Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

General discussions of interest to readers and fans of Harlan Ellison.

Moderator: Moderator

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Re: Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

Postby Moderator » Wed Mar 02, 2011 4:22 pm

cynic wrote:one aspect of the info i haven't extracted, that may have *considerable* significance, is that many vetos represented multiple reworkings of an initial proposal to deal with one specific issue (conflict) at hand.

or did you already account for that?


I think that's a valid question, and no, I didn't account for that. I simply used the raw numbers.

To add a little to the breakdown (the percentages may have more to do with political fighting and international relations than anything else. The more times Israel is the focus of a condemnation, the more vetoes the US will issue. And, as Mike noted, some of these may be reworkings of the same proposed actions.):

Nixon 9 (1970-1974), 2 related to Middle East (Israel or Palestinian issues) or 22%
Ford 7 (1975-1976), 3 related to Middle East or 43%
Carter 4 (1977-1980), 1 related to Middle East or 25%
Reagan 35 (1981-1988), 17 related to Middle East, or 48%
Bush 1 7 (1989-1992), 4 related to Middle East, or 57%
Clinton 3 (1992-2000), 3 related to Middle East or 100%
Bush 2 7 (2001-2004), 6 related to Middle East or 86%
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

cynic
Posts: 2684
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 3:55 am
Location: chicago

Re: Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

Postby cynic » Wed Mar 02, 2011 4:45 pm

to that we could add a determination of how many reworkings were finaly acccepted, and consider the signifigance of those vetoed by others in agreement and or support (uk and france).

my main concern being; these numbers alone may not say much about any one aspect of global conflict.
just try differentiating between notions of security, defense and aggression on the word stage of politics and you face the mere tip of the iceburg.
follow your bliss,mike

cynic
Posts: 2684
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 3:55 am
Location: chicago

Re: Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

Postby cynic » Wed Mar 02, 2011 5:18 pm

i think the next thing i'll look at is the total number of proposals called for in those separate time spans.
if memory serves, the reagan years were not the most placid on the world stage.

frank,
you can join in on the research any time, i know how dedicated you are to fact finding and number crunching. :roll:
follow your bliss,mike

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

Postby FrankChurch » Thu Mar 03, 2011 11:55 am

Raygun, obviously.

Mike, I numbers crunch all the time. Observe. Stop nibbling on donuts.

cynic
Posts: 2684
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 3:55 am
Location: chicago

Re: Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

Postby cynic » Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:37 am

FrankChurch wrote: Raygun, obviously.
Mike, I numbers crunch all the time. Observe. Stop nibbling on donuts.
yeees frank,

numbers crunch, Cap'n Crunch, whatever.
mmm, yeees, donuts :o
follow your bliss,mike

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

Postby FrankChurch » Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:37 pm

Thank goodness this is only a rumour. Wooo:

http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/news/local_news ... tem-online

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

Postby FrankChurch » Mon Mar 07, 2011 2:10 pm

Michelle Bachman has eyes like that doll in the Amityville Horror. Yoiks.

-------------

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

Postby FrankChurch » Mon Mar 07, 2011 2:13 pm

Looks like we may send arms to Libya through Saudi Arabia. The problem with this is that Saudi Arabia just banned protests.

I said send arms, but through the UN. Jeez, what a mess.

By the way, the left is not against sending arms. We will take that over us going to war.

User avatar
Steve Evil
Posts: 3519
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 3:22 pm
Location: Some Cave in Kanata
Contact:

Re: Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

Postby Steve Evil » Mon Mar 07, 2011 2:55 pm

There are alot of folks who argue that enforcing a no-fly zone will lead NATO straight into war with Libya.

There are others who think that large caches of western arms will weaken rebel legitimacy.

So I gotta askL is there anything we out here can do? There's gotta be something.

Personally, I'm all for sending weapons. We've sent more than enough to far less deserving causes, why stop now?

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

Postby FrankChurch » Mon Mar 07, 2011 2:59 pm

There you go, Steve Evil. One radical, one semi-radical agreeing with the Republicans.

There really are no good options. We certainly cannot allow Gadaffi to slaughter his people. We just have to do it the right way.

User avatar
swp
Posts: 366
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 5:59 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

Postby swp » Mon Mar 07, 2011 4:00 pm

send lawyers, guns, and money.

or so the song tells me...

User avatar
Steve Evil
Posts: 3519
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 3:22 pm
Location: Some Cave in Kanata
Contact:

Re: Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

Postby Steve Evil » Mon Mar 07, 2011 4:35 pm

"Send help immediately! If you can't send help send three more women!"

User avatar
Lori Koonce
Posts: 3538
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:10 pm
Location: San Francisco California
Contact:

Re: Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

Postby Lori Koonce » Tue Mar 08, 2011 1:07 pm

FrankChurch wrote:There you go, Steve Evil. One radical, one semi-radical agreeing with the Republicans.

There really are no good options. We certainly cannot allow Gadaffi to slaughter his people. We just have to do it the right way.


Frank

The concept of a no fly zone was to stop Jets from harming civilians. How would it work against the helicopters that dude is using? Just because 4 people think something is right, doesn't mean it is ya know?

User avatar
Ezra Lb.
Posts: 4547
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:02 am
Location: Washington, DC

Re: Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

Postby Ezra Lb. » Tue Mar 08, 2011 2:17 pm

By the way, the left is not against sending arms. We will take that over us going to war.

Yeah you're too pure to soil your own hands but you don't mind if somebody else does it.

We certainly cannot allow Gadaffi to slaughter his people.

The question how far are you willing to go to stop it? I seem to recall you didn't mind sitting back and letting Saddam slaughter his people.

********

The problem with a no-fly zone is the amount of resources it would require to support it. We are so extended (over?) in Iraq and Afghanistan that it would be difficult to manage without NATO support. NATO is in the process of extricating itself from Iraq and Afghanistan and now we want them to commit to another open-ended adventure in Libya?

And exactly who are the Libyan rebels anyway? If they come to power are they going to be folks we want to have armed to the teeth with sophisticated weapons?

Better to think about this before we commit which of course is exactly what we didn't do elsewhere, remember?
“We must not always talk in the marketplace,” Hester Prynne said, “of what happens to us in the forest.”
-Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

Postby FrankChurch » Tue Mar 08, 2011 6:25 pm

First I will need my visa to Libya, then...

Wait a fucking minute, I'm not Libyan!!

Ezra, when you saddle up and go over to whatever hellhole you with, then I will to to Libya. lol

Good lord man.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests