Cf. the books by Jim Mann (of the L.A. Times) book and Patrick Tyler of the
Washington Post (or is it the NYT?) on China policy.
Michael Pugliese
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sunday, February 18, 2001 11:59 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:8266] Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Bush war
>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
>
