Re: war and peace
On Sun, 9 Feb 2003, Matt Grimaldi wrote: NPR _has_ and _does_ mention that the UN inspectors have been unable to interview any scientists alone, (and reporting the big news when they finally get *one* scientist to agree to be interviewed alone) as well as how any reporters out and about with recording gear are assigned a special minder to keep them out of trouble Last Friday afternoon NPR did a report on the symphony orchestra of Baghdad, with an emphasis on the impact of sanctions on the cultural life of Iraq. Lots of interviews of various musicians. The program *did* end with the disclaimer that all interviews happened with minders present, so it's impossible to know if the interviewees spoke their true thoughts and feelings. Marvin Long Austin, Texas Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Poindexter Ashcroft, LLP (Formerly the USA) http://www.breakyourchains.org/john_poindexter.htm ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war and peace
Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Marvin Long, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't, really. But several reports out of Iraq that I've seen and heard contain a notes about how the locals consider the Iraqi exile community a bunch of elitists who escaped when the going got tough and who hope to lord it over the rest when they return on Uncle Sam's dime. Now maybe that's an exaggeration...IIRC one of those reports was on NPR, so it is therefore immediately suspect to 1/2 or more of all good red-blooded Americans. :-) Marvin Long The same ones who think Rush Limbaugh is a level-headed, fair, and rational thinker with no political agenda, it would seem. More than that - my real objection to NPR is that they _never_ mention, _not ever_, that every interview they conduct in Iraq is conducted in the presence of the Iraqi secret police, and that people who say things opposed to the government _have been_ killed for doing so. You don't think that maybe that affects the reliability of what we're hearing? You're apparently not listening to NPR, nor even able to conceive that they could have balanced coverage. Rather you're taking cues from someone else on what they are and aren't doing. NPR _has_ and _does_ mention that the UN inspectors have been unable to interview any scientists alone, (and reporting the big news when they finally get *one* scientist to agree to be interviewed alone) as well as how any reporters out and about with recording gear are assigned a special minder to keep them out of trouble The times that they report on off-the-record interviews, the general barometer of the Iraqi public is that they'd love to see the end of Saddam, but are less receptive to the idea of the USA doing it, don't really have any suggestions on *how* to do it without the USA, and generally have some contempt for the opposition leaders in exile for not sticking around in the bad times like they have. Such contempt would be understandable, even if the circumstances made it necessary for the opposition to leave Iraq, even if they never got to enjoy the easy life in exile that is part of the perception. They have a right to such opinions because they endured under Saddam's thumb and they others haven't. -- Matt ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war and peace
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 02:04:39PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: No hard feelings, but I think that your lack of familiarity with the concept of being called is evident here. Many people can be God's instrument. It depends on who answers the call. Ideally, many countries would answer. It appears that the world is relying on the US to be the only one that answers, and reserves the right to tell us when to answer and when not to. I'm not familiar with what you mean by being called. But it sounds disturbingly similar to some things I've heard from religious nuts like suicide bombers. In general, how is the call you are talking about to be distinguished by the person being called from the call the suicide bombers hear? -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war and peace
J. van Baardwijk wrote: Why would post-war Iraq be the first Iraqi republic? Iraq is *already* a republic. It's like the old Eastern Block countries. The more they called themselves democratic in the name of their country, the less likely it was to actually *be* a democracy. __ Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama = [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brin-L list pages .. http://www.brin-l.org Chmeee's 3D Objects http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee 3D and Drawing Galleries .. http://www.sloansteady.com Software Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links Science fiction scans . http://www.sloan3d.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war and peace
Marvin Long, Jr. wrote: I don't, really. But several reports out of Iraq that I've seen and heard contain a notes about how the locals consider the Iraqi exile community a bunch of elitists who escaped when the going got tough and who hope to lord it over the rest when they return on Uncle Sam's dime. Now maybe that's an exaggeration... This _is_ an exaggeration. My wife knew one of them: she was iraqian, jew, brazilian, and an excellent pediatrician. Now she's a belly dancer, because it pays much more than medicine :-( Her family flew Iraq when the persecution against Jews became intolerable. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war and peace
At 03:20 PM 2/6/2003 -0600 Dan Minette wrote: If that's true, why are they wasting a golden opportunity in Afganistan? I take exception to this. First, the rest of the world has hardly borne their full share of the load in rebuilding Afghanistan, You know better than to believe it would. and the US is stretched thin by the need to defend South Korea, Western Europe (just see how infuriated they get when we talk about leaving), Taiwan, and Afghanistan while preparing to attack Iraq. The cost of really doing nation building is high. Bush needs to tell that to the American people. Pushing through a tax cut that is narrowly focused on the wealthiest Americans sends the wrong message. As the Houston business column pointed out: for a significant fraction of the population, the used car market has a much greater impact on their net worth than the stock market. Dan M. Dan, you have to check the L-cap on your keyboard. The tax cut is widely focused on the Americans who pay the taxes. Kevin T. Stop the transfer of wealth ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war and peace
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 07:10:11AM -0500, Kevin Tarr wrote: Dan, you have to check the L-cap on your keyboard. The tax cut is widely focused on the Americans who pay the taxes. Kevin, you have to check the supporting-data-cap on your keyboard. Your comment is entirely uncredible. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war and peace
--- Marvin Long, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't, really. But several reports out of Iraq that I've seen and heard contain a notes about how the locals consider the Iraqi exile community a bunch of elitists who escaped when the going got tough and who hope to lord it over the rest when they return on Uncle Sam's dime. Now maybe that's an exaggeration...IIRC one of those reports was on NPR, so it is therefore immediately suspect to 1/2 or more of all good red-blooded Americans. :-) Marvin Long More than that - my real objection to NPR is that they _never_ mention, _not ever_, that every interview they conduct in Iraq is conducted in the presence of the Iraqi secret police, and that people who say things opposed to the government _have been_ killed for doing so. You don't think that maybe that affects the reliability of what we're hearing? As for what Bush plans - as far as I can tell, he plans to set up a federal system in Iraq modeled on the very successful government that has already been set up in the northern third of Iraq. I'm not sure that more detailed plans than that are possible at this point - many things depend (for example) on how much of the Iraqi army survives the war (ranging from most of it to none of it as the various possibilities). But I'd say that the major reason you're not hearing about the plans is that: 1. Saying so and so in Iraq will end up running the government is a good way to make sure that these people are very dead in the near future 2. What he _has_ said about his plans has not been covered at all by a media that is viciously hostile to both him and the war. But the Wall Street Journal, for example, has quite a few mentions of it. Peggy Noonan, for example, had an off-the-record interview with the President himself before the State of the Union in which he talked about it extensively. Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war and peace
On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Erik Reuter wrote: I consider the Bush administration a bunch of wealthy elitists who lived a charmed life, but I don't judge them on that but rather on what they do. Maybe the Iraqi people would do the same? Anything's possible, I suppose. I'm not sure the parallel is very exact, though. Marvin Long Austin, Texas Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Poindexter Ashcroft, LLP (Formerly the USA) http://www.breakyourchains.org/john_poindexter.htm ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war and peace
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To speculate that the Bush Administration would abandon Iraq is to speculate that the Bush Administration is profoundly incompetent - and only the most blinded of partisans do so. Will the nation building in Iraq be on the same scale as the nation building in Afganistan? Dan M. 1. Iraq is more important than Afghanistan 2. Iraq will be easier than Afghanistan - it has a history as a functioning nation-state, which Afghanistan singularly does not. 3. We're doing more in Afghanistan than you seem to think we're doing. The Karzai government is still standing, after all, and we just fought a fairly major battle there to suppress one of the warlords. Neither of those things would be happening without active and continual American support. Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war and peace
