already been tried, you know. It is pretty scary to see you refer to
the death all these people as "an interesting challenge". Well, yes, I suppose
it might be an interesting form of entertainment from the perspective of a
person obsessed with guns, tanks and planes; I guess if I lived in a place
where nothing ever happens and I was so bored with my life that I spent my time
reading military magazines, I would find this exciting.

  Eric
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
From: kevinh@hslrswi.hasler.ascom.ch (kevinh)
Subject: Re: Germany in the Security Council
Originator: kevinh@nath
Reply-To: kevinh@hslrswi.hasler.ascom.ch
Organization: Ascom Hasler AG
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 10:05:16 GMT


In article <1egs3nINNjro@mailgzrz.TU-Berlin.DE>, dennis@marie.physik.tu-berlin.de (Dennis Schulze) writes:

|> I don't understand
|> why France and Britain have a seat there while Germany, the largest
|> and most powerful country (this is a fact and not something one can
|> be proud of or whatever), has to stay out. The cold war is over!

Economically yes, militarily no. Both France and especially the UK 
still have a military capacity far exceeding that of Germany.  I would 
also say that the UK has far more influence worldwide, as does France, than
Germany - although this is changing.

It depends on how you look at it.

|> Dennis

kevinh@hasler.ascom.ch
From: dennis@marie.physik.tu-berlin.de (Dennis Schulze)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
Subject: Re: Germany in the Security Council
Date: 19 Nov 1992 20:06:15 GMT
Organization: ZRZ/TU-Berlin
NNTP-Posting-Host: marie.physik.tu-berlin.de

In <1992Nov19.105949.14369@news.uni-stuttgart.de> skok@itwds1.energietechnik.uni-stuttgart.de (Holger Skok) writes:

>Two things come to mind:
>First of all it would mean that the UN Security Council would have to be
>severely reshaped. Right now only China is a permanent member that can
>be considered to represent the interests of the Third world in any way.
>Having two new First World members would shift the balance unbearably
>towards a domination of the Security Council by the rich industrialized
>North. The majority Nations of the South (to use that handy metaphor)
>would not stand for that.

I think the whole security system (incl. Security Council) has to be
the subject of a new ways of cooperation. Why don't give up the veto
seats and say that 2/3 of the members of the S.C. have to agree to
a resolution. And if you want to keep the veto seats I don't understand
why France and Britain have a seat there while Germany, the largest
and most powerful country (this is a fact and not something one can
be proud of or whatever), has to stay out. The cold war is over!

>Secondly, Germany would have to come to terms with its own constitution.
>Right now the predominant legal opinion on the matter is that it
>prohibits us from participating in any military operation outside the
>NATO area. It'll take a while until that changes.

After Germany's Social Democrats voted for a change of the constitution
it might not last long till German peacekeepers act together with
soldiers of other nations.

Dennis
---
Dennis Schulze                               Free University of Berlin
Johannisthaler Ch. 361                       Department of Meteorology
W - 1000 Berlin 47                       dennis@metw3.met.fu-berlin.de
Germany                               dennis@marie.physik.tu-berlin.de
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:20:52 EST
From: <DHE2@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
Subject:     Germany and the Security Council, again

Points raised thus far have been interesting and stimulating.  There are altern
atives to the present Security Council which have been posted.  But we are, for
 now, given the UN in its inefficient form, and we must work with it or abandon
 it.  China is a permanent member of the Council, with veto powers.  She has tr
aditionally seen herself as the voice of the Third World.  If one or two more d
eveloped countries, like Japan and Germany, are admitted to the Council (which
is the initiating body for the UN), she will feel threatened by seeing herself
as the lone voice.  But several nations OF the Third World are pressing for sea
ts on the Council -- India and Brazil, to name two.  Then China will lose her c
laim to preeminence in the Lesser Developed Countries.  How will she react?
From: sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
Subject: Re: War and democracies
Date: 21 Nov 92 16:33:56 GMT
Organization: Enea Data AB

Ulf Berggren (ulfb@ulfb.nada.kth.se) writes:
>Historians now think that the western legal system, democracy and
>probably individualistic values (more Protestant/humanitarian than
>christian) was the key to the western economic strength.

