At 10:37 PM 10/9/2002 -0700 d.brin wrote:
>A statesman would have deferred this decision till elections were
>over. There is no other explanation for the frenzy, and if you think
>this is anything but an attempted Wag, I am amazed by the power of
>self-hypnosis.
>
>And if the GOP gets away with it this time, can you imagine the war
>they'll spring on us in 2004?
>
>No, folks, punish this. Punish it at the polls. Vote the economy.
>Then let's turn our attention to solving the intricate problem of a
>complex middle east.
What a surprise, the issue changes but the conclusion remains the same -
punish the Republican at the polls.
Personally, I'm amazed that someone who is ordinarily as intelligent as you
is urging the American people to cast their votes on the basis of
short-term economic trends. As it is - faced with a lingering recession
and a very real risk of deflation, at least the Republicans (perhaps in
spite of themselves) are advocating a little bit of modest deficit
spending, whereas the Democrats are promising Hooverian budget balancing.
Anyhow, I am moreover also amazed that you are urging the American people
to cast their votes on the basis of a candidate's economic policy, but then
urging the American people to expect that these same politicians devote
themselves primarily to solving foreign policy issues.
Here's a novel thought - if the American people are to expect their
politicians for the next two years to turn their attention to, quote,
"solving the intricate problem(s) of a complex Middle East", shouldn't
they cast their votes on the basis of said politicians' positions for
solving these problems? Indeed, if the decision to go to war is one of
the most momentous political decisions of our time, shouldn't the American
people insist that their incumbent politicians go on-the-record as to their
decision on this issue *before* the election, so that way the American
people can definitively speak on this issue by either voting for or against
their incumbent politicians based on said politicians' position on this
issue?
I'm sorry, Dr. Brin, but it sounds to me like you are basically advocating
for elites to promise bread and circuses to the masses so that way the
elites can go on and solve the real problems without actually receiving
input on these issues from the masses. Now, I know that you would never
intentionally advocate such a position, but I seriously think that you have
let your favorite knee-jerk conclusion of "Vote out the Republicans" to get
in the way of clear thinking on this.
>If Saddam is this bad, he'll be just as bad in late November, and a
>nation can deliberate calmly on what to do.
First, due to physical limitations of using heavy chemical weapons gear in
a desert environment, there is actually a very narrow window of opportunity
for attacking Saddam Hussein.
Secondly, the events of September 11th have produced a narrow window of
opportunity in which there is sufficient political will among the American
people to attack Iraq. Given that:
1) Calm Patience and Determination nearly didn't work against the Soviet
Union
2) If you had a chance to keep the Soviets from building nuclear weapons,
not knowing how history would unfold in the future, wouldn't you take that
chance?
3) There is serious question as to whether the United States would
seriously use nuclear weapons to kill thousands/millions of Iraqi
civillians, no matter what Saddam Hussein has done to us - thereby
invalidating MAD
4) It is an absolute moral good to liberate a people that is currently
suffering under an oppressor that denies all political freedoms, practicies
torture and execution, and moreover, has intentionally withheld food and
medicine from his people so as to build weapons of mass destruction and
presidential palaces. A motal person would help the Iraqi people in such
a situation.
As such, a true statesman would use this moment in history to
overcome America's national isolationist tendencies and natural tendency to
let the rest of the world suffer and fester under our own neglect, and
liberate the Iraqi people and eliminate the fear of Saddam Hussein using
weapons of mass destruction against ourselves and our neighbors.
Finally, it just seems like the Bush Administration can't win here. As
the Bush Administration deliberated on the decision to attack Iraq, many
people called upon the Bush Administration to take their position to
Congress and the UN. Well, Bush has done that, and Congress is about to
vote overwhelmingly in favor of attacking Iraq. Meanwhile, Bush himself
has gone to the United Nations and that body is even now working on a new
resolution on this matter. Additionally, a virtual armada of diplomats
has gone to our allies to try and rally their support for this cause.
Now, of course, attempting to convince our allies to support us is
"bullying." Yet, if this is true, what do you call your message to this
list, Dr. Brin? An attempt to brow-beat us into voting against
Republicans? And morally, how is it any different? The answer, of
course, is that when you believe in an analysis of current events, and when
you believe in a cause, you try and convince your friends to take the same
action on this cause that you are - its how human discourse has been
conducted since the very beginning
JDG
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