On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, John D. Giorgis wrote: Preemptive conquest and nation-building looks a lot like colonialism to a lot of people, especially the conquered. What evidence do you have of this? Does your statement here match what we know about the reactions of the people of Afghanistan or Serbia, to name the two most recent regimes changed by the US? I'm thinking more of all those post-colonial regions of the earth who were once occupied by people believing in their own god-given destiny and who would have no reason to be thrilled by Bush's appropriation of this hoary concept. Bear in mind, please, that I have granted that good case can be made for war in Iraq (although the case was a lot stronger 11-odd years ago); a good case can also be made for delay. I wish I could confidently side with one view, but I can't. It just seems to me that invoking America's manifest destiny is a lousy way to make the former case to any but the religious chauvanist core of the president's party. Out of curiosity, if you see a poor man being beaten on the street by a hoodlum to steal his wallet, what would you do?Let's say that you have a baseball bat, and the hoodlum does not have a weapon.Would you feel any moral obligation to assist the poor man whom you don't know? Of coure. But I wouldn't run through the neighborhood waving the bat about crying, You're next! And you're next! And you're next! God GAVE me this bat to whoop all your sorry hoodlum behinds! Marvin Long Austin, Texas Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Poindexter Ashcroft, LLP (Formerly the USA) http://www.breakyourchains.org/john_poindexter.htm ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war and peace
On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Robert Seeberger wrote: re: white man's burden I see this as a bitter diatribe against imperialism and not so much as a ralling cry for colonialism. Of course I am not a Kipling expert and my interpretation is only informed by my own experience writing poetry. I find the sarcasm blatant and laden with cynisism. To my (admittedly slight) knowledge Kipling was a critic of abusive colonial practices (and of what struck him as a naive American enthusiasm for colonialism in the Phillipines) but a supporter of the idea of a Christian colonial empire. I see in the poem a deep disillusionment with the colonial project combined with a belief it is nevertheless the right thing to do, if done right. Marvin Long Austin, Texas Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Poindexter Ashcroft, LLP (Formerly the USA) http://www.breakyourchains.org/john_poindexter.htm ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war and peace
--- Marvin Long, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The White man's burden has been sung. Who will sing the Brown man's? Mark Twain On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Gautam Mukunda wrote: Of course not. Surely you don't expect anyone to believe that that was the goal of European colonialism? Or that Kipling ever really thought it was (though he might have hoped things would turn out that way in the end)? Or that that American charity for the sick and starving of the === message truncated === Geez, Marvin, do you think all those places the British went were some sort of Rousseauian paradise before they went in? My family (on my Dad's side, at least) was pretty active in the Indian independence movement. I'm at least as, and I dare say considerably more, familiar with the depredations of coonialism than you. _But_: 1. There is a reason that the British empire was far more humane than any of the others (contrast it with Spain, France, or Belgium sometime) and that reason is largely the sentiments expressed by Kipling and 2. If Britain had peacefully left its colonies in, say, 1910 or so, I think we would say that, on the whole, the British Empire did good for the world. They held on too long, but a comparison of India (for example) before and after they left suggests to me that India would not be unified, would _certainly_ not be a democracy, and so on without their influence. They weren't ideal - American rule of conquered areas was considerably better, for example, judging by the American presence in Haiti and a few other places, and the American record could certainly stand to be improved. But they genuinely went about the mission of empire with a concern for the people they ruled that is not duplicated in any other other European powers. As far as I can tell you're so caught up in the rush of condemning what they did that you're kind of missing what was really going on. No one's defending the Empire as an altruistic endeavor. The extent to which it _was_ conducted in a not-so-bad fashion, though, is quite remarkable. Standing on a high horse and condemning other people is really easy and it feels really good. It's not terribly productive though. Tell me, if we do end up establishing a stable democracy in Iraq (a 50/50 chance at best, given the total # of Arab democracies in the world - I'll give you a hint, Iraq would take it from a round to a linear number) - would you at least feel a little embarassed? Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war and peace
--- Marvin Long, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To my (admittedly slight) knowledge Kipling was a critic of abusive colonial practices (and of what struck him as a naive American enthusiasm for colonialism in the Phillipines) but a supporter of the idea of a Christian colonial empire. I see in the poem a deep disillusionment with the colonial project combined with a belief it is nevertheless the right thing to do, if done right. Marvin Long He definitely felt it was the right thing to do. Kipling was the poet of Empire. Kipling's Recessional, though (probably my favorite Kipling poem) was a warning against Imperial hubris - it's probably the one poem every American should be required to read. Even my father, though, who (understandably, given his background) is about as staunch an anti-imperialist as you can get, will acknowledge that Britain did a lot of good in India. Contrast that with Belgium, for example, which did absolutely no good whatsoever in the Congo. What Kipling wrote was more than noble and empty sentiments (and, Marvin, the fact that you only see one meaning of the word noble makes me feel kind of sorry for you - would it make things clearer if I said that the astronauts in Columbia were involved in a noble quest or that the firefighters who went into the WTC made a noble sacrifice?) - the sentiments had a real and humane effect on large portions of the world. One that it's very easy to regret from our enlightened self-righteousness of the 21st century. Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war and peace
At 22:22 6-2-2003 -0500, John Giorgis wrote: I would say that it certainly will be much greater, if just for the difference in strategic reasons and the ready availability of oil revenue to the first Iraqi republic to finance its own development. Why would post-war Iraq be the first Iraqi republic? Iraq is *already* a republic. Jeroen Casual Observations van Baardwijk _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com LEGAL NOTICE: By replying to this message, you understand and accept that your replies (both on-list and off-list) may be published on-line and in any other form, and that I cannot and shall not be held responsible for any negative consequences (monetary and otherwise) this may have for you. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war and peace
On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Gautam Mukunda wrote: As far as I can tell you're so caught up in the rush of condemning what they did that you're kind of missing what was really going on. No one's defending the Empire as an altruistic endeavor. The extent to which it _was_ conducted in a not-so-bad fashion, though, is quite remarkable. Standing on a high horse and condemning other people is really easy and it feels really good. It's not terribly productive though. Tell me, if we do end up establishing a stable democracy in Iraq (a 50/50 chance at best, given the total # of Arab democracies in the world - I'll give you a hint, Iraq would take it from a round to a linear number) - would you at least feel a little embarassed? I would feel profoundly relieved; and if there's some embarrassment in that I won't mind. But I'm also trying to think beyond just Iraq. It seems to me that there are lots of post-colonial regimes in the world that don't live up to our moral standards and yet pose little threat, but whose cooperation and goodwill would be really, really useful for a global war against terrorist networks. I can't see how Bush's rhetoric about a God-given American destiny could serve any positive purpose in winning over portions of the world that will inevitably be skeptical about US motives and methods. And I don't see how those nations who used to be colonial powers can do anything but laugh at such talk. I understand that rebuilding Japan and Germany were not colonial enterprises; nor was intervening in Kosovo Serbia. Iraq may not be either, depending on how it is handled. So why indulge in language that hearkens back to the 19th century to describe America's role in the world? A question about India - to what degree was the success of colonialism in India a consequence of Britain's sagacity, and to what extent was it due to the resources Indian culture had to bring to bear on the problem of being colonized in the first place? Not all colonizers are equally bad, I agree; but not all colonizees will present colonizers with the same issues, either. I'm genuinely curious here: my knowledge of Indian history is woefully deficient. Marvin Long Austin, Texas Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Poindexter Ashcroft, LLP (Formerly the USA) http://www.breakyourchains.org/john_poindexter.htm ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war and peace
On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, J. van Baardwijk wrote: Why would post-war Iraq be the first Iraqi republic? Iraq is *already* a republic. In name only. Marvin Long Austin, Texas Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Poindexter Ashcroft, LLP (Formerly the USA) http://www.breakyourchains.org/john_poindexter.htm ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war and peace
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 9:17 AM Subject: Re: war and peace At 22:22 6-2-2003 -0500, John Giorgis wrote: I would say that it certainly will be much greater, if just for the difference in strategic reasons and the ready availability of oil revenue to the first Iraqi republic to finance its own development. Why would post-war Iraq be the first Iraqi republic? Iraq is *already* a republic. What do you think a republic is? It can't just be that it is called a republic, otherwise a cat that wears a sign that says bear is really a bear. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war and peace
Gautam said: 3. We're doing more in Afghanistan than you seem to think we're doing. The Karzai government is still standing, after all, and we just fought a fairly major battle there to suppress one of the warlords. Air support for this battle was provided by Norwegian F-16s, the first time the Norwegian airforce has seen combat since WW2. So there's another European (but not, of course, EU) country projecting force across a substantial distance, even if only in a small and unpublicised way. Rich GCU Small Aside ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war and peace
