Good morning, Lowell! Lowell C. Savage wrote:
> Yes. That's a failure of the press and a failure of part of the American > people to see through the press. It also exposes the mendacity of most of > Bush's political opponents who have taken advantage of it. Yes, the Bush > administration might have been able to do a better job of public > relations. But, I've got to say that if a critic's worst criticism of an > administration boils down to poor public relations, they are, in essence, > admitting that they are to some degree lying or misleading about the > administration's accomplishments. I always seem to encounter you when I am either (a) harried and on my way to a clients to do some business, or (b) very early in the morning, and thus not mentally as astute as one should be, I suppose, for writing about such things as politics. Although it is very early in the morning, nearly 2:00 AM, I am up and have performed the basic ablutions, including building a pot of industrial-strength coffee, so you are getting my full attention for a change. ;-) 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. 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. > 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 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. 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. 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. > > Unfortunately, even the LP "contender" was drinking the anti-war > kool-aide. It wasn't just that no one else could get any electoral > traction, no one else was even talking about making this world safe for > free people to live in. > > And as for alienating foreign cultures and religions, I think some of them > ought to start worrying about alienating US! Really, look around you and > see how much politically correct BS we talk about and how much goes on > where > we are trying not to cause offense. But the people who ought to be > offended are Americans who trusted the UN to administer that > "Oil-for-Food" program that Saddam turned into the biggest scam I'm aware > of in world history, $21 > Billion stolen--and counting! (Not even Enron or Worldcom was that big! > And the only person who died from either was an Enron exec who committed > suicide.) We ought to be offended by the holier-than-thou French, German, > and Russian politicians who hands were elbow-deep in that money and used > it to stuff their pockets at the expense of the poor Iraqis it was > supposed to help and at the expense of the US and Iraqi troops and > citizens who are > dying now from the insurgency partially funded by that cash. At some > point, you have to start noticing that the fact that certain parties > oppose a decision is a pretty good indication that the decision was > correct and to h**l with whether it "alienates" them or not. 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. 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. 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. 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. Dave -- Dave Laird ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) The Used Kharma Lot Web Page: http://www.kharma.net updated 11/24/2004 Usenet news server : news://news.kharma.net Fortune Random Thought For the Minute Littering is dumb. -- Ronald Macdonald _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
