Good morning, Dave! > Good morning, Lowell! > > In relation to George W. Bush, one must understand I lived a fair portion > of my life in North Texas around Amarillo, and inadvertently was immersed > for a time in that immutable American concept we know as "The Texas > lifestyle" of big cattle, big deals and big politics. Thus it was over > time that I have come to categorically loathe *anything* to do with the > Bush family at an intensely personal level, not to mention the perceived > failures of their politics. You have me at a disadvantage, because I > willingly admit the past failures of the Bush public relations team, yet > the overwhelming vision I have of George W. Bush, Jr. is that same > contemptible strutting, sneering vain little popinjay I remember so well > from years gone by.
Yes, I can understand that. It's annoying to listen to him speak and sometimes positively painful to watch him speak. On that score, he's benefited greatly from the weaknesses of his opponents and the fact that I liked what he was actually saying. > He may have done some good for the country, yes. However, the overall > judgment of the Bush empire will be whether our country will prosper, and > whether we will ever achieve the dignified peace in the Middle East. Both > remain to be seen, and for the most part, much like Bush's much-ballyhooed > statement from atop the U.S. Navy aircraft carrier, that "...we have won > the war, the war is over...", we have a long, long way to go before we can > categorically state either is true. Until then, all I have are the > remembered visions of a peacock, displaying a set of fine tail feathers, > and giving voice in the barnyard. That's true, his legacy will live or die by what happens in Iraq. Although I don't really hold the "end of major combat operations" speech against him. He was attempting to bring in "partners" who had promised to help keep the peace and some of whom had probably never had any intention of keeping those promises. But I think betting against Bush is a bit like betting against Bill Gates. It's just plain a losing proposition. For a real good case history, look at McCain. Every time he comes out and criticizes Bush for something, something goes very right for Bush within a couple of weeks. Dunno if that "magic" still applies, though. Maybe McCain has figured it out by now. > > I doubt that we did much to alienate fundamentalist Islam. I mean, if > we > > alienate them more, what are they going to do, hijack airplanes and > crash > > them into buildings? The problem is that fundamentalist Islam is in one > > sense like Fascism and Communism. All are ways of controlling people's > > lives that are fundamentally incompatible with our way of life--and for > > many > > of the same reasons. The very fact that we exist and succeed as a > society > > is a threat to them. Therefore, the only hope they have of > > survival--never > > mind success--is to destroy the competition. That's us and our ideas. > So > > the survival of their ideas depends on the suppression of our ideas and > > the killing of the people who hold them. > > Yes, it is a bit of a standoff, isn't it? Does that give us any inherent > rights, such as flattening most of the Baathist empire? That seems a fair > question. I'm not sure that it's much of a standoff at this point. If you look at where they are now compared to where they were before 9/11, would you really want to be them? > > I think it is being revealed and I think that of all the people in > > leadership positions in DC, Bush is the one who most understands this. > > That is why, in several speeches, he has referred to the fact that > during > > the cold war we tolerated dictators in the Middle East in return for > > "stability" and that this is no longer acceptable. > > > > As for the "ugly American," he's a real creature. But today's "ugly > > American" is a lot uglier to dictators and thugs than to ordinary > people. > > While a lot of ordinary people may not see it that way, my attitude is > > that you do the right thing long enough and eventually people start to > > notice > > that's what you are doing. There are still a lot of people who think > that > > the US went into Iraq for oil. As more steps are taken to get a > > constitution and a representative government and put control in the > hands > > of elected Iraqis, many of those people will be forced to change their > > minds. > > > > If ten years from now, we leave a reasonably democratic Iraq (except for > > an embassy that's about the same as any other embassy in any other > > country), and the Iraqi people like us about as much as the French do, > I'd > > say that was a smashing success! > > That leaves us with a very big question, and you've posed it quite well. > There is a battle for the control of the Iraqi people taking place, a > clear-cut choice between Islamic Fundamentalists and the former regime of > the Baath Party, and progressive leadership that will help the country and > all its peoples prosper and find peace. Yup. And I would much rather be a US General than be Zarqawi. I would much rather be a US anything than be a former Bathist or Islamic Fundamentalist anything. Never mind the rest of it, just look at the relative military positions. > Many years ago, I wrote a fortunately brief overview about the Chaos > Theory as applied to world events, and at that time, using much of the > scientific postulates about the Chaos Theory, I suggested that the bigger > and more complex you create or build infrastructures, the bigger and more > complex their downfall will ultimately be. Since that time other people, > including some of the scientists who first explored the world of random > events, have begun applying The Chaos Theory to world events in a more > general manner, and with some surprising deductions. Hmm. Entropy in organizations. Yes, the