Gautam said: 2. If Britain had peacefully left its colonies in, say, 1910 or so, I think we would say that, on the whole, the British Empire did good for the world. They held on too long I think it's not so much that they held on too long, but that they left too suddenly. A more coherent, decades-long policy of disengagement aimed at leaving a string of thriving capitalist democracies behind would've been a much better idea. Instead, the detritus of Empire was the origin and cause of much of the current problems in Africa and the Middle East. (1910 wasn't even the point at which the Empire acquired its greatest territorial size - that happened during the inter-war years.) Rich GCU Not An Imperialist ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war and peace
--- Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 3. Air support for this battle was provided by Norwegian F-16s, the first time the Norwegian airforce has seen combat since WW2. So there's another European (but not, of course, EU) country projecting force across a substantial distance, even if only in a small and unpublicised way. Rich Actually, while it hasn't gotten much attention in the mainstream media, it has been publicized on the blogosphere - Instapundit mentioned it, for example, which is where I heard about it. So bravo to the Norwegians :-) Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war and peace
On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Gautam Mukunda wrote: Well, Bush's rhetoric is partly aimed at an American audience, and I think largely reflects his own feelings. Post-colonial powers may understand that. But the nations who used to be colonial powers will laugh at that because the cynicism of Old Europe is such that the idea of doing something out of idealism is laughable to them. They know that they never meant it when they used such language, so they assume that we don't either. But we do. Knowing this, then, and knowing that Europeans are not an undifferentiated mass of cynics, why indulge in this rather odd and (IMO) misleading formulation of American idealism? Is manifest destiny the only language of idealism at hand? For all the people who respect and admire America's accomplishments but are nervous about our growing power, what language could be more unnerving then that particular choice? And for Americans who doubt that this is the best use of our power, who haven't made up their minds (like me)...it's just not helpful. Not for me, anyway. I'm inclined to believe the president's intents are charitable, on the whole, but when his secretiveness is combined with such language it makes me very nervous. Thanks for the POV on India. Good stuff to think about. Marvin Long Austin, Texas Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Poindexter Ashcroft, LLP (Formerly the USA) http://www.breakyourchains.org/john_poindexter.htm ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war and peace
On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Gautam Mukunda wrote: He definitely felt it was the right thing to do. Kipling was the poet of Empire. Kipling's Recessional, though (probably my favorite Kipling poem) was a warning against Imperial hubris - it's probably the one poem every American should be required to read. Even my father, though, who (understandably, given his background) is about as staunch an anti-imperialist as you can get, will acknowledge that Britain did a lot of good in India. Contrast that with Belgium, for example, which did absolutely no good whatsoever in the Congo. True enough. What Kipling wrote was more than noble and empty sentiments (and, Marvin, the fact that you only see one meaning of the word noble makes me feel kind of sorry for you - would it make things clearer if I said that the astronauts in Columbia were involved in a noble quest or that the firefighters who went into the WTC made a noble sacrifice?) Please. Actually, it's the bitter irony of conflating noble as a blood-borne or god-given right to rule with surpassing excellence of character that makes White Man's Burden hard to swallow as a defense of colonialism (or of a quasi-colonialist attitude on the part of the president). It's the juxtaposition of meanings created by the double-edged history of the word itself that makes it seem bizarre when used in such a context. I know what you meant; but the way you put it seems to discount the tendency of noble intentions to go horribly awry that marked so much of colonialism, not just Kipling's version. - the sentiments had a real and humane effect on large portions of the world. One that it's very easy to regret from our enlightened self-righteousness of the 21st century. Granted, to a point. I'm not sure that the whole world will take the relative idealism of late British empire as characteristic of the history of colonialism in general, though, nor associate it automatically with the kind of language Bush chose to use. Marvin Long Austin, Texas Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Poindexter Ashcroft, LLP (Formerly the USA) http://www.breakyourchains.org/john_poindexter.htm ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war and peace
Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 9:02 PM Subject: Re: war and peace First, these arguments smell awful strongly of simply being a list-ditch effort of the peaceniks to find *any* reason to avoid what we have to do in Iraq. ^^ I would call myself a peacenik. I'm not really hot to go to war in general. I would call the group you are refering to the peace at any cost crowd. I think it is a very foolish attitude myself. Hyperdoves, maybe? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war and peace
On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Dan Minette wrote: Because that type of idealism is at the foundation of the US. Lincoln said the US was the last, best hope of mankind. Is manifest destiny the only language of idealism at hand? Why do you keep on using loaded terms that do not relate to the question at hand? Manifest Destiny refers to the concept that God gave the swath of land that is now the continuous 48 states to the United States, and that we had a right to take that land by any means necessary. The idealism that I hear Bush speak of is that, having been blessed with both liberty and power, we have an obligation to protect and expand that liberty worldwide. What I hear coming through Bush is a belief on the part of the Republican leadership and his administration that the US is God's instrument for cleansing the world of evil. The implication is that the US deserves to have enormous latitude in the means it chooses to do so, and nobody else really has a right to protest or moderate or to push alternatives to the means chosen by this administration in particular. Because the US is chosen, so to speak, and they aren't. If we humor and listen to the POV's and interests of other nations, it's just because we're gracious, not because we ought to or need to. Manifest destiny seems the appropriate historical analogy to such an attitude. That said, I will grant that my reading is filtered through my own massive levels and distrust and fear of the man and his associates. I am biased. But I don't think I'm far wrong. Spiderman is a closer comparison: with great power comes great responsibility. Spider-Man accepted that he was a lucky/unlucky (depending on his mood) guy and constantly questions the use of the power he's privileged to have. Such humility on the part of Bush Co. would be refreshing. Maybe I'm just a fan of existential crisis. But you seem uncomfortable with the very thought of objective morality. It sounds that the assumption that we can know right from wrong and act upon it is at the core of your discomfort. (I chose sounds like very deliberately, because I certainly am not in a position to tell you what is at the core of your discomfort. I am merely in a position to tell you what your posts sound like to me. I'd appreciate clarification.) The core of my discomfort is my feeling that this administration embraces and encourages the belief that the US has been chosen to be a unique instrument of objective morality by the Objective Moralizer. I agree it's something of an American tradition to do so. But I fear the consequences of hubris. Marvin Long Austin, Texas Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Poindexter Ashcroft, LLP (Formerly the USA) http://www.breakyourchains.org/john_poindexter.htm ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war and peace
- Original Message - From: Marvin Long, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 12:36 PM Subject: Re: war and peace What I hear coming through Bush is a belief on the part of the Republican leadership and his administration that the US is God's instrument for cleansing the world of evil. No hard feelings, but I think that your lack of familiarity with the concept of being called is evident here. Many people can be God's instrument. It depends on who answers the call. Ideally, many countries would answer. It appears that the world is relying on the US to be the only one that answers, and reserves the right to tell us when to answer and when not to. The implication is that the US deserves to have enormous latitude in the means it chooses to do so, and nobody else really has a right to protest or moderate or to push alternatives to the means chosen by this administration in particular. I think the answer is that only folks who are also willing to pay the price to answer the call have a right to protest or moderate or push alternatives. I had great hopes that the US could have stepped down some in the '90s, and let Europe handle the Balkans. It appears that Europe was unwilling to do anything of significance. Indeed the Dutchbat report faulted the US for asking for a consensus instead of telling Europe what it would do. Because the US is chosen, so to speak, and they aren't. If we humor and listen to the POV's and interests of other nations, it's just because we're gracious, not because we ought to or need to. Manifest destiny seems the appropriate historical analogy to such an attitude. I think a more appropriate analogy is that workers don't appreciate sidewalk superintendents. Spiderman is a closer comparison: with great power comes great responsibility. Spider-Man accepted that he was a lucky/unlucky (depending on his mood) guy and constantly questions the use of the power he's privileged to have. Such humility on the part of Bush Co. would be refreshing. Maybe I'm just a fan of existential crisis. I think that a public existential crisis followed by action is only in the movies. The core of my discomfort is my feeling that this administration embraces and encourages the belief that the US has been chosen to be a unique instrument of objective morality by the Objective Moralizer. I agree it's something of an American tradition to do so. But I fear the consequences of hubris. So do a lot of people, including Gautam. But, IMHO, the answer is for others to also claim the call, instead of mocking the call. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war and peace
