Alan? rational but risky? <http://www.cyberlearning-world.com/lessons/ushistory/ww2/europeantheate\ r.htm> Rational? I'd call that mad.
--- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, "Alan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, Sean McBride > smcbride2@ wrote: > > > > "Sane": the pursuit of policies that achieve a successful outcome, > > that improve one's position on the grand chessboard of > > international politics. For instance: Adolf Hitler's invasion of > > Russia was insane from the standpoint of German interests. > > But that's not true. It was rational, for at least a couple of > reasons. (And note when I say "rational", I do not mean that it > was not very very risky, with a large chance of failure.) First, > Hitler knew that he had to have the USSR's energy resources, > without which his whole military machine would literally grind > to a halt. Energy shortages were a critical handicap to the > Germans. Second, Hitler knew that Stalin was about to attack > to the West, anyway. Hitler's invasion was pre-emptive, and > "necessary" from his standpoint, and Germany's. > > I see the present military thrusts as motivated by a similar > desperation, and "rational" from the standpoint of empire > people with very few options at this late date. > > > Neocon plans to hurl American military force at Israel's neighbors > > is insane from the standpoint of American interests (and > > especially from the standpoint of American oil and energy > > interests). > > > > How does one extract oil profitably from a region that is boiling > > over with hatred for those doing the extracting? The American > > military has already exhausted itself in Iraq, and the game has > > barely begun. > > The "boiling over" part is more recent. We've been over this. > There was no guarantee that the operation would go well. It could > have gone a lot better. But it didn't. > > > We know the neocon solution to this problem: exterminate tens of > > or hundreds of millions of Arabs and Muslims with nuclear and > > biological weapons, to commit the most evil act of genocide in > > human history. Do most Americans really want to go down that > > path? Do American industrial and business elites want to go down > > that path? I strongly doubt it. The rest of the world would rip > > us to shreds. > > Very good question. Certainly no one would ADMIT that they want > to go down that path. And most everyone would not even admit it > to themselves. But it depends on which question is asked. Do we > support nuke/bio genocide? NO, of course not! Do we support the > continuation of our "way of life", "non-negotiably"? Yes, sadly. > And there is the rub. Most people will vote for continuation of > our way of life, offered by leaders not so indiscrete as to > be honest about what that will entail. As long as the leaders > are halfway (or even quarter-way) decent liars, the imperial > initiative will go on, without substantial objections from the > people. > > > > > There is enormous opposition to the neocon agenda within the > > American power elite, and even from leading members of the Bush 43 > > administration. Have you been reading the memoirs and comments of > > the Bush 43 dissenters and defectors? If my analysis is correct, > > and I am confident it is, we are on the verge of a major explosion > > between the traditional American power elite and the neocons. I > > hope this development won't take you by surprise -- you've been > > given the straight dope. :) > > I am fully prepared, and anxious, to be surprised, and proven > wrong about everything. But I doubt that I will be. :-) > > Alan >