So where does these historians come from? China? I doubt.
-- 
Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se
From: randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
Subject: Re: Germany in the Security Council
Date: 21 Nov 92 08:57:49 GMT
    <1992Nov19.105949.14369@news.uni-stuttgart.de> 
    <1egs3nINNjro@mailgzrz.TU-Berlin.DE> 
    <1992Nov20.100516.7529@hasler.ascom.ch>
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

kevinh@hslrswi.hasler.ascom.ch (kevinh) writes:


>Economically yes, militarily no. Both France and especially the UK 
>still have a military capacity far exceeding that of Germany.  I would 
>also say that the UK has far more influence worldwide, as does France, than
>Germany - although this is changing.

Aw, that's just loony.  Come On!  I agree that both France and the UK
have a NAVY far exceeding that of Germany, but the German army is both
bigger and (probably) better than either France or the U.K.  In fact,
it would be an interesting chalange to put BOTH France and the U.K.
against Germany.  Also, the German airforce is bigger and better
equipped than the French of UK air force, but is not bigger than the
sum of both.  If you want, I can post numbers.  But I'm rather confident.

However, the permanant members of the Security council are exactly
those natiosn that have publically declared themselves to have nuclear
From: aragorn@convex.csd.uwm.edu (Steven J.)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.ec
Subject: Re: War and democracies
Date: 22 Nov 1992 05:52:20 GMT
Organization: Jobs With Peace at UWM
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.30

ulfb@ulfb.nada.kth.se (Ulf Berggren) writes:
: 
: Historians now think that the western legal system, democracy and
: probably individualistic values (more Protestant/humanitarian than 
: christian) was the key to the western economic strength.
: They haven't said that it is the only way.
: Buddistic values also are not so far from the western ones.

This is an interesting theory.  Could you cite some sources which make
relative comparisons between Bhuddism and western(ism) theory in a manner which
shows the two systems equal and/or equivelant?

______________________________________________________
Steve J. White
my virtual spheres of consciousness can be reached at:
aragorn@convex.csd.uwm.edu
aragorn@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
From: News-Out@dc.Clinton-Gore.org
Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.clinton
Subject: Statement of the President-Elect on the death of Mrs. D. W. Bush
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 11:38:39 EST
Reply-To: News-Reply@dc.Clinton-Gore.org
Followup-To: alt.politics.democrats.clinton.d

 Office of the President-Elect


 For Immediate Release:
 November 19, 1992

 Statement of the President-Elect

      I am saddened by the death today of President Bush's mother,
 Dorothy Walker Bush.  She was a remarkable woman, whom Hillary,
 Chelsea and I had the good fortune to meet in Maine several years
 ago. Throughout his life, President Bush has put his family first.

      I know it is a difficult day for the President and Mrs. Bush.
 Late this afternoon, I called President Bush to express our
 concerns.  Hillary and I offered our condolences and tonight, they
 are in our thoughts and prayers.

                               -30-30-30-

 Atkins Building
 105 W. Capitol Street, Suite 400
 Little Rock, Arkansas  72201



Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:23916 talk.politics.misc:60379 alt.fan.dan-quayle:6839
From: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: RFD: alt.loathing.bob-dole
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:33:00 GMT
Reply-To: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM
Followup-To: alt.politics.elections
Organization: Sun Microsystems

In article 6953@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil, jxxl@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (Comet Kahoutek) writes:
>Is it just my imagination or has Speaker Dole turned quite sour of late?
>All of a sudden he's revering the late George Bush as if he were the
>Messiah--and Bush is the guy who knocked Dole out of the 1988 contest
>with more of his dirty campaign tactics. Dole has hinted of his interest
>in going after the 1996 nomination, but his bitter disposition would
>make him appear as a long shot to rally public affection.

No, it doesn't seem to be your imagination.  Dole has turned out to be
a-one a-hole.

Back in early '88, I was hoping Dole would get the Rep. nomination.  When
Bush started getting caught in the Iran-contra stuff, changing his story
every week, and denying it, I was ecstatic.  I was sure it was the end of
GHWB, wimp, and the start for Sen. Bob Dole, statesman.