- Original Message - From: Marvin Long, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 8:45 AM Subject: Re: war and peace On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Robert Seeberger wrote: re: white man's burden I see this as a bitter diatribe against imperialism and not so much as a ralling cry for colonialism. Of course I am not a Kipling expert and my interpretation is only informed by my own experience writing poetry. I find the sarcasm blatant and laden with cynisism. To my (admittedly slight) knowledge Kipling was a critic of abusive colonial practices (and of what struck him as a naive American enthusiasm for colonialism in the Phillipines) but a supporter of the idea of a Christian colonial empire. I see in the poem a deep disillusionment with the colonial project combined with a belief it is nevertheless the right thing to do, if done right. I understand your point and actually that is what I thought you were trying to say. But looking at Kiplings life and his other writings, then trying to filter *this* piece through these other things smacks of putting words in Kiplings mouth. (As if that were ever necessaryG). I do not doubt that you are correct about his beliefs, but do not see support for your interpretation of that particular piece *in* that specific piece. I would find it interesting if others posted what they read in the piece and compare notes on Kipling experience to see how much that effects ones reading of the piece. xponent Unfiltered Maru rob You are a fluke of the universe. You have no right to be here. And whether you can hear it or not, the universe is laughing behind your back. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war and peace
- Original Message - From: Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 9:41 AM Subject: Re: war and peace Gautam said: 2. If Britain had peacefully left its colonies in, say, 1910 or so, I think we would say that, on the whole, the British Empire did good for the world. They held on too long I think it's not so much that they held on too long, but that they left too suddenly. A more coherent, decades-long policy of disengagement aimed at leaving a string of thriving capitalist democracies behind would've been a much better idea. Instead, the detritus of Empire was the origin and cause of much of the current problems in Africa and the Middle East. Absolutely! Just look at Canada! G xponent Eh? Maru rob You are a fluke of the universe. You have no right to be here. And whether you can hear it or not, the universe is laughing behind your back. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war and peace
At 04:17 PM 2/7/03 +0100, J. van Baardwijk wrote: At 22:22 6-2-2003 -0500, John Giorgis wrote: I would say that it certainly will be much greater, if just for the difference in strategic reasons and the ready availability of oil revenue to the first Iraqi republic to finance its own development. Why would post-war Iraq be the first Iraqi republic? Iraq is *already* a republic. So is the People's Republic of China . . . LEGAL NOTICE: Bite me. ;-) -- Ronn! :) Almighty Ruler of the all, Whose Power extends to great and small, Who guides the stars with steadfast law, Whose least creation fills with awe, O grant thy mercy and thy grace, To those who venture into space. (Robert A. Heinlein's added verse to the Navy Hymn) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war and peace
On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Dan Minette wrote: No hard feelings, but I think that your lack of familiarity with the concept of being called is evident here. Many people can be God's instrument. It depends on who answers the call. Ideally, many countries would answer. It appears that the world is relying on the US to be the only one that answers, and reserves the right to tell us when to answer and when not to. I see I've failed to make myself clear. I mean God's *chosen* instrument. As in chosen people, tribe, or nation. If Bush feels personally called to use the might of the US to do good as best he understands it, that's one thing. If he wants to exhort the American people and the world to support him in the name of human decency, that's another. If lots of people feel the call and join him, that's yet another. So far we're in a mode of moral belief and understanding that can cross the secular and sectarian divide if one permits it (I say this because I believe religious people are not the only ones who feel purpose and obligations as calls or callings). I'd say that holds true even if Bush and others feel that America is in a unique position to answer a call and therefore hasn't the moral luxury to pass the buck, even to the UN security council. But if Bush and his cronies believe God is calling the nation as a whole in a manner unique and distinct from the way God calls everybody else, that's something else again -- especially if they think a unique authority accrues to themselves from such a call. It's this latter attitude, that America is privileged in God's sight, that I resist. It the attitude that God *put* America here because he knows the French and the Russians and the Germans (and pretty much everyone else except the British upper class) will be a bunch of spineless apostates that oozes from the GOP and which scares the hell out of me. It's an attitude that's not necessary for any argument stemming from humanitarian concern or from charitably understood self-interest, and the more it's reinforced the more likely it is to lead us to a colossal lesson in humility, IMO. And as for calls themselves, must the manner in which one answers an alleged call never be up for debate? Nor the priority of the world's numerous and competing calls? And where was this call in the 80's when we first learned Saddam was trying to eliminate the Kurds, or in the early 90's when we betrayed the Iraqi revolution we ourselves had encouraged? Allow me to be skeptical when the men currently in power say they've heard a call, please. I think the answer is that only folks who are also willing to pay the price to answer the call have a right to protest or moderate or push alternatives. I had great hopes that the US could have stepped down some in the '90s, and let Europe handle the Balkans. It appears that Europe was unwilling to do anything of significance. Indeed the Dutchbat report faulted the US for asking for a consensus instead of telling Europe what it would do. I agree Europe (or a part of Europe, I don't want to overgeneralize) is screwed up on this issue. I agree you have to be willing to pay the piper if you want to go to the dance. I'm not sure what this kind of conflict of interests and priorities has to do with the particular attitude I fear, though. I'm pretty sure that folly of others doesn't excuse my own excessive pride. Marvin Long Austin, Texas Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Poindexter Ashcroft, LLP (Formerly the USA) http://www.breakyourchains.org/john_poindexter.htm ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war and peace
- Original Message - From: Marvin Long, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: BRIN-L Mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 11:56 PM Subject: war and peace A musing that occurs to me as I stay up past my bedtime. One. Nobody has any moral credibility w/respect to acting in the interests of the Iraqi people, which makes all moral posturing over the issue highly suspect, no matter who does it. (Too many opportunities to help the Iraqi people have been passed up or betrayed by the US and the rest of the world already.) I'll agree that the main motivation is the perceived self interest of the United States. I'd also say that was the motivation for the Marshal Plan too. But, an argument could be made in both cases that the actions would benefit the people of the countries where the plan is implemented. Obviously, the Marshal Plan worked. Clearly there have been other instances where you could argue for good intentions but bad results for actions by the United States. The jury is out on what will happen with Iraq, and I'm not really all that sanguine about it. But, I think that the folks who have pushed the invasion of Iraq the hardest in the Bush administration actually do have a vision that Iraq can become a much better place for its people after the US intervenes. Two. The way to create moral credibility on the matter is to put forward a detailed long-term plan explaining either (a) how Iraq will be rebuilt and improved after a war, or (b) why Iraq and the world will be better off left alone. Or, more importantly, if we do change the government forcibly, as it looks like we will do, the proof will be in the pudding. The closest the US/UK have come to achieving the former is Bush mumbling a rehashed version of manifest destiny suggesting it's America's turn to take up the 21st century version of the White Man's Burden. Why mock his view like that? The US does not have colonies. I think that the actions and results in Japan and Europe after WWII is the ideal Bush wants to emulate. Unless you think that human rights just exist in a cultural context, and dictatorial rule and genocide are acceptable within other cultural contexts and it is terribly egotistical to think that other people think like we do and don't want totalitarian government. Plus some mumblings about putting Iraqi exiles (whom Iraqis living in Iraq mostly hate) in power; plus other mumblings about how costs of an invasion might be defrayed by later oil profits, maybe. The details of occupation and rebuilding are not forthcoming, not even in the sketchiest of terms. But, it does exist in broad outline. I know what it is, I'm just not sure they can pull it off. A man who would be king is everbody's best customer. There is a positive moral case to be made for dethroning Saddam, but BushCo has done a miserable job of explaining why its war plan isn't just a way to cut everybody else of a deal, IMO. If anybody in the UN gave a damn about the Iraqi people, it seems to me, then there should be lots of argument and wrangling over how to manage a post-war Iraq with a coalition of interested parties. That would be the proper mix of idealism and cynical opportunism. But everybody's pretending that self-interested opportunity (TWAT aside) isn't an issue; it's a matter of principle! Well, I see a coherent argument on Bush's part, I just don't see the willingness to pay the price to execute it. Lets assume that, via deux ex machina, Iraq has a stable representative government that uses the oil revenue to build a modern economy with a nice broad middle class. How does this effect the US? My guess is that it would be of overwhelming benefit to the US, just as a prosperous Japan and Europe are. Whether it can be accomplished is a totally different question. My guess is no, that's why I lean against a regime change. But, it is a difficult question. Which suggests to me that everybody is lying. About different things, maybe, but lying nevertheless. I'm curious to see what you think is wrong with my picture. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war and peace
