Re: Ever Since Jeremy Bradley

From: Chris Taylor (
Date: Thu 01 May 2003 - 14:01:06 GMT

  • Next message: Wade T. Smith: "Re: memetics-digest V1 #1329"

    > Hokay. I would just like to point out that the US had to play dirty pool
    > with friendly dictators in order to effectively contend with the Soviet bloc
    > in the world arena, where they were doing the same thing in spades.
    > Once their totalitarian hegemony crumbled, that unfortunate necessity
    > was removed, and our post-Soviet interventions have been mainly
    > about toppling despots and providing needed humanitarian aid.
    > Virtuous interventions (or attempts at them in the third case, or urging
    > and support for them in the last one) since then: Bosnia, Kosovo,
    > Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti, Panama, East Timor. Also notice that
    > the majority of these were in assistance to, and not in oppression of,
    > Muslims.

    Yeah I'd go along with the cold war thing, and the reality of operating in the era of the 'peace dividend', although the list above is less than impressive when marks are awarded (true for any nation though). And there are the agendas to be factored in (like a sex / real estate scandal, or a pipline from the russian oil fields to the Indian Ocean through as few countries as possible, or a tame replacement oil source for a flaky Venezuela, or another sex / real estate scandal). And btw anything the US does in Central or South America is suspect; leaving I think just Timor, which we did a bit of a Rwanda with (the Brits are most at fault there though, due to our shameful Indonesian ties).

    The argument about being pro- or anti-Muslim is a bit of a red herring: all this does is get every muslim's back up because it is the perceived anti-Arabism that is the problem (from 'them', although 'they' too have fallen into the shorthand of using Islam as the discriminator), not a more general Islamophobia; and talking about Islam all the time looks like an argument from ignorance. Plus the 'US is pro-muslim' thing is so transparently a post-hoc rationalisation of events that it could never bear any real weight. The argument should have been purely that the US is blind to race/creed (a subtle but very important distinction which avoids all this 'weighing'); I know that's not how you just phrased it anyway, but that is how it usually comes across in the media.

    Cheers, Chris.

      Chris Taylor ( »people»chris

    =============================================================== 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 2.1.5 : Thu 01 May 2003 - 14:13:54 GMT