Re: Fw: future language

From: Kenneth Van Oost (
Date: Sun May 12 2002 - 09:56:08 BST

  • Next message: Kenneth Van Oost: "Re: pls direct me to a memetics list <eom>"

    Received: by id JAA03874 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Sun, 12 May 2002 09:52:15 +0100
    Message-ID: <000f01c1f992$f5101d60$bbadeb3e@default>
    From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <>
    To: <>
    References: <>
    Subject: Re: Fw: future language
    Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 10:56:08 +0200
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
    X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
    Precedence: bulk

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Scott Chase <>
    In ways I think Sharon as military guy or field general is easier to
    tolerate than Sharon the politician or prime minister. Generals make good
    generals, but when they enter the political arena...

    << I surely can agree on that though, it is necessary to hit back once you
    were attacked, keeping the present situation in mind. If you go back in
    history and you see what happened what led up to this you get a complete
    different story, but that is not the point here.
    Like you said, warfare and politics are two different things which in a
    Sharon combines. He conducts politics on a military bias; strategic aspects
    are of some importance and in a sense he is conducting a war, but OTOH
    he has to govern a nation. And in that respect he lacks the ability, IMO.
    If fighting all Israeli's ennemies is his agenda for his country, well I don
    know, it does seem a little bit slim, doesn 't it !?
    How can you built a nation, forsee some prospect for you people, how can
    you develop economical/ technological/... aspects/ elements if everything
    has to benefit the national security !?

    ( SNIP)

    I also am strongly compelled to agree with him, as he was one of the players
    in support of the operation apparently, that Israel's attack on the Iraqi
    nuclear reactor was important. In retrospect it was probably beneficial not
    only to Israel, but to the U.S. to take that reactor out.

    << Agreed, but than again, why is Israel building A- bombs !?
    To protect itself !? Ok, I can live with that, but lets turn the things
    down for a while. Why can/ may not Iraq built a nuclear reactor, and in
    the end make A- bombs for attacking Israel !?
    Why, in a sense, may you possess bombs for massive destruction only
    for defense and not for the attack !? Didn 't someone said, attacking is
    the best defense !?

    Of course, this is just an exercise and I understand Hussein and an A- bomb
    doesn 't quite go well together, but will Israel ever use the bomb !?
    I doubt that. So we are back to square one.
    I suppose it is necessary for Israel to enforce its military means to defend
    itself but don 't you think that the presence of that armery along its
    bouring borders has a reverse effect_ that in fact Israel neighbours are
    thinking those weapons doesn 't act for the defense but for the attack !?
    And with Sharon acting as head of state....

    ( SNIP)

    It's good to see the peace process between Israel and Egypt (ie-Sadat/Begin)
    trough Sharon's eyes.

    << Yeah, the latest news on that is that Egypt, Saudi- Arabia and Syria
    try to make a deal, settling for peace if Israel hands over pieces of land
    the Palestinians. Probably Sharon will spoil it down the drain....

    My feathers start getting ruffled when it comes to Sharon's discussion of
    the settlement policies.




    =============================================================== 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:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 12 2002 - 10:03:57 BST