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The closest the US/UK have come to achieving the former is Bush mumbling a rehashed version of manifest destiny suggesting it's America's turn to take up the 21st century version of the White Man's Burden. Why mock his view like that? The US does not have colonies. I think that the actions and results in Japan and Europe after WWII is the ideal Bush wants to emulate. Unless you think that human rights just exist in a cultural context, and dictatorial rule and genocide are acceptable within other cultural contexts and it is terribly egotistical to think that other people think like we do and don't want totalitarian government. Dan M. Apart from which, has anyone actually read The White Man's Burden? It was racist to modern ears - although not to those of his time, let's give Kipling some credit, please, but if people did they might realize it does have something to say. Take up the White Man's burden-- Send forth the best ye breed-- Go, bind your sons to exile To serve your captives' need; To wait, in heavy harness, On fluttered folk and wild-- Your new-caught sullen peoples, Half devil and half child. Take up the White Man's burden-- In patience to abide, To veil the threat of terror And check the show of pride; By open speech and simple, An hundred times made plain, To seek another's profit And work another's gain. Take up the White Man's burden-- The savage wars of peace-- Fill full the mouth of Famine, And bid the sickness cease; And when your goal is nearest (The end for others sought) Watch sloth and heathen folly Bring all your hope to nought. Take up the White Man's burden-- No iron rule of kings, But toil of serf and sweeper-- The tale of common things. The ports ye shall not enter, The roads ye shall not tread, Go, make them with your living And mark them with your dead. Take up the White Man's burden, And reap his old reward-- The blame of those ye better The hate of those ye guard-- The cry of hosts ye humour (Ah, slowly!) toward the light:-- Why brought ye us from bondage, Our loved Egyptian night? Take up the White Man's burden-- Ye dare not stoop to less-- Nor call too loud on Freedom To cloak your weariness. By all ye will or whisper, By all ye leave or do, The silent sullen peoples Shall weigh your God and you. Take up the White Man's burden! Have done with childish days-- The lightly-proffered laurel, The easy ungrudged praise: Comes now, to search your manhood Through all the thankless years, Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom, The judgment of your peers. If you can come up with a better description of what we will do in Iraq than Send forth the best ye breed . . . To serve your captives need except for the fact that the people or Iraq will be partners, not captives, I have yet to hear it. Kipling was an Imperialist, but he wasn't a cheerful one, or one arguing that Britain should go out and rape and plunder across the world. There was plenty of that (and we shall, hopefully, avoid doing any of that) but there was plenty Fill[ing] full the mouth of Famine / And bid[ding] sickness cease as well. I'm guessing you don't object to that, Marvin? Patronising and racist, certainly. But there's a certain nobility to it for all of that. Unless you know of something the US can do that would be _better_ for the people of Iraq than toppling Saddam Hussein, maybe you should be a little bit more sympathetic to the President. He's doing it for American interests, certainly - there's nothing immoral in that. He is, after all, the President of the United States, not of Iraq. But the course he has chosen is the single best one that he could have chosen were he governing solely in the interests of the people of Iraq, and he deserves some acknowledgement and credit for that as well. Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war and peace
Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Marvin Long, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: BRIN-L Mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 11:56 PM Subject: war and peace Plus some mumblings about putting Iraqi exiles (whom Iraqis living in Iraq mostly hate) in power; plus other mumblings about how costs of an invasion might be defrayed by later oil profits, maybe. The details of occupation and rebuilding are not forthcoming, not even in the sketchiest of terms. But, it does exist in broad outline. I know what it is, I'm just not sure they can pull it off. I'm not entirely optimistic about how well that's going to work out. http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002947 A lot of opportunities to ensure a reasonable transition to a democratic Iraq run by Iraqis may have already slipped through the administration's fingers. I don't think they're handling the what comes after Saddam question very well in advance, where it'll probably make a great difference in the long run. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war and peace
- Original Message - From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 12:32 PM Subject: Re: war and peace Unless you know of something the US can do that would be _better_ for the people of Iraq than toppling Saddam Hussein, maybe you should be a little bit more sympathetic to the President. Huh? My position is that I lean against invading Iraq because I don't think we've done due diligence for nation building afterwards. I had expected and hoped we would have paid more attention to Afghanistan afterwards. I don't think a position that agrees with his goals but is worried that the ground work needed to achieve those goals hasn't been done yet is all that unsympathetic. If I had an engineering project proposal and someone told me that the first phase looked good, they agreed with the second phase, but I needed to demonstrate feasibility before they would OK it, I would not consider them unsympathetic. What I would consider better is doing a trial run in nation building in Afghanistan before imposing a regime change in Iraq...while containing Hussein via sanctions. I know that position has real minuses also, so that's why its a lean position instead of a strong position. That being said, we may have gotten to the point where its best to carry through with the invasion and hope for the best. He's doing it for American interests, certainly - there's nothing immoral in that. He is, after all, the President of the United States, not of Iraq. Since I compared it with the Marshall Plan, which you know I approve of, I thought I tacitly stated that I believed that Bush's intentions were good. But the course he has chosen is the single best one that he could have chosen were he governing solely in the interests of the people of Iraq, and he deserves some acknowledgement and credit for that as well. I don't think that's a given. If the transition to a better government is smooth, as I hope it will be, then you would be right. But do you honestly think there will be no land mines along the way? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war and peace
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unless you know of something the US can do that would be _better_ for the people of Iraq than toppling Saddam Hussein, maybe you should be a little bit more sympathetic to the President. Huh? My position is that I lean against invading Iraq because I don't think we've done due diligence for nation building afterwards. I had expected and hoped we would have paid more attention to Afghanistan afterwards. I don't think a position that agrees with his goals but is worried that the ground work needed to achieve those goals hasn't been done yet is all that unsympathetic. If I had an engineering project proposal and someone told me that the first phase looked good, they agreed with the second phase, but I needed to demonstrate feasibility before they would OK it, I would not consider them unsympathetic. I don't think that's a given. If the transition to a better government is smooth, as I hope it will be, then you would be right. But do you honestly think there will be no land mines along the way? Dan M. Hi Dan - sorry - if it wasn't clear, I was replying to Marvin, not you. I pretty much agree with what you're saying, except that from what I've heard, the Bush Administration has put a lot more thought into post-war Iraq than you're giving them credit for. This Administration has a penchant for the secretive - too much so even for me, and I'm very sympathetic to such concerns - and they just don't seem to be talking about it much, but I think there is a real vision for post-war Iraq and a committment to being there for a very long time. In fact, I would expect that we will soon be moving bases from Saudi Arabia and Qatar into Iraq and establishing an effectively permanent presence there. Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war and peace
- Original Message - From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 1:06 PM Subject: Re: war and peace . Hi Dan - sorry - if it wasn't clear, I was replying to Marvin, not you. Oh, that makes a lot more sense. I pretty much agree with what you're saying, except that from what I've heard, the Bush Administration has put a lot more thought into post-war Iraq than you're giving them credit for. If that's true, why are they wasting a golden opportunity in Afganistan? Everything I've read indicates that little has been done in the past year to try to rebuild that country. I would have been more than happy to approve a significant nation building program. Bush could have used the bully pulpit to rally Americans towards rebuilding. This Administration has a penchant for the secretive - too much so even for me, and I'm very sympathetic to such concerns - and they just don't seem to be talking about it much, but I think there is a real vision for post-war Iraq and a committment to being there for a very long time. In fact, I would expect that we will soon be moving bases from Saudi Arabia and Qatar into Iraq and establishing an effectively permanent presence there. Moving bases doesn't seem to be the hard part to me. Working with a variety of factions seems much harder. As an experimentalist at heart, I would have loved for us to have worked hard over the last year on rebuilding Afghanistan's infrastructure. Helping to build/rebuild mosques, schools, roads, sanitary water facilities, sewage plants, etc. seems very reasonable. And, of course, working on eliminating land mines, but I'm guessing that's being done without much fanfare. If the Administration is actually doing all that, and not publicizing it, I'd be shocked, because it would mean that they lost their PR touch. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war and peace
