From: Grant Callaghan (email@example.com)
Date: Thu 21 Nov 2002 - 19:55:25 GMT
"The evil that men do lives after them, but the good is oft interred with
their bones." Will Shakespeare in Mark Antony's oration over the corpse of
> > I'll deal with Grant and Joe's comments together if I may.
> > First Grant's comment:
> > < It is NOT a plot by the American government against
> > Great Britain. To imply that it is and to equate personal feelings
> > with national policy is disengenuous to say the least.>
> > The point is that there is no more evidence that Iraq is directly or
> > indirectly behind 9/11 than there is for US governmental involvement
> > in Northern Ireland. So attacking Iraq now as part of the war or
> > terror is just as misplaced as blaming the US goverment for Omagh,
> > which of course I as not seriously doing.
> > <And its a shame to see you fly off so tangentially into
> > laundry-list
> > > irrelevance. One has to deal with the situation as it IS, not as it
> > > WAS.
> > >
> > > And as it IS, is that the Western world is facing a determined and
> > > sustained series of terror attacks by Radical Muslims (not most
> > > Muslims, but still a lot of people - maybe 10-15% of them - are
> > > sympathetic) who wish to inflict a convert-or-die (to Islam and
> > > shar'ia law) choice upon it.>
> > >
> > Two things wrong with this. First, I would take issue with the
> > claim that there is a 'sustained' series of attack on the entire
> > Western world, but rather specific sporadic attacks, many of which are
> > directed specifically at the USA, and further American military
> > targets.
>There have been many, not all aimed specifically at the US, and many
>other unsuccessful attempts. The embassies in Kenya and Tanzania,
>the USS Cole, The bombing of the French tanker, the attack on the
>synagogue in Tunisia, the Bali bombing, and of course the WTC
>attacks. Unsuccessful were attempts to bomb the LAX airport, to fly an
>aircraft into the Eiffel tower, and to bring down a dozen airliners over
>the Pacific, among others. Pretty damned sustained, if you ask me.
> > The relationship of the Bali bomb to 9/11 and attacks
> > elsewhere is mooted not proven.
>Wrong; it has been connected to Al Quaeda by captured perpetrators.
> > Second, none of this legimitates an
> > attack against Saddam's Iraq at this time.
>There are different, but equally good, reasons to disarm Saddam; since
>he has used chemical weapons against his neighbor Iran, attacked
>three of his neighbors during his rule (Iran, Kuwait, Israel) and also
>used chemical weapons against oppressed groups in his own country,
>he is not trustable with either such weapons (and he has made vast
>quantities of both chemical and biological weapons) or with nukes.
> > Why not attack North Korea
> > which is equally a rogue state and enemy of the US, which openly
> > claims to have weapons of mass destruction?
>This is an argument FOR disarming Saddam and halting his quest for
>nukes before he can obtain them and blackmail other nations into not
>responding when he moves to annex the Arabian Peninsula (his goal all
>along). We should have dealt with North Korea before this; we should
>not make the same mistake with Saddam.
> > <And what does the refusal to sign environmental
> > > and economic treaties have to do with the blunting of terrorist
> > > threats, any way? People criticize the US for getting involved, and
> > > then turn around and criticize them for not getting involved. You
> > > just can't win with infestees of the hate-US meme.>
> > >
> > Howard Bloom in 'The Lucifer Legacy' talks about how it's largely
> > inevitable that the dominant nation of any period in time is likely to
> > find itself castigated in this kind of way e.g. condemnation of
> > failure to give aid, alongside resentment of being patronised when aid
> > is given. To some extent you're right, but the fact you can think up
> > clear examples of US iconoclasm outside of middle-eastern politics,
> > shows how, on occasion there is meat to the bones of a dispute.
>No, it just shows that there are other unrelated disagreements between
>the US and other nations.
> > <And is the US not DOUBLY obligated to rectify its own errors in the
> > > world? Saddam's regime is an egregious infliction upon the people
> > > of Iraq, and a grave threat to other nations. If the US broke it,
> > > they should fix it (and should've done so 12 years ago).>
> > >
> > I don't necessarily disagree here, for me its the context and the
> > bending of other situations to try and legitimate going back and
> > "finishing the job" that is distasteful, not so much the idea of
> > getting rid of Saddam. I just wish the "logic" was applied equally
> > globally, and not just when it's politically expedient to do so.
>It is not a matter of political expediency, it is a matter of national
>security. The administration is already dealing with Al Quaeda (thus
>those who claim that ousting Saddam is all about the politics of war are
>eliding the point that if there are political benefits to be reaped, the
>on terror is already reaping them), but they are presented with two
>distinct threats, both of which must be dealt with.
> > <Afghanistan is a place where the US suffered for walking away too >
> > soon, too.> >
> > And why did it walk away- because the political expediency of
> > fostering that conflict by giving the mujahdeen arms went the day the
> > soviet coup failed.
>And they will not make such a costly mistake again, for they have seen
>where it leads.