larger and more complex the organization, the more energy has to be expended in keeping it organized. The same reason that software is subject to the law of "Conservation of Agony". (When your software project is running behind and you add people to it to get it caught up, you are subject to the Conservation of Agony because you create that many more lines of communication that have to be opened and exercised to organize the project and so ALL your programmers spend more time coordinating and you aren't able to get the project caught up.) Take a look at Social Network theory and its application to the case at hand. It's probably a much different way of looking at it some of the same stuff you came up with that may yield an easier analysis. Start here: http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004/09/dark-networks-vladis-krebs-has-case. html And follow links as you find them and they interest you. But this gives you a pretty good overview (once you move down the page out of the beginning stuff that deals with specifics.) Teaser: "Because security comes at a price in performance and flexibility, Robb arrives at an astounding conjecture: you can have small, operationally secure terrorist groups, but you can't have large, operationally secure cells without a state sponsor." BTW. I consider Belmont Club "must reading." (Even more than libnw. :-) > Of course, their involvement in the evolution of The Chaos Theory lent > little credibility to my earlier argument. Rather, it prevented my > statements from being entirely ridiculed by anyone with true scientific > knowledge of The Chaos Theory, for I had stumbled on the theory quite by > accident, obtained the insight in a backhand manner, and had not, at that > time, done the prerequisite studies to make such presumptuous statements. > I am older and perhaps much wiser now, but my theory about world events > and The Chaos Theory still abide. > > I submit that Islamic Fundamentalism is, at its core, a form of Chaos > Theory in action, as anything that does not "fit" their tightly-held > definition of Good, is therefore Evil, and must be therefore destroyed > through a series of pogroms, jihads and other religious-political means. > Their law is largely a reflection of their definition of Good and Evil, > but is not handed down in a representative manner. Rather, their law is > handed down by the very religious infrastructure that has defined Good and > Evil for them for centuries, and often is thus applied in a very random > and precocious manner. > > Thus it is my opinion that when one encounters any religious faction that, > as part of its belief structure, advocates the use of chaos, through > randomly-occurring events that, by design, will unsettle the entire world, > that faction should be immediately and effectively rendered powerless by > any and all means necessary short of genocide. I also submit this same > process of decision should be applied to some of our so-called allies, as > well, for although they appear to be allies, their sanctimonious pieties > speak volumes against our determination to achieve world peace. Uhm. Was that a typo here? Did you mean "their" instead of "our determination to achieve world peace."? But personally, I think our "allies" should simply be ignored. (Probably something they would consider a worse fate.) > Fascinating. We end up on essentially the same page and perspectives on > world peace, and how best to attain it, and our paths that led us to our > conclusions were categorically different. Yes, I find that fascinating as well. And I certainly appreciate the fact that we've been able to have a lively, yet polite discussion about it. > Your points regarding our > countries, including our apparent allies, are well taken, indeed. My view > of our relationship to France and Germany, to name just two, is that we > pay entirely too much, in the form of preferential trade agreements, to > both countries for what is essentially lip service. I figure that free trade is good in its own right and needs no justification in terms of whether anything else goes along with it. I say move our troops out of Germany. Then, buy their stuff if you like and sell them as much of our stuff as you can. And otherwise ignore them. > However, my thoughts > on the United Nations as a power broker are probably fit for another > discussion, as I am infuriated, on a regular basis, by everything they > represent. Well, look at how they're made up. Unelected thugs and dictators like Castro, Hussein (until his cellar-dwelling days), and Mugabe, are treated as equals of the US in the General Assembly. In the security council, the guy who runs China, and Chirac are treated as the equals of Bush. That's really all you need to know to know that the UN is never going to be worthwhile as anything except a forum to keep a lid on things. And now that the WW III (aka, the Cold War) is over, I think the UN has outlived whatever usefulness it ever had. > Frankly I thought George W. Bush, Jr. was capable of driving harder > bargains than that, but apparently I was wrong. He must have forgotten his > Texas roots, somehow. Yes. I'm a bit disappointed here as well. However, looking back, the Texas Governor is one of the weakest Governors of any state (in terms of their constitutional powers). Bush had to succeed by convincing people from the other side to help him out. Then, given the partisanship and the closely-divided nature of the Senate (in fact, for part of the time, under the control of his opponents), it appears that he never got very far out of the habits he learned as Governor. But I do like his cabinet moves...so far. I haven't heard that Norm Mineta is leaving DOT. Lowell C. Savage It's the freedom, stupid! Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly. _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
