> Hay, don't kill the messenger. I just passed it on. :-)
No, not at all. Am always willing to discuss, but am also posting this to
[EMAIL PROTECTED], as that is more suited to discussion, and there are no
message limits (5 for the regular CTRL list on AOL) - there are subscription
instructions on the bottom of this email if you are not already subscribed
to both.
I was a member for a brief time back when CTRL AOL was having trouble, but I unsubbed when postings became largely redundant. I've never much understood the five postings policy, but then I don't have to pay for the bandwidth :-)
> Personally, and while agreeing with you at least in principle (in my
saner
> moments), I'm a bit surprised we don't see even more of this
neo-tribalistic sabre > rattling.
I think we're seeing more of it now than ever, or, in "ever" I mean really
in the last 20 years or so.
I think so too, but this time it's scary. This time, people "in high places" are actually considering the unthinkable.
> As for averting any coming conflict between us WASPS and the "devilish
> Islamic" world, my solution is relatively simple; stay the hell out of the
> rest of the world's business unless we or ours are attacked. Then and
only
> then will we have any claim to "righteous indignation." (Yes, the
> preceding statement ignores--temporarily--the potential for retaliation on
> the basis of our past misdeeds.)
Yep, that's my take. I know it's seen as isolationist, but, holy ... well,
my goodness, at least it eliminates the potential for further misdeeds, and
puts that squarely on the table when talking peace. Don't like the US? Don't
come here. But then again that also makes trade negotiations difficult,
especially if there are tariffs involved, and I'm not a true libertarian in
that sense.
Oh, I am :-) Tariffs only serve to limit a form of "dialogue" between nations who could otherwise be on a minimally equitable footing. Be this as it may, that's a can of worms beyond the scope of this thread.
It's complicated to be sure, but at least not selling arms to
other nations (which goes along with the trade situation - we are the
largest arms dealer in the world), and without supporting foreign wars in
any sense, then we do have a leg upon which to stand. Right now all we have
is a crutch, and that is splintering.
Amen. If we do consider selling arms to other nations, there should be an all-or-none policy. Either we sell to everybody or we sell to nobody. Clearly, by selling weapons to Israel without selling the same weapons at the same prices to, say, the Palestinians, we are sending a message of political intent/bias: choosing sides, as it were.
> Nevertheless, and somewhat safely assuming that the hawkish mind will have
> its way, the issue is not really about fighting a billion Muslims; it's
> about eliminating a billion Muslims. There's a big, and ominous,
> difference. I think you missed the suggestion embedded within the
author's
> title.
Hmmm ... so the difference is more *convincing* a billion Muslims that
they're wrong?
Oh, no. Nothing as subtle or comparatively sedate as that. Hawks don't really care if the enemy is forced "to recognize his error" or not. Hawks want the enemy to go away--permanently.
Or maybe I'm missing what it is that you, as the messenger,
are suggesting.
I'm suggesting that there is growing sentiment among the more conservative members of our society to develop our own version of the "final solution." I don't think such would come to pass, mind you, unless there were another attack of similar or greater consequence upon this nation. The delicate balance between reason and outright insanity could well be lost were this to occur. I would also not discount the possibility that those with the power to do so just might consider "letting" such an act occur in order to promote their agenda. (I have considered the likelihood that this is what happened immediately prior to 9-11.)
And don't take my own tone there as ominous - I am pretty
sure that I know what the author is suggesting, but, then what do you, as
messenger, suggest?
Again, I suggest that (a growing number of) persons of such mind set would find it perfectly acceptable to obliterate much or all of the "Muslim world (apply whatever definition which seems appropriate)." I've heard this prospect mulled over by more than a few persons in a position to influence public opinion.
I know we don't always ask that of each other here, and
not trying to put you on the spot. Or are you rather illustrating the
author's suggestion as ominous?
Yes. His sentiments, while definitely NOT my own (at least not now :-)), reflect a growing body of opinion.
Edward ><+>
If you have fifty problems and one of them is government, you have only one problem.
http://www.global-connector.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/reality_pump/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
