[ba-unrev-talk] "She goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy."
Allow me to tap this
First, in the grand
scheme of things, an attack to unseat Iraq's leadership, is wrong, foolish and
In my judgment, what's
driving this is four-fold, as follows -
1.) Iraq harbors a
flourishing and legitimate middle-class. It is profoundly
necessary for Middle East stability. However, 1 in 5 are in exile. 2 out of 3
have lost family members. They're very pissed.
2.) 500K Iraqi infants,
children and aged have perished in the last 9 years, due to the
criminal U.N. sanctions, inaction and the flaccid 'global
Oil. This scenario, a crackpot overlooking G8 heroin, is the
staple of every War College simulation known to man.
4.) The U.N., IMF, WTO,
GATT, NAFTA, and other planks oft the NWO. Cries of USA unilateralism are really
stupid. If the USA was blessedly unilateral, she would NOT be in this mess in
the first place. Empire never works, as history has painfully shown
over and over and over (sic) again.
The table is set, and
the wine is poured. The forthcoming action will hardly be a 'war.'
Sadly, it'll be over before you can say Theodore 'Teddy' Roosevelt. Thank you
All the arrogant
globalists in Geneva and on 1st Avenue have been served a bitter pill,
and it is high time to wise up, accept the ugly consequences, and begin to
reform and retire their sickening 'we-are-the-world'
Quite frankly, the world
is not mature enough to lead itself.
In 1821, when the Greeks were fighting the Ottoman Turks in
their own war for independence, the USA's finest Secretary of State,
John Quincy Adams wrote,
“Wherever the standard of freedom shall be
unfurled, there will America’s heart, her benedictions, and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of
monsters to destroy.”
This holds. Big Time.
What the goofy
opponents miscast as isolationism (?) is the last line of defense between
America’s superpower status and the fate of empires past. Please.
Get with it!
On Behalf Of Henry K van Eyken
Sent: Saturday, September 28,
2002 2:48 PM
[ba-unrev-talk] Not In Our Name
Gary and Dennis.
I don't believe we are really at odds about the Hussain/Iraq issue other
than, perhaps, in some details. And if we ae at odds about those then it is
most likely so because of our different sources of information and differing
personal experiences. So, all in all, any differences are mostly a matter of
insufficient availability of shared, verifiable facts.
I believe that, on this forum, we'd do well to address that latter weakness
in citizens' private and public debates. How can we design and use digital
technology to overcome that weakness, and also how can we arrive at better,
more efficient decision-making processes?
Doug's dream is to come up with ways in which a group of people with
different talents can work and evolve together to solve complex problems in as
short an order as possible. That is what his OHS/Hyperscope ideas are about.
From my own side, I believe that we ought be actively engaged in arriving at
better ways for individual citizens to arrive at more reliable assessments on
which to base our atitude and conduct in the democratic process.
These would be good things to concentrate on because once the Hussain
crisis is no longer front and center in our preoccupations, there will be
other crises - well, there already are, and plenty of them. And with the kind
of openmindedness and talent on this forum and the resources available to us,
we should be in as good a position as any group to make some modest headway
toward designing urgently needed tools.