On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Dan Minette wrote: I'll agree that the main motivation is the perceived self interest of the United States. I'd also say that was the motivation for the Marshal Plan too. But, an argument could be made in both cases that the actions would benefit the people of the countries where the plan is implemented. I agree that self-interest and altruism may not be mutually exclusive, and the marshall plan is a good example of that. The problem is that, except for the personality of Hussein himself, I just don't see many parallels between post-WW2 Germany and modern Iraq, IMO. Japan was a natural and self-willed nation, so to speak. Even Germany was, after its unification. Iraq is not. Afghanistan is not. Many other nasty nations are not; their current geographical configurations don't necessarily match the historical identities of the people stuck in those configurations. The nations we're talking about building now must have it imposed on them by preemptive force, may very well be more difficult to handle as societies than Japan or Germany, and the US has, I think, a lot less will for the job than after WWII and during the Cold War. An off-the-wall question: are there any economies of scale to be had from trying to build many nations at once? Obviously, the Marshal Plan worked. Clearly there have been other instances where you could argue for good intentions but bad results for actions by the United States. The jury is out on what will happen with Iraq, and I'm not really all that sanguine about it. But, I think that the folks who have pushed the invasion of Iraq the hardest in the Bush administration actually do have a vision that Iraq can become a much better place for its people after the US intervenes. Clearly they have a vision of a burgeoning democracy in Iraq. I haven't seen any signs that they have a clear vision of how to get there, though. Two. The way to create moral credibility on the matter is to put forward a detailed long-term plan explaining either (a) how Iraq will be rebuilt and improved after a war, or (b) why Iraq and the world will be better off left alone. Or, more importantly, if we do change the government forcibly, as it looks like we will do, the proof will be in the pudding. A big part of what I'm trying to say is about persuading people of the goodness of the US's intentions before we go to war. Without any kind of clearly articulated post-war plan (except, We'll imitate the Marshall plan, being voiced by veterans of administrations that have betrayed the Iraqi people in the past) how can we convince anybody that we're serious about achieving the rosy outcome that we're promising? The closest the US/UK have come to achieving the former is Bush mumbling a rehashed version of manifest destiny suggesting it's America's turn to take up the 21st century version of the White Man's Burden. Why mock his view like that? The US does not have colonies. I think that the actions and results in Japan and Europe after WWII is the ideal Bush wants to emulate. Unless you think that human rights just exist in a cultural context, and dictatorial rule and genocide are acceptable within other cultural contexts and it is terribly egotistical to think that other people think like we do and don't want totalitarian government. I'm mocking it because expressing it the way he does shows no hint of understanding that his chosen means may ultimately undermine his goal, however lofty it is in his imagination. Preemptive conquest and nation-building looks a lot like colonialism to a lot of people, especially the conquered. Even without colonies, a stated belief that it is the God-appointed destiny of the US to, over time, overthrow by various means the nasty regimes of the world smacks of the worst kind of hubris and is not calculated to gain allies for a project that must require long-term allies. Moreover, I believe it is a lie, or at best a rash exaggeration. For starters, nation-building is a lengthy process. Bush can't promise that succeeding administrations will follow through with Afghanistan or Iraq, much less that they will continue a policy of preemptive invasion and reform across the world for the many decades it would take. For this reason alone talk of a divine manifest destiny sounds like vain boasting. I'd expect it to sound especially inane to the ears of nations who used to believe they had a divinely appointed world mission and have been taught otherwise by history. Also Bush's party - and the US military in general, I think - has not been interested in nation-building of late. Afghanistan and the lack of a plan for Iraq suggest to me that we will lose interest quickly in such projects once we feel we can safely declare a victory - no doubt to be billed as one of many to come - over terror (and secure a few oil fields and military bases in the bargain). Once the domestic economy and ballooning
Re: war and peace
The White man's burden has been sung. Who will sing the Brown man's? Mark Twain On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Gautam Mukunda wrote: Apart from which, has anyone actually read The White Man's Burden? It was racist to modern ears - although not to those of his time, let's give Kipling some credit, please, but if people did they might realize it does have something to say. Just because it wasn't racist to the ears of his time doesn't mean it wasn't racist in fact. And it was racist to many ears of his time [*], particularly the ears of those who opposed American colonial adventurism the Phillipines. Take up the White Man's burden-- Send forth the best ye breed-- Go, bind your sons to exile To serve your captives' need; To wait, in heavy harness, On fluttered folk and wild-- Your new-caught sullen peoples, Half devil and half child. The world is full of unchurched barbarians who need a good dose of British Christianity to be worth a whit. It'll be hard work, preaching to those brown people you've yoked to the plow, but it's your duty. Take up the White Man's burden-- In patience to abide, To veil the threat of terror And check the show of pride; By open speech and simple, An hundred times made plain, To seek another's profit And work another's gain. Mind you, you must be model Christians, of course. Not just blustery blow-hard conquistador types. Otherwise the vicious natives will never believe your colonial enterprise is really intended for their benefit. Take up the White Man's burden-- The savage wars of peace-- Fill full the mouth of Famine, And bid the sickness cease; And when your goal is nearest (The end for others sought) Watch sloth and heathen folly Bring all your hope to nought. Be warned that no matter how hard you work to feed, clothe, and educate these stinking masses (or rather, no matter how hard your force them to feed and clothe the Empire in addition to themselves, while educating them a bit at a time), they will always be on the verge of revolt, and you'll often be forced to start over again. Take up the White Man's burden-- No iron rule of kings, But toil of serf and sweeper-- The tale of common things. The ports ye shall not enter, The roads ye shall not tread, Go, make them with your living And mark them with your dead. Someday there will be real societies here; modern and industrial; economic engines that will benefit the natives and the Empire both. You will probably not live to see it, but have faith! Take up the White Man's burden, And reap his old reward-- The blame of those ye better The hate of those ye guard-- The cry of hosts ye humour (Ah, slowly!) toward the light:-- Why brought ye us from bondage, Our loved Egyptian night? For you must never forget that these barbarians are slaves to their own deficient natures. Even as you improve their lot by teaching them the Christian and British ways of acting and thinking, they will hate you for forcing it on them. However slow it seems, though, forget not that progress will be made. Take up the White Man's burden-- Ye dare not stoop to less-- Nor call too loud on Freedom To cloak your weariness. By all ye will or whisper, By all ye leave or do, The silent sullen peoples Shall weigh your God and you. If you persevere and show a civilized warrior's mien to those who fancy themselves strong on the basis of their propensity to violence alone...then at last you will win them over, for their benefit and for God's greater glory. Take up the White Man's burden! Have done with childish days-- The lightly-proffered laurel, The easy ungrudged praise: Comes now, to search your manhood Through all the thankless years, Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom, The judgment of your peers. This task is set before as your mark of manhood and maturity. No matter how insane things seem or become, doubt not your purpose. (Do not let facts interfere with the truth!) Ultimately you'll be judged by those who sent you on this mission, not those whose lives you must force to new ways. It will make you cynical, cold, and bitter; that is the price of serving one's race and Lord, and it is an honorable wound to bear. --- If you can come up with a better description of what we will do in Iraq than Send forth the best ye breed . . . To serve your captives need except for the fact that the people or Iraq will be partners, not captives, I have yet to hear it. But I have no real description of what we will do in Iraq. Such a description is exactly what is lacking. If Bush wants me to trust his intent, he must tell me his intent so that I may judge his performance of it. Kipling was an Imperialist, but he wasn't a cheerful one, or one arguing that Britain should go out and rape and plunder across the world. I can accept that Kipling hoped to reform the more abusive aspects of colonialism. This particular
Re: war and peace
On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 04:29:19PM -0600, Marvin Long, Jr. wrote: 2. Install military government while making current Iraqi exiles a local authority/advisory council (in spite of the fact that no one in Iraq wants them). How do we know that most people in Iraq would hate a government organized by the INC? -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war and peace
On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Erik Reuter wrote: 2. Install military government while making current Iraqi exiles a local authority/advisory council (in spite of the fact that no one in Iraq wants them). How do we know that most people in Iraq would hate a government organized by the INC? I don't, really. But several reports out of Iraq that I've seen and heard contain a notes about how the locals consider the Iraqi exile community a bunch of elitists who escaped when the going got tough and who hope to lord it over the rest when they return on Uncle Sam's dime. Now maybe that's an exaggeration...IIRC one of those reports was on NPR, so it is therefore immediately suspect to 1/2 or more of all good red-blooded Americans. :-) Marvin Long Austin, Texas Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Poindexter Ashcroft, LLP (Formerly the USA) http://www.breakyourchains.org/john_poindexter.htm ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war and peace