> > <It will not repeat that error.>
> > It's this kind of optimism that conventional war tactics will defeat
> > terrorism on a global scale that also is so profoundly misplaced. >
>Unless one is suicidal, one does not roll over and accept the hits. And
>MANY tactics are being used; conventional, covert, diplomatic,
>economic, in concert.
> > <Nicaragua was not handled very well, but the result has been good.>
> > So the ends justify the means do they? Even if there's now no way of
> > knowing how a democratically elected socialist regime might have done?
> > This is even more the case in Guatemala of course. 'Good' for whom,
> > and it what ways?
>No they don't; but when there was a free and fair election in Nicaragua,
>the Sandinista candidate lost. This, of course, has nothing to do with
>Radical Islam or a Saladin wannabe in Iraq.
> > <Korea in the '50's was a UN action.>
> > In which it took signifcant British diplomatic efforts to stop the US
> > dropping the bomb, and ended in a massive stalemate that cost
> > thousands of lives, and continues to divide a nation. Not to mention
> > the atrocities which the US government still refuse to acknowledge
> > responsibility for (No Gun Ri springs to mind). >
>MacArthur was fired for suggesting it, even though he made the
>suggestion in the context of a million Chinese 'volunteers' crossing the
>border to assist North Korea against UN forces. And, considering the
>relative state of North vs. South Korea, would you prefer that the entire
>peninsula resemble the North?
> > <Vietnam was a war we never should've taken over from the French. In
> > Somalia, our soldiers died attempting to apprehend warlords who seized
> > food from Red Cross and UN distribution centers in order to use >
> > starvation as a weapon.>
> > > Two conflicts where lack of detailed
> > intelligence and political expediency led to literal disasters-
> > although they've both made good material for war films. >
>Two instances in which we listened to European calls for intervention;
>the first we shouldn't have listened to, and the second we should have
>handled more robustly (the weapons to successfully deal with the
>warlords were denied US military commanders in Somalia).
> > <The Clinton administration was pivotal in negotiating the Northern
> > Ireland settlement.>
> > That would be the agreement that collapsed again a few weeks ago
> > would it?
>And whose fault is that?
> > <Next irrelevant laundry list, please.>
> > There's nothing irrelevant about pointing out how US foreign policy
> > in recent decades has been problematic to say the least, and that
> > contributes a lot to opposition in Europe and elsewhere to the war on
> > Iraq.
>And of course there is no credit given for Bosnia or Kosovo or Kuwait or
>attempts in Somalia or for any of the good things the US has done or
>tried to do; only blame placed for those things that can be portrayed as
>bad. How typical.
> > <Well, tie a red dress around the US and claim that it is enticing
> > rape! > Blame the victim, right? One HAS to, when the US is the
> > victim, for the > US has to be blamed for EVERYthing. I don't think
> > you have carefully > considered the memetic nature of the threat to
> > postmodern civilization > by a violently cannibalistic medieval
> > memeset.> >
> > Or maybe like most rapists seem to be, parts of the US is denial
> > convinced that their victims gave consent.
>The US was the one attacked by Al Quaeda, remember? You were
>attempting to blame the victim for THAT atrocity! Which renders you a
>real sick puppy in my book!
>As for Bosnia and Kosovo and Somalia and Kuwait, in most cases not
>only was the region in question begging for US intervention, but so was
>much of the rest of the world.
> > <Actually, CNN shows them quite frequently, and streaming video is >
> > available online. I read throughout the spectrum of opinion, and the
> > > one I have formed over the last 14 months has been meticulously >
> > researched and carefully considered.> >
> > Well, normally I'd expect this to be true of you Joe, but I see
> > little sign of it in this case.
>That's due to your memetic filter euro-blinders.
> > <Sorry, but I access many European, East Asian, and Middle Eastern >
> > sources, as well. As I said - the entire spectrum. Your attribution
> > of > ignorance of this issue to me reflects an ignorance , on your
> > part, of the > > great amount of research I have done. YOU are the
> > one who is bathed > in error in this one, and who is simply
> > regurgitating knee-jerk memes.> >
> > What you're missing here Joe is that we're talking about political
> > opinions, and if these are memes then we're both engaging in them- you
> > in a heartfelt degree of patriotism, myself in an understandably more
> > distanced and cautious cynicism (understandable not because I'm right,
> > but because I'm sitting in a country a few thousand miles closer to
> > the mid-east, and in a country with a very different political history
> > and culture to yours).
>Which is why you need to read POWER AND WEAKNESS by Robert
>THE LONELY SUPERPOWER by Samuel P. Huntington
>and THE NEW TRANSATLANTIC PROJECT by Ronald D. Asmus and
>Kenneth M. Pollack
>in order to understand the memetic reasons for such dissonances and
>the way in which they need to be bridged.
> > Vincent
> > ===============================================================
> > 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)
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
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 2.1.5 : Thu 21 Nov 2002 - 19:58:12 GMT