Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA27726 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 18 Dec 2001 12:17:23 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: cheetah.nor.com.au: Host 034.analog.ppp.lismore.dataheart.net [202.147.132.34] claimed to be green-machine Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20011218230834.006e6d78@pophost.nor.com.au> X-Sender: jeremyb@pophost.nor.com.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 23:08:34 +1100 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk From: Jeremy Bradley <jeremyb@nor.com.au> Subject: RE: conditional support for war on Iraq In-Reply-To: <F1043sgT404CfngVdwn00003cc8@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
As me old Grandmother used to say: "you can't be good for nothing if you
are good for a bad example". This communication is a bad example of myopic
meem-team loyalty.
What makes you believe in the 'might-is-right' meme? Do you ever think
about what it is like as a victim of US agression? What would you do in
their situation?
Jeremy
At 10:57 PM 14/12/01 -0500, you wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>From: "Lawrence DeBivort" <debivort@umd5.umd.edu>
>>Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>>To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
>>Subject: RE: conditional support for war on Iraq
>>Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 13:52:04 -0500
>>
>>And after Iraq, who do you not like next?
>>
>After we help the Iraqi people establish a more friendly gov't you mean?
>It's Hussein and his regime which are the problem, not the Iraqi people.
>>
>>Pakistan?
>>
>I have no animosity towards Pakistan, even if the ISI had any Taliban
>connection or regardless of whether their madrassas were recruiting grounds.
>I hope they can maintain peace with India, though the situation over Kashmir
>is volatile. I'd like to see a democratic leadership there. Didn't Musharif
>(sp?) oust Nawaz Sharif and impose a miltary style rule over that country.
>Maybe Bhutto can make another run at it. I dunno.
>>
>>Rwanda? Cuba?
>>
>Contrary to the sentiments of the exiles in South Florida, I'd like to see
>us normalize relations with Cuba and foster a more beneficial situation to
>be in place when Castro finally kicks the bucket (around 2075 or so).
>>
>>Israel?
>>
>Attack an ally? What have they done to us besides that ugly USS Liberty
>situation. I'd like to see them and Palestine get along better, but things
>don't look so good for that happening.
>>
>>Tajikistan? China?
>>
>China is a country to be watched closely. The situation with that plane a
>while back showed that even at the brink of conflict we were able to reason
>with them and Bush came out looking not too shabby. We should treat China as
>a nation which must earn our trust. I've got reservations about them. I'd
>certainly not want to come to blows with them, because the repercussions
>would be potentially catastrophic. Maybe over time the relationship will
>grow more amicable, but I'm wondering how the human rights situation is
>going over there.
>>
>>Burma? In what order do you suggest the US issue
>>ultimatums and attack them? Ooops, I forgot a few: Haiti (double-ooops, I
>>forgot, we already did them. I'm sure Haiti is in great shape as a result.
>>
>I'm not a big fan of humanitarian campaigns, though at least Haiti was
>important because of its closeness to our shores.
>>
>>Does anyone know?), Uganda, Mali -- definitely Mali -- and then of course
>>of
>>the French are not quite as respectful as I'd like them to be... oh, and
>>Yemen and Ireland.
>>
>Ireland?
>>
>>And the Basques, they sure have it coming, as well.
>>Maybe Germany, while we are at it, just a preemptive thing, of course...and
>>Berkeley. Hmmm, this has all kinds of possibilities. Maybe the US could
>>set
>>up a lottery, to determine which country gets it next.
>>
>>
>If we wind up tangling with Iraq again, hopefully that will be it for major
>military campaigns. Other terrorist harboring states might eventually become
>a consideration, though maybe minor special operations missions would
>suffice. As long as Hussein is in power, it seems we will need a continued
>presence in Saudi. Ousting him could allow us to eventually remove our
>troops, so it doesn't become another long-term South Korea type occupation.
>
>Did you notice that I said we should try giving Iran a second chance,
>opening relations with them, long severed after they took some of our people
>hostage?
>
>Oh, and I don't know if one could say we've targeted Afghanistan *per se*
>since we are working in cahoots with mujahideen against the Taliban and Al
>Quaeda. I'd like to see Afghanistan rise like a phoenix from the ashes of
>all the fighting they've seen over the years with Soviet occupation and the
>recent struggle over there. Maybe I'm too optimistic though.
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
>> > Of Scott Chase
>> > Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 12:18 PM
>> > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>> > Subject: conditional support for war on Iraq
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > If Bush et al decide, upon reasonable closure in the Afghanistan
>>capaign,
>> > where the Al Quaeda are eliminated and an interim government put
>> > forth with
>> > the objective of bringing the ethnic factions together under one
>> > umbrella,
>> > and with clear objectives in mind for a campaign in Iraq, I would not be
>> > opposed.
>> >
>> > This campaign need not be immediate nor a full scale war, though I'm not
>> > eliminating this possibility. Forces should be amassed and ultimatums
>> > issued. There should be full inspections allowed throughout Iraq for
>> > whatever nefarious weapons programs Hussein might be backing.
>> > Failing this,
>> > the time for action will be obvious and hopefully our allies
>> > support us. The
>> > thorn in our side which has been festering all this time should
>> > be removed
>> > before it becomes too infectious to deal with in the future. Once
>> > closure is
>> > achieved conditions allowing the facilitation of a more friendly
>> > government
>> > in Iraq ready to be embraced by the community of the world should
>> > be put in
>> > place. Old wounds should be healed and the Iraqi people helped to
>> > get back
>> > on their feet.
>> >
>> > Upon closure in Iraq, the U.S. should plan on finally ending our
>>military
>> > presence in Saudi Arabia, ironically one of the issues that got bin
>>Laden
>> > all hot and bothered. Hopefully we can open relations with Iran,
>> > which has
>> > appeared to be a little less hostile, and give them a second
>> > chance, if our
>> > campaign in neighboring Iraq doesn't alienate them.
>> >
>> > If we have clear objectives set forth, failing stronger
>> > diplomatic pressures
>> > working beforehand, and a definite exit plan upon closure, I think I can
>> > support military action in Iraq.
>> >
>> > It's time to nip the problems in the bud before they become even
>> > worse and
>> > harder to manage later on in the ballgame. While we have
>> > momentum, we might
>> > as well get it over with.
>> >
>> > _________________________________________________________________
>> > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
>
>
>===============================================================
>This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
>Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
>For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
>see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
>
>
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Dec 18 2001 - 12:23:49 GMT