At 12:49 PM 2/6/2003 -0600 Julia Thompson wrote: I'm not entirely optimistic about how well that's going to work out. http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002947 Julia, I think that it is important to keep in mind that this is simply an opinion column that is presenting only one side of the Iraqi National Congress story.There are many people who are highly skeptical of the INC's track record and competence, as well as genuine fears that the INC is not well-respected among the Iraqi people. I think that there may be good reasons for the US Occupational Military Government to find leaders among the Iraqi people that survived Saddam's regime. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war and peace
At 11:06 AM 2/6/2003 -0800 Gautam Mukunda wrote: Hi Dan - sorry - if it wasn't clear, I was replying to Marvin, not you. I pretty much agree with what you're saying, except that from what I've heard, the Bush Administration has put a lot more thought into post-war Iraq than you're giving them credit for. Indeed. The NY Times has published several leaked reports about US plans for a minimum of two-year occupational presence in Iraq, and the formation of an Iraqi citizens' consultative assembly - that will lead into a democratic legislature for Iraq. Unlike, Mr. Friedman, I am not buying that the Bush Administraiton needs to lay open its post-occupational plans for Iraq right from the outset. First, these arguments smell awful strongly of simply being a list-ditch effort of the peaceniks to find *any* reason to avoid what we have to do in Iraq.Secondly, it seems awfully premature to go completely public with post-war Iraq plans. For one thing, many object to the formulation on these plans in that it paints a picture that war is inevitable. As Bush has publicly stated, war is not inevitable. Saddam could either abide by resolution 1441, or else step down and go into exile, and war could be averted.For another thing, we don't know what Iraq will look like after a war. For example, will Baghdad fall like Kabul?Or will we need to rebuild Baghdad? And how will the critics, the snipers, and the nittering nabobs of negativity react to Bush having to change his highly detailed plans following the conclusion of an Iraqi war?Indeed, the go too public with the post-Iraq plans smacks a little bit of recording your Super Bowl video before the AFC Championship game. If anything goes wrong in the war, you can bet that Bush will then be criticized by these same people for spending too much time discussing post-war-Iraq and not enough time on winning the war, particularly with minimal casualties. Indeed, Bush can barely garner support in the UNSC for disarming Iraq - and now you want national and international consensus on how to *rebuild* Iraq before Bush goes to war?Do you have any idea exactly what you are asking for? Time end of the MIddle Eastern winter - and the optimal time for attack is quickly approaching (Yes, we would both have to fight in it, but Saddam Hussein doesn't necessarily need to equip his trooops with biochem suits.) Moreover, we still haven't been able to trace the source of the anthrax attacks that killed several Americans, shut down the US Congress, and changed the life of tens of thousands Washingtonians. I'm not implying that Iraq launched those anthrax attacks, but it certainly raises the specter of Iraq having the capability to launch an untraceable biological attack on the US. And according to the United Nations, Iraq has loads upon loads of biological and chemical weapons that it has not accounted for, including anthrax. Quite simply, the Bush Administration needs to concentrate on winning public and international support of executing the war, and it is simply the nature of open democratic governance that the post-war plans need to be discussed later. In fact, I would expect that we will soon be moving bases from Saudi Arabia and Qatar into Iraq and establishing an effectively permanent presence there. Indeed, that's why I find the fears of the US abandoning Iraq to be very misplaced.The Bush Administration is known to be motivated by moral principles and a long-term strategic vision. It is simply impossible to imagine the US abandoning what will be in a few months one of the US's most important strategic allies.Remember that Iraq borders axis-of-evil chater member Iran, and kernel of evil Saudi Arabia. To speculate that the Bush Administration would abandon Iraq is to speculate that the Bush Administration is profoundly incompetent - and only the most blinded of partisans do so.They are fully aware that their doctrine of pre-emption did not really begin in Afghanistan, it begins here in Iraq, and its legitmacy will forever be judged by the end results in Iraq.And then there are the strategic considerations. The US will get the job done. simply because we cannot afford to fail. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war and peace
- Original Message - From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 9:02 PM Subject: Re: war and peace To speculate that the Bush Administration would abandon Iraq is to speculate that the Bush Administration is profoundly incompetent - and only the most blinded of partisans do so. Will the nation building in Iraq be on the same scale as the nation building in Afganistan? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war and peace
At 03:20 PM 2/6/2003 -0600 Dan Minette wrote: If that's true, why are they wasting a golden opportunity in Afganistan? I take exception to this. First, the rest of the world has hardly borne their full share of the load in rebuilding Afghanistan, and the US is stretched thin by the need to defend South Korea, Western Europe (just see how infuriated they get when we talk about leaving), Taiwan, and Afghanistan while preparing to attack Iraq. Secondly, I don't know what illusions you were under about how easy rebuilding Afghanistan was going to be, but Kabul only fell a year ago, and remnants of the Taliban and warlords remain in the mountains. Moreover, Afghanistan did need to be rebuilt - there was never anything to *re*build. Afghanistan needs to be built. A few weeks ago, I posted a list of achievements in building Afghanistan that have already been accomplished in only a year - from an article that was primarily devoted to criticizing some of the short comings of our post-Afghanistan policy. Nevertheless, I don't think that any fair assessor of this successes could call our post-war record in Afghanistan a blown opportunity. Perhaps you think that the War on Terror should have stopped for 20 years while we figured out how to build a free and prosperous Afghanistan from scratch.I, however, think that it is perfectly reasonable to disagree with that assessment. September 11th created a remarkable political climate in the United States for pre-emptively securing the safety of the US from external threats. This window of opportunity could not be missed. Helping to build/rebuild mosques, schools, roads, sanitary water facilities, sewage plants, etc. seems very reasonable. And, of course, working on eliminating land mines, but I'm guessing that's being done without much fanfare. If the Administration is actually doing all that, and not publicizing it, I'd be shocked, because it would mean that they lost their PR touch. Alternatively, given the large difference between the highest economic development achieved by Aghanistan and that achieved by Iraq, they don't to lead *anyone* to believe that post-war Iraq will be just like post-war Afghanistan. Additionally, much of the work is probably being performed not by soldiers, but by various charitable NGO's (with a good deal of official US support) - and thus this stuff is harder to take credit for. And lastly, given the difficulty we have had in getting support for the attack on Iraq, there's probably been little time for playing up these side issues - and indeed, they may even view the topic as a distraction, since no doubt *somebody* will start arguing for more for Afghanistan no matter what is being done there, and this will distract the agenda of the day from Iraq to other topics. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war and peace
John D. Giorgis wrote: Additionally, much of the work is probably being performed not by soldiers, but by various charitable NGO's (with a good deal of official US support) - and thus this stuff is harder to take credit for. Can you point me to a list of accomplishments so far, no matter who's accomplished them? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war and peace
At 09:14 PM 2/6/2003 -0600 Dan Minette wrote: Will the nation building in Iraq be on the same scale as the nation building in Afganistan? I would say that it certainly will be much greater, if just for the difference in strategic reasons and the ready availability of oil revenue to the first Iraqi republic to finance its own development. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war and peace
At 04:29 PM 2/6/2003 -0600 Marvin Long, Jr. wrote: I'm mocking it because No, your sig file provides all the evidence anyone needs of why you are mocking it. Preemptive conquest and nation-building looks a lot like colonialism to a lot of people, especially the conquered. What evidence do you have of this? Does your statement here match what we know about the reactions of the people of Afghanistan or Serbia, to name the two most recent regimes changed by the US? Even without colonies, a stated belief that it is the God-appointed destiny of the US to, over time, overthrow by various means the nasty regimes of the world smacks of the worst kind of hubris and is not calculated to gain allies for a project that must require long-term allies. Moreover, I believe it is a lie, or at best a rash exaggeration. Out of curiosity, if you see a poor man being beated on the street by a hoodlum to steal his wallet, what would you do?Let's say that you have a baseball bat, and the hoodlum does not have a weapon.Would you feel any moral obligation to assist the poor man whom you don't know? I know that I feel this moral obligation. and it seems that Bush does too.Just look at the attention he devoted to AIDS in Africa against all odds in his State of the Union. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war and peace
