Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA23112 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Thu, 18 Apr 2002 14:02:31 +0100 From: "Lawrence DeBivort" <email@example.com> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: RE: Bush's War on Terrorism Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 08:57:08 -0400 Message-ID: <NEBBKOADILIOKGDJLPMAGEKDCOAA.email@example.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 In-Reply-To: <F2079SLkn2yJs15S3rw00008265@hotmail.com> Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
Thanks for the URL and further thoughts, Scott.
Good summary article by Frontline. All they need to do is add a couple of
paragraphs for Bush, and his doctrinal turn a couple of weeks ago.
OK, not the US -- the UN you say. Have you had a chance to think about what
a would UN peace-keeping force might like in the I.-P. conflict? (Keeping
in mind the past UN peace-keeping efforts there, and the significant
frustrations that they ran into. I can give you citations on these, if you
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf
> Of Scott Chase
> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 9:55 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: RE: Bush's War on Terrorism
> >From: "Lawrence DeBivort" <email@example.com>
> >Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> >To: <email@example.com>
> >Subject: RE: Bush's War on Terrorism
> >Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 19:04:53 -0400
> >Thanks for the thoughtful post, Scott. What is the Weinberger doctrine?
> Scan down on this URL and you'll see the basics pretty much as I recall
> them. The W.D. might be an unattainable ideal for many cases
> where military
> force is contemplated, but it's a good starting guideline to use before
> getting involved in something serious.
> Overall I'd exclude solely humanitarian and peacekeeping missions
> from the
> scope of U.S. military involvement. That should be the job of the
> U.N. IMO.
> The Gulf War pretty much passed the litmus test where Somalia failed. I
> remember when troops were being sent there during the last part
> of Bush the
> Elder's term and I thought the move was a mistake (with the W.D.
> in mind at
> the time). Part of me thought Bush was trying to leave Clinton with an
> instant headache to deal with, but I'm probably wrong.
> Sending U.S. troops to be "peacekeepers" between Israelis and
> would be a serious mistake. The military is, to be blunt, for breaking
> things and killing people, and I can see no clear reason for
> doing either in
> that insoluble conflict.
> > > I watched "Politically Incorrect" with Bill Maher last night and
> > > have come
> > > to the concusion that we in the US do have a deep set tendency to
> > > view that
> > > conflict through the lenses of pro-Israeli sentiment. It's
> hard for us
> > > see the Palestinian POV. It seemed from some of Dubya's rhetoric and
> > > Powell's stances that the US would have a more neutral or even-handed
> > > approach. If we can't be neutral, this matter needs to rest
> > > solely with the
> > > U.N. The US does NOT need to commit our forces to that region as
> > > peacekeepers. I don't think we've got the necessary objectivity, plus
> > > for commitments more in line with the Weinberger doctrine.
> MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
> 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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 18 2002 - 14:18:34 BST