Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Really, It's That Simple.
John. (01)
One cannot but agree with your argument, if considered in isolation.
But it begs some questions, such as why are Americans active in Saudi
Arabia, in Afghanistan, in the Philippines, etc.? Why are Americans
supporting Israel? (02)
Then there are some further questions such as how come Americans (and
other peoples) do what they are doing? (03)
I know, there are such replies as: protecting oil interests, the Jewish
vote, what have you. And underneath these responses there are all sorts
of sentiments that are taken for granted by entire segments of the world
population, layers of society, etc. And then there are those widely
different perceptions of what are the *right things* to do - all the way
from being prepared to die for one's country to exploiting fellow
citizens to the max, damaging the country as a whole. (04)
What makes Americans decide on their actions? How well do Americans
participate in the making of American decisions? How well are Americans
informed about the ramifications of their *collective*decisions? How
well CAN Americans participate in the decision-making process? How well
are Americans informed about the decisions they make - and the
alternatives to those decisions? (B.T.W., it is fair to substitute for
the word "Americans" the inhabitants of any other country.) (05)
Are peoples the world over supposed to mind their "own" (i.e. within
their national borders) business? Even though all live on the same
Spaceship Earth? Ought people break a lance for the underdog? Etc., etc. (06)
Isn't this what such efforts as Doug's are about? To help human
organizations (corporations, governmental, NGOs, institutions,
individuals) make better decisions? (And, no, I am not suggesting that
the realization of Doug's vision is going to solve all of the world's
problems, but it might make a step in the right direction.) (07)
Illuminating here, for those who have access to Howard Bloom's "Global
Brain," are the chapters called "Reality is a shared hallucination, "
"The conformity police," and "Diversity generators." The chapter named
"The conformity police" is especially interesting in the context of what
we call "The Unfinished Revolution"; it is all about imposing paradigms. (08)
John, the short answer is that we need to find better ways of
collectively examining and deciding on where we collectively are going -
not just within national borders, but throughout the world.
It's a toughie ... (09)
Henry (010)
John Maloney wrote: (011)
> Recently, Vice President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld warned that
> more terror attacks are a certainty and may involve the detonation of
> an atomic weapon on American soil. They have concentrated the mind
> wonderfully. Even a small, crude nuclear device, exploded in a U.S.
> port or city, could kill many thousands more than died on Sept. 11.
>
> Rightly, the U.S. government is focused on how to anticipate such an
> attack, prevent it, prepare for it.
>
> But there has been no debate over the most critical question. Why? Why
> do these Islamic radicals so hate us they are willing to commit
> suicide, if they can take hundreds or thousands of us with them?
>
> They don't know us. They cannot defeat or destroy the United States,
> even with an atom bomb. What can they hope to accomplish? Are they
> simply madmen?
>
> In our focus on improved intelligence, preemptive strikes, color-coded
> alerts and evacuation plans, have we overlooked a course of action
> that could end the threat of cataclysmic terror? Like Poe's "Purloined
> Letter," is a way out right there on the mantelpiece in front of us?
>
> Consider: While no Western nation has endured an act of terror on the
> scale of 9-11, all have known terror.
>
> Brits were ambushed by the Irish in the war of independence from 1919
> to 1921. British civilians were blown up by Zionists in the King David
> Hotel in 1946. Settlers were murdered by Mau Mau in Kenya. French were
> massacred in movie theaters and cafes by the Algerian FLN until 1962.
> U.S. Marines were blown up in Beirut in 1983. From Netanya to
> Jerusalem to Tel Aviv, Israelis today die in terror attacks and
> suicide bombings.
>
> In all these atrocities, terror was a weapon of the weak and stateless
> against Western powers they could not defeat with arms. In each case,
> terror was used to expel an imperial power or drive out foreign
> troops. In each case but one, terror ended when the Western power went
> home.
>
> The dynamiting of the King David Hotel convinced the British to
> accelerate their departure from Palestine. Zionist terror ended. Mau
> Mau terror ended when the Brits left Kenya. When De Gaulle cut Algeria
> loose, FLN terror ended. When Reagan withdrew his Marines from Beirut,
> anti-American terror ended in Lebanon.
>
> Lesson? The price of empire is terror. The price of occupation is
> terror. The price of interventionism is terror. As Barry Goldwater
> used to say, it is as simple as that. When Israel departed Lebanon,
> Hezbollah's attacks fell off almost to nothing. But as long as
> Israelis occupy the West Bank, which Prime Minister Barak conceded
> belongs at least 95 percent to the Palestinians, Israel will be hit by
> terror attacks.
>
> Either Israel gets out, or it pays the price of staying in: terrorism.
>
> But this is not about Israel -- it is about us. It is about why we are
> being told by our leaders, in tones of resignation and fatalism, that
> it is not a question of whether, but of when, the next act of
> cataclysmic terror occurs here, and why we must accept the possibility
> that a nuclear weapon will be exploded here.
>
> But when Americans ask, "Why do they hate us?" and "Why do these
> Islamic radicals on the other side of the earth want to come over here
> and commit hara-kari killing us?" we get responses that ought not to
> satisfy a second-grader. They hate us, we are told, because we are
> democratic and free and good, and we have low tax rates.
>
> Well that is no longer enough. Before, not after, the next terror
> attack on this country, America's leaders should start telling the
> truth: Evil though they may be, Islamic killers are over here because
> we are over there. They are not trying to kill us because they dislike
> our domestic politics, but because they detest our foreign policy.
>
> Fifteen of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. They did not fly
> into those twin towers to protest universal suffrage or to advance
> self-determination for the Palestinian people. As Osama bin Laden
> said, they want us to stop propping up the Saudi regime they hate, and
> to get off the sacred Saudi soil on which sit the holiest shrines of
> Islam. They want our troops out of Saudi Arabia - and if we don't get
> out, they are coming over here to kill us any way they can.
>
> That is reality. Now while America should use every weapon in her
> arsenal, from intelligence to diplomacy to war, to prevent terror and
> to punish terror, we must address the central issue: Terror on
> American soil, and eventual cataclysmic and atomic terror on American
> soil, is the price of American empire.
>
> Is the empire worth it? French, Brits, even Soviets said no. They went
> home. And nothing over there - not oil, not bases in Saudi Arabia, not
> global hegemony - is worth risking nuclear terror over here.
>
> ###
>
> (012)