- Original Message - From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 9:19 PM Subject: Re: war and peace At 03:20 PM 2/6/2003 -0600 Dan Minette wrote: If that's true, why are they wasting a golden opportunity in Afganistan? I take exception to this. First, the rest of the world has hardly borne their full share of the load in rebuilding Afghanistan, You know better than to believe it would. and the US is stretched thin by the need to defend South Korea, Western Europe (just see how infuriated they get when we talk about leaving), Taiwan, and Afghanistan while preparing to attack Iraq. The cost of really doing nation building is high. Bush needs to tell that to the American people. Pushing through a tax cut that is narrowly focused on the wealthiest Americans sends the wrong message. As the Houston business column pointed out: for a significant fraction of the population, the used car market has a much greater impact on their net worth than the stock market. Let me quote from an article at http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/107469_rashid06.shtml quote Ahmed Rashid did not take issue with the claim that Saddam Hussein is hiding chemical and biological weapons and is clearly the most dangerous Central Asian dictator in power today. And he only alluded to a fundamental disagreement with the way the United States plans to topple him. His message was a warning: Unless the world learns from the mistakes made after the Taliban was crushed in Afghanistan, the problems in Iraq and instability in the region will be 10 times worse. There's been no reconstruction in Afghanistan, he said. Until you start creating a self-sustaining economy, you won't win hearts and minds. Rashid said the United States now knows terrorism has political and economic causes. This is rooted in a failed state, he said. The same situation is going to happen in Iraq. You can finish the war in 10 days but are you going to straighten up the mess afterward? Afghanistan had to be a model that showed we can bomb you, we can kill you, but then we are going to build you into the modern world, he said. The U.S. has failed at that. He said the United States came to that realization shortly after an assassination attempt on President Karzai -- the only leader Rashid who believes is able to unify and modernize Afghanistan. Rashid is one of a few Mideast experts to whom the Pentagon and State Department officials turn for advice. He got calls from those agencies shortly after the failed Karzai assassination attempt, asking Is there anyone else? But he and other experts agreed there is no one. Finally now, you've got some commitment -- $1 billion for road building -- but a year, you wasted, he said. end Secondly, I don't know what illusions you were under about how easy rebuilding Afghanistan was going to be, but Kabul only fell a year ago, and remnants of the Taliban and warlords remain in the mountains. I'll agree that the Taliban are still in the mountains, but lets get real. The warlords rule all but Kabul. The US deals with them, for goodness sakes. What we've done is move back one space in Afganistan reinstituting the way things were before the Taliban took over. Yes, the Taliban was a step down, definately. But, we should be satisfied with Afganistan being a patchwork of warlord run enclaves? How much have we spent rebuilding Afganistan in the last year? Was it even $3 billion? Moreover, Afghanistan did need to be rebuilt - there was never anything to *re*build. Afghanistan needs to be built. A few weeks ago, I posted a list of achievements in building Afghanistan that have already been accomplished in only a year - from an article that was primarily devoted to criticizing some of the short comings of our post-Afghanistan policy. The Taliban are no longer in power. Al Quida was routed. That's all I saw. Nevertheless, I don't think that any fair assessor of this successes could call our post-war record in Afghanistan a blown opportunity. We had military sucess, no doubt. That's about it. Perhaps you think that the War on Terror should have stopped for 20 years while we figured out how to build a free and prosperous Afghanistan from scratch. No. But, do you really think going back to the previous chaos is something to be proud of? I, however, think that it is perfectly reasonable to disagree with that assessment. September 11th created a remarkable political climate in the United States for pre-emptively securing the safety of the US from external threats. This window of opportunity could not be missed. The safety will not be secured by replacing a very bad situation with a merely bad one. Would you argue that a country run by warlords is in good shape, for example? The problem is that bad can deteriorate to very bad rather quickly. Helping to build/rebuild mosques, schools, roads, sanitary water facilities
Re: war and peace
At 10:02 PM 2/6/2003 -0500 John D. Giorgis wrote: Unlike, Mr. Friedman, I am not buying that the Bush Administraiton needs to lay open its post-occupational plans for Iraq right from the outset. Indeed, I forgot the most important reason to not lay out these plans now. At least one key ally and another fairly important ally (Saudi Arabia and Jordan, respectively) are *opposed* to a democratic regime in Iraq. They are both hoping for a return to the old (Hashemite?) monarchy. There is definitely no need to jeopardize the necessary support of Saudi Arabia for the war by prematurely discussing our past-Iraq plans, especially since a central and implicit goal of our post-Iraq plans will be to create a regimine that will one day lead to regime change one way or the other in Saudi Arabia. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war and peace
- Original Message - From: Marvin Long, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 7:29 PM Subject: Re: war and peace The White man's burden has been sung. Who will sing the Brown man's? Mark Twain On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Gautam Mukunda wrote: Apart from which, has anyone actually read The White Man's Burden? It was racist to modern ears - although not to those of his time, let's give Kipling some credit, please, but if people did they might realize it does have something to say. Just because it wasn't racist to the ears of his time doesn't mean it wasn't racist in fact. And it was racist to many ears of his time [*], particularly the ears of those who opposed American colonial adventurism the Phillipines. I read this much differently than you Marvin. Take up the White Man's burden-- Send forth the best ye breed-- Go, bind your sons to exile To serve your captives' need; To wait, in heavy harness, On fluttered folk and wild-- Your new-caught sullen peoples, Half devil and half child. The world is full of unchurched barbarians who need a good dose of British Christianity to be worth a whit. It'll be hard work, preaching to those brown people you've yoked to the plow, but it's your duty. Send your sons half a world away to integrate into our empire people who are more or less slaves to the benefit of the wealthy back home, wasting their lives for the rich. Take up the White Man's burden-- In patience to abide, To veil the threat of terror And check the show of pride; By open speech and simple, An hundred times made plain, To seek another's profit And work another's gain. Mind you, you must be model Christians, of course. Not just blustery blow-hard conquistador types. Otherwise the vicious natives will never believe your colonial enterprise is really intended for their benefit. Take a chance on being killed in your sleep by those who do not take to the yoke we impose on them so that the rich back home will reap the profits of your work and the work of the indiginous peoples. Take up the White Man's burden-- The savage wars of peace-- Fill full the mouth of Famine, And bid the sickness cease; And when your goal is nearest (The end for others sought) Watch sloth and heathen folly Bring all your hope to nought. Be warned that no matter how hard you work to feed, clothe, and educate these stinking masses (or rather, no matter how hard your force them to feed and clothe the Empire in addition to themselves, while educating them a bit at a time), they will always be on the verge of revolt, and you'll often be forced to start over again. I agree with this part. Take up the White Man's burden-- No iron rule of kings, But toil of serf and sweeper-- The tale of common things. The ports ye shall not enter, The roads ye shall not tread, Go, make them with your living And mark them with your dead. Someday there will be real societies here; modern and industrial; economic engines that will benefit the natives and the Empire both. You will probably not live to see it, but have faith! All the product of your work exploiting these people will show up back home, but you will never see this nor will you benefit from it. Take up the White Man's burden, And reap his old reward-- The blame of those ye better The hate of those ye guard-- The cry of hosts ye humour (Ah, slowly!) toward the light:-- Why brought ye us from bondage, Our loved Egyptian night? For you must never forget that these barbarians are slaves to their own deficient natures. Even as you improve their lot by teaching them the Christian and British ways of acting and thinking, they will hate you for forcing it on them. However slow it seems, though, forget not that progress will be made. You will keep a yoke on them and they will always be ripe for revolt, but in the end your fate is not that different from theirs. Take up the White Man's burden-- Ye dare not stoop to less-- Nor call too loud on Freedom To cloak your weariness. By all ye will or whisper, By all ye leave or do, The silent sullen peoples Shall weigh your God and you. If you persevere and show a civilized warrior's mien to those who fancy themselves strong on the basis of their propensity to violence alone...then at last you will win them over, for their benefit and for God's greater glory. You will be trapped by this task and everything you do will expose you for who you really are and everything you value for what it truely is. Take up the White Man's burden! Have done with childish days-- The lightly-proffered laurel, The easy ungrudged praise: Comes now, to search your manhood Through all the thankless years, Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom, The judgment of your peers. This task is set before as your mark of manhood and maturity. No matter how insane
Re: war and peace
On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 08:40:24PM -0600, Marvin Long, Jr. wrote: I don't, really. But several reports out of Iraq that I've seen and heard contain a notes about how the locals consider the Iraqi exile community a bunch of elitists who escaped when the going got tough and who hope to lord it over the rest when they return on Uncle Sam's dime. I consider the Bush administration a bunch of wealthy elitists who lived a charmed life, but I don't judge them on that but rather on what they do. Maybe the Iraqi people would do the same? -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: war and peace
- Original Message - From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 9:02 PM Subject: Re: war and peace First, these arguments smell awful strongly of simply being a list-ditch effort of the peaceniks to find *any* reason to avoid what we have to do in Iraq. ^^ I would call myself a peacenik. I'm not really hot to go to war in general. I would call the group you are refering to the peace at any cost crowd. I think it is a very foolish attitude myself. xponent Discernment Maru rob You are a fluke of the universe. You have no right to be here. And whether you can hear it or not, the universe is laughing behind your back. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
