Okay, you got me going one more time ...
> ! Questions: what are your thoughts about North Korea? How do > you think ! it's possible that really bad guy, who has been > developing nukes and ! missiles all along, has gotten zero attention? > > Media fixation on every road-side bomb that goes off in Iraq. Hardly. If every road-side bomb going off hit the news, we'd be out of there long ago. I don't know the exact number of wounded to date, but it's approaching 20,000. Only a fraction of that number have been mentioned at all, more less fixated on. > !How about China's 30% > ! increase in military spending because they can't trust us? > > Well reported, ominous, and frankly something we really need > to start planning for. Since I follow the news, I know our > policy makers are aware of it, but unfortunately I think they > all (that includes both parties, no finger pointing here) are > so enamored of the myth of free trade/fair trade (whatever > you wish to call that pig-in-a-poke) that they can't look > reality square in the face. > > And no, that isn't a neo-con thing---it's a > Yale/Harvard/MIT/and every other academic institution since > the 1930's thing. They've all been teaching free market > economics from the wrong philosophical perspective since > FDR... Maybe even since Wilson, who really was the first > genuine interventionist in our foreign policy (no, it wasn't > Karl Rove). > > You can't have trade, let alone genuine division of labor > (which is what free trade really is), with regimes that can > compel people to work against their will for next to nothing. > > I think Wal Mart's (and other companies') motto should be > "Funding the Chinese Military since X" where X is whatever > year they started doing business there. > > This problem is very large and once the Chinese "surprise" > attack Taiwan, we'll be in bad shape. You missed or ignored the real point: that increased Chinese military spending is a response, a cause and effect reaction, to the belligerent behavior demonstrated by those invasions. Enemies of this state were put on notice and they reacted. If the belligerence didn't happen, the spending increase would not have happened. What do you think will come of that jump in spending? Consider this: in a decade or so, the major powers can be working together on the ISS - or they can be locked in a race to see who can be the first to weaponize space. Which would you prefer? I think our best hope at stopping this madness is to go to the root of the problem: the way the election process works. Both major parties have become self-serving empires that are disconnected from the people they are supposed to serve. I think we need to switch to a public funding basis and to apply innovative technology so people other then the well-connected can apply. > ! How about the > ! effect the attention to the ME vs no attention elsewhere is > having on ! our image for the world at large? > ! In the simplest possible terms: just how did the ME get so > important ! that we would bet our farm trying to assert our > authority there? > > You and I simply don't agree that it's about "authority". That's a rub: instead of "establishing authority", it's called "spreading democracy" There's a premise and a fallacy involved. The premise is that all people are basically good, and since democracy gives power to the people, good democracies will emerge and we'll all get along. The fallacy is that this can be achieved from the bully pulpit of a country whose own democracy has been sold out. A more honest appraisal is that the neocons are warriors and democracy is their modern-day Trojan horse. What they didn't plan on was the Internet tearing the clothes off the horse. > So I'm not going to keep beating that ceterum censeo of yours > any further into the ground. "violence never solves anything" is true as a rule, exceptions notwithstanding. If we were invaded by aliens, we'd all be packing guns. But because there are exceptions doesn't give license to wolves looking for excuses. There's a line and our rulers have crossed it. > What I will say is that if you think the Neo-Cons control the > media, you must be watching news on another planet than I am. I witnessed the psyche-up to the invasion first hand because I looked to see which big player I wanted to get behind. Couldn't find a one. In the time since, MSNBC first tried to get more even-handed, and the others are warming up in cover-their-asses mode. Here's what I'd really like to see: a database of all the "news" that was dispensed by the major players leading up to the invasion. The analysis would speak for itself. > Also, I think the media goes where the sensation is. Period. > They tend to be liberally biased because they are culturally > liberal as a class, but generally speaking they'll hop on any > bandwagon that gets ratings. I hope the day will come when our information supply works on a pro/con format, rather than what it is today. > The answer to your question is simple: Because Americans > watched 3,000 of their fellow citizens burn to death live > because of fanatics in the ME. No. It was a gang of criminals who killed those people, and the whole world supported tracking them down and bringing them to justice. The power play was in puffing that crime into an excuse to start invading countries for a different agenda. It was at that point that righteousness turned to dust. Now, what they did was a giant ballsy act, which is respected in some circles, such as the bulls of Wall Street, but the heartland of America isn't that way. Regular people have no stomach for unnecessary war. The protagonists clearly thought that once launched, we'd have no choice but to rally in support to the end. They may well have gotten away with a short war, as was obviously anticipated (having relieved themselves of naysayers who knew better), but now we're up to our asses in trouble over there. Frankly, I was surprised there was no connection between Saddam and Bin Laden, if for no other reason then "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". In this regard I suppose the better part of a billion Muslims could be said to be against us as well. After all, anger in the ME towards America is in no short supply. Muslims generally sympathize with the plight of the Palestinians, don't like their resources being manipulated/controlled, and they don't feel very respected. You are aware that Bin Laden is popular in the ME and Musharraf hasn't moved to capture/kill him because he fears repercussions would take him down. > Watch how much attention China > gets when they sink a warship in the Taiwan straits and > murder and pillage Taiwan. Or when North Korea lobs a nuclear > missile in somebody's direction. Conversely, these are reasons for not relying on military solutions to problems. You live by the gun, you die by the gun. > I certainly agree they should be getting more coverage than > they are, and I agree that the fixation on events (especially > negative events) in Iraq is unfortunate. > > ! > ! If you're capable of coming to terms with these questions and > ! can offer > ! useful analysis and solutions, then I'll think that you're > something ! other than a neocon supporter/apologist. > > I don't care what you think I am, though I like you > personally and would hope our disagreements aren't personal. No, not at all. This is about ideas, and personalities really just get in the way. This is why powerful orators can be very scary people. > I consider myself "paleo-conservative" but on the issue of > the war in Iraq, I am somewhat out-of-form in that I do think > it was about more than WMDs and I do believe in the > transformational power of liberty, and I can't stand all the > smarmy griping about the lack thereof in the face of what > really are (IMHO) positive developments. I cannot see the > thing as the "sham" or "utter failure" you and others view it > as, any more than I can see the military or even political > aspects being on any scale an abject failure. > > I can agree the administration oversold aspects of the > overall policy proposition. I can agree they foobarred the > post-invasion planning (as if anyone can get something like > that 100% right). I can agree that not everyone involved in > politics has angelic motives (quite the > opposite) and I can even agree Bush is not the sharpest knife > in the drawer. Yes I can even agree that it hasn't all gone > smoothly (duh). All of that still doesn't add up to the > bizarre conspiracy theory you seem enamored of, and which > compels you to see everything in unidimensionally negative terms. It's not "everything", it was a single thing: the act of war > I don't consider myself neo-con, and I frankly can't wait > till someone other than a Bush or a Clinton is in the White > House. That whole dynasty thing is getting old. Had me fooled <s>. Hey, nice to agree on something these days! > If you can note anything positive at all about what we've > done, or recongnize how people of good will can support it > without being incurably stupid, and see current events in any > kind of a light that doesn't spell immanent doom and gloom, > then I'll think you're something other than a digruntled > moonbat whose delusions of efficacy of global government are > truly science fictional in their proportions, given how > little you truly believe in most people's cognitive abilities. I'm so happy we agree on getting the dynasties out that I'll end of a high note without commenting on this lulu <s> Bill > - Bob _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
