Re: [ba-unrev-talk] NOT: Really, It's That Simple
Interesting. Some of your observations I totally agree with.
Other parts, I find myself at odds with. (01)
You're absolutely right that it is always "the other side" that
are the fanatics. And the U.S. *was* a colony full of fantatics,
at that. (02)
On the other hand, the most violent century in the human history
was at least as much a matter of *having* conscience as of
having none. Were it not for conscience, atrocities of various
kinds would have been carried out more quietly, with less
Despite that, I find myself wondering what would be an
acceptable solution.Would it be easier if the U.S. simply
walked away? Would oil flow more freely? Would we
sleep better? Would Israel survive? (04)
Is that the solution you propose? If so, what would you predict
with respect to the outcome? (05)
Personally, I think it is useful to recall the blustering that
preceded the U.S. presence in Afghanistan. There are,
unfortunately, people in this world to whom any form of
concession is seen as a weakness to take advantage of,
and to whom force is the only viable argument. (06)
There are other people who are open to reason and who are
tolerant of other viewpoints. (07)
The trick is in knowing who you are dealing with, and dealing
with them appropriately. (08)
Or do you see isolationism as a better policy for the U.S.?
(It's been tried before. With various degrees of success,
and it too, as garnered it's share of criticism...) (09)
John Maloney wrote: (010)
> EA, et al --
> Thanks for your messages.
> First, this morsel was about the USA. Israeli, like Ireland, Kenya,
> France, etc., was used as an example.
> Hegemonic leaders always have a name for their adversaries. It's often
> 'fanatic.' (E.g. for unrev, open source fanatics.)
> It is probably safe to say that King George III of Great Britain felt
> the colonies were full of 'fanatics.'
> How is possible to say the Western Nations have conscience, after
> leading the most violent century in human history? That is ethnocentric
> and foolish.
> Isn't it clear that mankind is poorly served by empire?
> We are not talking retreat; we're talking common sense.
> Proximate domain, e.g., neighborhood, town, canton, is innate to humans.
> Technology helps transcend the geographic and physical barriers.
> Technology can recreate constructive dominion in a flash.
> Ironically, the tendency is to repeat the demented building of empire,
> in spite of all the advantages of technology.
> Look at all the ridiculous globalization efforts. Right before our eyes,
> we are witnessing an unprecedented power grab by unelected dilettantes
> under the guise of some unctuous global fellowship. Boy, what a farce.
> It is extremely dangerous, too.
> In fact, We Aren't The World. Despite Madame Allbright's outrageous,
> hegemonic and disturbing claim, "Nous sommes la nation indispensable,"
> (?)country after country are scrambling to distance themselves from the
> Here is another one that is beyond the pale.
> The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously to exempt U.S. peacekeepers
> from the International Criminal Court for 1 year. (?)
> "It offers us a degree of protection for the coming year," said U.S.
> Ambassador to the U.N., John Negroponte.
> Huh? Whaat? Come again? I beg your pardon.
> Now our Ambassadors want "protection" from the U.N.?
> Share the wealth! Give every country protection from the U.N. Not for a
> year, but forever.
> Meta-government, aka, empire, colonialism, interventionism, etc.,
> doesn't work, never has, never will. Sadly, the tuition for this lesson
> is terrorism.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com
> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Eric Armstrong
> Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 9:43 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] NOT: Really, It's That Simple
> John, I respect your opinions and the reasoning behind them, but on this
> on I have to disagree. (011)