Re: conditional support for war on Iraq

From: Jeremy Bradley (
Date: Tue Dec 18 2001 - 06:57:42 GMT

  • Next message: "Re: Fwd: Near Proof for Near-Death?"

    Received: by id HAA27274 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 07:06:32 GMT
    X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] claimed to be green-machine
    Message-Id: <>
    X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32)
    Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 17:57:42 +1100
    From: Jeremy Bradley <>
    Subject: Re: conditional support for war on Iraq
    In-Reply-To: <>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
    Precedence: bulk

    What you are displaying Scot is conditional support for your meme-team. I
    say conditional because you have some understanding of the issues at the
    core of the conflict.
    Your goodies and baddies however are a product of conditioning. To resolve
    this matter we must become aware of the relative nature of good and evil.
    My study is narratology. Specifically I examine the correlation between
    formative stories and cultural development. The current conflict would make
    an interesting study.
    The questions in my mind are, how is the scale of 'collateral damage' in
    Afghanistan, or potentially elsewhere, is justified in the 'free world' and
    why do organisations like Al Quaeda and the CIA or those French agents who
    bombed the Greenpeace boat in Auckland NZ maintain high levels of support
    amongst their philosophical peers.


    At 12:17 PM 14/12/01 -0500, you wrote:
    >If Bush et al decide, upon reasonable closure in the Afghanistan capaign,
    >where the Al Quaeda are eliminated and an interim government put forth with
    >the objective of bringing the ethnic factions together under one umbrella,
    >and with clear objectives in mind for a campaign in Iraq, I would not be
    >This campaign need not be immediate nor a full scale war, though I'm not
    >eliminating this possibility. Forces should be amassed and ultimatums
    >issued. There should be full inspections allowed throughout Iraq for
    >whatever nefarious weapons programs Hussein might be backing. Failing this,
    >the time for action will be obvious and hopefully our allies support us. The
    >thorn in our side which has been festering all this time should be removed
    >before it becomes too infectious to deal with in the future. Once closure is
    >achieved conditions allowing the facilitation of a more friendly government
    >in Iraq ready to be embraced by the community of the world should be put in
    >place. Old wounds should be healed and the Iraqi people helped to get back
    >on their feet.
    >Upon closure in Iraq, the U.S. should plan on finally ending our military
    >presence in Saudi Arabia, ironically one of the issues that got bin Laden
    >all hot and bothered. Hopefully we can open relations with Iran, which has
    >appeared to be a little less hostile, and give them a second chance, if our
    >campaign in neighboring Iraq doesn't alienate them.
    >If we have clear objectives set forth, failing stronger diplomatic pressures
    >working beforehand, and a definite exit plan upon closure, I think I can
    >support military action in Iraq.
    >It's time to nip the problems in the bud before they become even worse and
    >harder to manage later on in the ballgame. While we have momentum, we might
    >as well get it over with.
    >Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger:
    >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 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 : Tue Dec 18 2001 - 07:13:02 GMT