Dear Bill (and all), I was concerned when I awoke in the morning (sorry, late afternoon - a bit too much beer after the champaign while contemplating times past, and the future, as one is wont to do on the New Year). Thought I might have been better leaving it alone. But it seems to have drawn out several opinions, different but not fully opposed.
I'm not going to answer each in kind (loud cheers can be heard from the list <g>). Someone mentioned the delay in our President's addressing the disaster with a public statement - and someone else pointed out that he immediately ordered the Naval ships to the area. (In the meantime no one has made much of Kofi Annan continuing his ski vacation for three days - Annan has said that he can operate from anywhere in these days of communications, but I think the communications at the "vacation White House" in Crawford are a bit better than at a ski resort). In the 1968 Presidential campaign (Hubert Humphrey vs. Richard Nixon) the statement was made "you don't solve a problem by throwing money at it". It was Humphrey, the liberal Democrat, that said it - not Nixon. Egeland's comments (sort of retracted) had to do with "development aid" when he gave his statistics, not "disaster relief". In the face of a tragedy of monumental proportions he reverted to the typical UN beaurocrat looking for government to government money through his agency. A fertile ground for leakage of funds. As to the US military contributions - the price of that aid isn't in the "addition", it is just there. And it also was said in this thread that other countries are sending emergency supplies and water purification equipment. And that is valid. But in the absence of the US military when would it get there? The roads are out, the infrastructure is destroyed. There is nothing like a Naval fleet to bring military force when necessary, or disaster relief when needed. And only the US supports that very expensive force. We may argue as to the Iraq war, that is a political decision. Some may consider that the US military has been misused in some situations, but I question whether there should be any argument about its value to the world. Oil flowed to Europe through the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz during the Iraq/Iran war courtesy of the US Navy (and should anyone mention the shooting down of the Iranian air liner I'd agree - the captain of the Vincennes got promoted - he should have been court martialed, and I say this as a former Naval officer - it was an unforgivable excercise of command, and for my supporters may I say I've looked into the incident). For those who consider that the US went into Iraq for the oil let me point out that we could have done better by dealing with Saddam and ignoring his people (wow, that should start something). I don't really want to see this continue, and I almost regret starting it (but not quite). Bill, tenthofseptemberismybirthday -jon. It took me a moment to get your point. I am of an age to remember evil, but I thought it was gone with the remnants of the Berlin Wall, and the quiet years of the Cold War under the massive umbrellas of the Soviet Union and the US. My world was improving every year from my birth in 1935 (with a few steps back in the first ten years). Yours hadn't actually seen the devastation, although you well knew of it. My birthday in 2001 was the end of an era, yours the next day was the start of a new one (official, although it had been there). Finally, I'm amused by the "plots" attributed to our government. The very nature of the three segments - legislative, judicial and executive preclude any "plot" being secret for long. And given the number of ambitious lawyers we have per capita it is impossible. Some years back, when Japan was killing our economy with their efficient industry, I suggested that we make a trade agreement that for each automobile Japan shipped to the US they had to accept an export of two American lawyers to Japan. Please pardon this off topic addendum, I promise not to continue unless directly addressed. As Bill suggests in his message I ask our European members to consider the alternatives - and should we yet disagree, to not automatically ascribe bad motives. Best, Jon ----- Original Message ----- From: "bill kilpatrick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jon Murphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Lute List" <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2005 10:34 AM Subject: Re: Happy New Year > dear jon - > > had some friends around for dinner last night and had > to listen to varying degrees of "yanqui go home" from > everyone, my nearest and dearest included. after a > while i stopped contributing to the conversation and > began to think about the nature of evil - relative and > genuine - and just how necessary it was for people to > have a boogeyman in their lives. i'm not all that > anxious to have anyone but us in the driver's seat but > whenever the united states was mentioned i pretended > they were talking about communist china or russia or > the koran-thumpers of iran ... how about a foreign > policy based on domestic practices from one of the > african countries ... ? - it helped pass the time. > > i don't think the u.s. will ever stop supplying aid to > those who need it but i'm afraid it will never ... i > mean never, ever, ever - be perceived as anything > other than an ill-defined and highly suspicious plot. > > eleventhofseptemberismybirthday - bill To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
