Re: state of memes

Date: Fri Oct 05 2001 - 05:13:37 BST

  • Next message: Pablo Peyrolón: "Cultural Imperialism"

    Received: by id FAA01437 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Fri, 5 Oct 2001 05:19:17 +0100
    From: <>
    Message-ID: <>
    Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 00:13:37 EDT
    Subject: Re: state of memes
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 113
    Precedence: bulk

    In a message dated 10/4/2001 7:29:31 PM Central Daylight Time, writes:

    > Subj: Re: state of memes
    > Date: 10/4/2001 7:29:31 PM Central Daylight Time
    > From: (Dace)
    > Sender:
    > Reply-to:
    > To:
    > Aaron,
    > > In my opinion, Bush
    > > senior's administration could have sent different signals that would have
    > > prevented the invasion of Kuwait.
    > You can say that again. Bush clearly invited Hussein to take Kuwait. His
    > ambassador, April Glaspie, told Hussein that the US had no concern with the
    > dispute between Kuwait and Iraq. This was as good an invitation for
    > invasion as anything Hussein could have hoped for. He must have been
    > flabergasted when he discovered that the US, his ally, was suddenly turning
    > against him. Ever since the downfall of the Shah of Iran, Hussein had been
    > our number one man in the Persian Gulf region. It was presumably as a
    > result of US prodding that Iraq invaded Iran in 1980. Given the stupendous
    > military superiority Iraq enjoyed over its rival, the war should have been
    > piece of cake. Instead it was a stalemate. Iraq had been built up as a
    > serious military power, yet it was completely unreliable as a surrogate in
    > the region. So it had to be punished. Hence the invitation to invade
    > Kuwait and the excuse to bomb it back to the 3rd World.
    > The main thing to keep in mind is that Hussein considered himself to be a
    > junior partner of the US in the region. He had no intention of biting the
    > hand that fed him. He was no more likely than Thatcher to launch a nuclear
    > attack against us.
    > Ted

    Hi Ted.

    You certainly do have a good command of the events leading to the war. And I
    agree that the US has a long dark history of trying to use other countries
    and ideologies as pawns in its geopolitical games. (Remember Afghan "freedom
    fighters"?) The US has repeatedly hurt its own long-term interests by
    pursuing Machiavellian strategies that failed to recognize the true
    complexities of various situations.

    I do, however, distinctly recall Hussein making a threatening gesture with a
    component for a nuclear weapon. I don't recall the exact details of all the
    people at whom he might have been shaking that capacitor, but it certainly
    did cause more alarm about nuclear proliferation than did knowledge of
    Pakistan's program. None of this is to say that USA and USSR nuclear saber
    rattling were any better: in fact, they were far more dangerous when they
    happened. But the USA and USSR became as dangerous as they became only
    because they first passed through the kind of development stages seen in
    Iraq. It is very easy to imagine that a country such as Iraq in the late 20th
    century could have matched what the USA and USSR did in the 1940s and 1950s,
    and then gone on to growing an expanding arsenal. That's one of the kinds of
    dangers that the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists addresses in its reports.
    The Bulletin has also focused much attention on the weapons and policies of
    the USA and USSR over the years.


    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 : Fri Oct 05 2001 - 05:24:36 BST