Justin wrote:
>Right, a routine bombing, just what one normally does.
so when the Unabomber sent mail-bombs, these could also be interpreted as
"routine"? (BTW, I'm being ironic, too.)
>No reason, maybe "self defense"--we had to bomb them because we are over
>there in their country defending ourselves of course. I presume this means
>that if Saddam Hussein blows up NORAD in retaliation, or on a routine
>bombing mission, that he can expect that we will let it pass as
>self-defense; I mean, why else would he be bombing targets in Wyomong.
FWIW, Cheyenne Mountain is in Colorado.
>Oh, foolsih me, I forgot, he's the bad guy, we're the good guys. How could
>that have slipped my mind.
>
>This is from the guy who accused Clinton & Gore of unnecessary imperial
>adventures. I suppose I can't be surprised, but I sort of did have hopes
>that he meant that part of it.
a hopefully more substantive comment: In my experience, even though the
name of the occupant of the White House changes, the changes in US foreign
policy have been typically very trivial. The political forces pressuring
the US on these issues stay the same. The obvious case was Nixon's
about-face on China, but he of course was one of the political forces
against a US opening to China.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
