RE: Bush's War on Terrorism

From: Edward Turner (
Date: Sun Apr 28 2002 - 23:57:50 BST

  • Next message: Alan Patrick: "Re: Shakers"

    Received: by id AAA13577 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 00:03:44 +0100
    X-Originating-IP: []
    From: "Edward Turner" <>
    Subject: RE: Bush's War on Terrorism
    Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 22:57:50 +0000
    Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
    Message-ID: <>
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Apr 2002 22:57:50.0465 (UTC) FILETIME=[1F291F10:01C1EF08]
    Precedence: bulk


    >The point I was trying to make is that the U.S. is using money to try and
    >control the various parties and are attempting to support both sides in an
    >attempt not to appear biased. It's not working.

    I'd have been more convinced had you provided some stats here to back up
    your argument. If there were NO American bias, surely one way this might
    show itself would be in (parity of) aid dollars received by both parties?

    When our
    >government gives
    >money to another country, the money goes from government to government.
    >Once out of our hands, we have no control over what that government spends
    >it on. So it would be nice if they spent it on shcools and hospitals, the
    >truth is they most often spend it on guns and building armies.

    It is the opinion of most rational observers that much U.S. aid to Israel is
    offered in the full knowledge that it will be spent on guns and building
    armies. That's probably why some $2billion of the aid Israel is receiving
    this year is offically termed 'Foreign Military Finance' - other than
    'Foreign Educational or Foreign Health Finance' just to labour the point.

    Aside from possessing the power to cancel FMF aid to Israel it is within the
    powers of the United States government to tear up arms contracts between
    Israel and U.S. weapons manufacturers once that financial aid has been

    >Palestine not having an army, what do you think all those people shooting
    >back at the Israelis are?
    >>Just because they don't wear uniforms
    >mean they are not organized for waging war.

    Any definition of an 'army' that seems to legitimise Palestinian suicide
    bombings is not one worth working with IMHO.

    >>If not stopped by
    >Arafat would be getting shiploads of arms from Iran and other countries.
    >It's more a matter of their isolation than their desire that keeps them
    >having as big an army as Iraq.

    Arms from America to Israel are more problematic for peace in the middle
    east than arms from Iran to Palestine ATM, although both trades should be

    Had Arafat an army the size of Iraq's that army would not be a threat to the
    existence of Israel considering the nuclear, biological and chemical weapons
    defense capabilities they have built up over the past 54 years. What such an
    army WOULD mean is that the Israeli Defence Force could no longer destroy
    Palestinian life and society with impunity as they can now. And that Israel
    could no longer endanger the security of the middle east, and hinder U.S.
    foreign policy objectives with respect to Iraq and global terrorism in the
    process. Of course, I'm not arguing that Arafat needs MORE arms to balance
    the IDF, no way, just that Israel's offense capabilities need to be reined
    back a notch or ten and that the U.S. with the United Nations has some power
    and authority to do that.

    Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device:

    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 : Mon Apr 29 2002 - 00:25:17 BST