RE: conditional support for war on Iraq

From: Jeremy Bradley (
Date: Tue Dec 18 2001 - 12:08:34 GMT

  • Next message: Wade T. Smith: "Fwd: Eureka!"

    Received: by id MAA27726 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 12:17:23 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 23:08:34 +1100
    From: Jeremy Bradley <>
    Subject: RE: conditional support for war on Iraq
    In-Reply-To: <>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
    Precedence: bulk

    As me old Grandmother used to say: "you can't be good for nothing if you
    are good for a bad example". This communication is a bad example of myopic
    meem-team loyalty.
    What makes you believe in the 'might-is-right' meme? Do you ever think
    about what it is like as a victim of US agression? What would you do in
    their situation?

    At 10:57 PM 14/12/01 -0500, you wrote:
    >>From: "Lawrence DeBivort" <>
    >>To: <>
    >>Subject: RE: conditional support for war on Iraq
    >>Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 13:52:04 -0500
    >>And after Iraq, who do you not like next?
    >After we help the Iraqi people establish a more friendly gov't you mean?
    >It's Hussein and his regime which are the problem, not the Iraqi people.
    >I have no animosity towards Pakistan, even if the ISI had any Taliban
    >connection or regardless of whether their madrassas were recruiting grounds.
    >I hope they can maintain peace with India, though the situation over Kashmir
    >is volatile. I'd like to see a democratic leadership there. Didn't Musharif
    >(sp?) oust Nawaz Sharif and impose a miltary style rule over that country.
    >Maybe Bhutto can make another run at it. I dunno.
    >>Rwanda? Cuba?
    >Contrary to the sentiments of the exiles in South Florida, I'd like to see
    >us normalize relations with Cuba and foster a more beneficial situation to
    >be in place when Castro finally kicks the bucket (around 2075 or so).
    >Attack an ally? What have they done to us besides that ugly USS Liberty
    >situation. I'd like to see them and Palestine get along better, but things
    >don't look so good for that happening.
    >>Tajikistan? China?
    >China is a country to be watched closely. The situation with that plane a
    >while back showed that even at the brink of conflict we were able to reason
    >with them and Bush came out looking not too shabby. We should treat China as
    >a nation which must earn our trust. I've got reservations about them. I'd
    >certainly not want to come to blows with them, because the repercussions
    >would be potentially catastrophic. Maybe over time the relationship will
    >grow more amicable, but I'm wondering how the human rights situation is
    >going over there.
    >>Burma? In what order do you suggest the US issue
    >>ultimatums and attack them? Ooops, I forgot a few: Haiti (double-ooops, I
    >>forgot, we already did them. I'm sure Haiti is in great shape as a result.
    >I'm not a big fan of humanitarian campaigns, though at least Haiti was
    >important because of its closeness to our shores.
    >>Does anyone know?), Uganda, Mali -- definitely Mali -- and then of course
    >>the French are not quite as respectful as I'd like them to be... oh, and
    >>Yemen and Ireland.
    >>And the Basques, they sure have it coming, as well.
    >>Maybe Germany, while we are at it, just a preemptive thing, of course...and
    >>Berkeley. Hmmm, this has all kinds of possibilities. Maybe the US could
    >>up a lottery, to determine which country gets it next.
    >If we wind up tangling with Iraq again, hopefully that will be it for major
    >military campaigns. Other terrorist harboring states might eventually become
    >a consideration, though maybe minor special operations missions would
    >suffice. As long as Hussein is in power, it seems we will need a continued
    >presence in Saudi. Ousting him could allow us to eventually remove our
    >troops, so it doesn't become another long-term South Korea type occupation.
    >Did you notice that I said we should try giving Iran a second chance,
    >opening relations with them, long severed after they took some of our people
    >Oh, and I don't know if one could say we've targeted Afghanistan *per se*
    >since we are working in cahoots with mujahideen against the Taliban and Al
    >Quaeda. I'd like to see Afghanistan rise like a phoenix from the ashes of
    >all the fighting they've seen over the years with Soviet occupation and the
    >recent struggle over there. Maybe I'm too optimistic though.
    >> > -----Original Message-----
    >> > From: []On Behalf
    >> > Of Scott Chase
    >> > Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 12:18 PM
    >> > To:
    >> > Subject: conditional support for war on Iraq
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > If Bush et al decide, upon reasonable closure in the Afghanistan
    >> > 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
    >> > opposed.
    >> >
    >> > 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
    >> > presence in Saudi Arabia, ironically one of the issues that got bin
    >> > 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:
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device:
    >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 - 12:23:49 GMT