Now, I find it sickening to watch Dole.  He's worse than Bush.  He not
only keeps saying "57% of the people voted against Clinton", he has
decided that HE speaks for those 57%.  He has said, and I paraphrase,
that the job of the Republicans in Congress is to thwart Clinton's agenda.

I guess with Bush out, there's room at the bottom, and Dole jumped right
in.

--f2

---------------------
  "You may wait here in the sitting room,
   or you can sit here in the waiting room."

Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24104 talk.politics.misc:60780 tx.politics:7478
From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
Subject: Re: What if...
Date: 15 Nov 92 19:35:16 GMT
 <1992Nov01.065325.18026@NeoSoft.com> <1992Nov2.173915.18011@julian.uwo.ca>
Distribution: usa
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <1992Nov2.173915.18011@julian.uwo.ca>, James or Brian writes:

> 
> 	What if Bush loses the election, but  decides that holding
> onto the Presidency is more important  to him than obeying  the
> electoral results.  Is there  any   obvious way he  could say 'no'
> and make it stick? What steps would he  have to  take to  stay in
> power?

You've been listening to the media and Fred bash the President too long.  There
is absolutely NO evidence that the President would even consider doing anything
of the sort!  Come on, people!  If you don't like his policies, ok, but please
stop these ridiculous personal attacks!


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,soc.history
From: niepornt@dial.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Libertarians in WW2
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 23:20:15 GMT

In article <1e9sdfINN6in@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.235843.2228@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>|> In article <1992Nov16.204210.11462@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:

>|> >> >Also, they were putting a good deal our ships to the
>|> >> >bottom of the ocean at the time too. 

>|> >> Because we were supplying the enemy.  Under a Lib States, the government
>|> >> wouldn't be selling arms.

>|> >Wrong. I'm sure the distinction would have been blurred on the
>|> >Germans had "supplying of the enemy" been in an official
>|> >capacity of the US government or just by private transactions
>|> >of our population -- it made little differnce from their perspective.

>|> But the English would have been sinking private ships selling to
>|> the Germans.  Why do you think the Libs would've taken sides if 
>|> both sides were sinking ships?

>I see we are back to the "would have" arguments.

>There's nothing so hypothetical about the history of the
>two world wars that requires this kind of speculation.

>The UK declared a blockade of Germany, and they did board and/or
>seize ships carrying contraband to Germany.    This is in
>accordance with applicable International Law.

>However, they did *not* randomly sink ships, nor did they engage
>in unrestricted submarine warfare against neutral shipping.

Only because they didn't have submarines and didn't need to, having a
powerful surface navy.  The Germans didn't really have much else they
could do to enforce their own blockade against Britain -- they couldn't
stop ships and board them from submarines, so they had to sink them to
do what they were doing.

I'm not defending them, but I'm just saying that they weren't doing it
because they were morally inferior to the British, but because that was
the only means at their disposal.

Are you saying a Libertarian government *wouldn't* object if the British
navy went around seizing American ships because *they* had decided that
we shouldn't be allowed to trade 'contraband' with Germany?  If not, why 
not?  What gave the British the right to decide that someone couldn't sell
something to someone?

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1993 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.marrou,soc.history
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Blockades
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:56:13 GMT

In <Bxzu0I.DL@access.digex.com> steve-b@access.digex.com (Steve Brinich) writes:

>  >  Surface blockades are less effective when you don't have a surface
>  >blockade fleet.

>  This gets right back to the point someone else already raised -- if a
>nation chooses to rely on a certain military technology which is known to
>be useful only when employed in a manner contrary to the accepted rules of
>warfare, that nation is just as guilty when it does so as a nation that has
>a wider range of military assets but -chooses- to use unacceptable ones.
>The only difference is that the former type of nation makes a committment to
>war crimes somewhat earlier than the latter.

Does anyone else see the idea of "accepted rules of warfare" as sort of
incongruous?  

I think invading other countries in general is sort of a bad thing, so I
don't see sinking ships as being really any worse because it's forbidden
by some sort of vague "international law."

And I don't see stopping ships and seizing their cargo as being more
acceptable because it's allowed by "international law."

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1993 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:24105 talk.politics.misc:60781 tx.politics:7479